Help re. colour differences in image viewers...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rob B, Aug 25, 2007.

  1. Rob B

    Rob B Guest

    Hi Guys,

    I have processed a RAW image, from a Canon 30D, in Rawshooter then
    converted it to an sRGB Jpeg.

    When I then compare the RAW image seen in Rawshooter with the converted
    Jpeg viewed in CS2 the colours of that image look the same... as expected.
    However, if I then compare the above images with the converted Jpeg
    viewed in 'Windows Picture & Fax Viewer or Irfanview, the colours are less
    vibrant, and the blue tones in this image are seen as a slightly lighter
    hue.
    Am I doing something stupid, or should I expect this because the Windows
    Viewer & Irfanview are not colour managed.
    Is there a viewer that I can use that will display the colours that I
    see in Rawshooter & CS2?
    Your help would be very much appreciated.

    Many thanks... Rob...
    Rob B, Aug 25, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <>,
    "Rob B" <> wrote:

    > Hi Guys,
    >
    > I have processed a RAW image, from a Canon 30D, in Rawshooter then
    > converted it to an sRGB Jpeg.
    >
    > When I then compare the RAW image seen in Rawshooter with the converted
    > Jpeg viewed in CS2 the colours of that image look the same... as expected.
    > However, if I then compare the above images with the converted Jpeg
    > viewed in 'Windows Picture & Fax Viewer or Irfanview, the colours are less
    > vibrant, and the blue tones in this image are seen as a slightly lighter
    > hue.
    > Am I doing something stupid, or should I expect this because the Windows
    > Viewer & Irfanview are not colour managed.
    > Is there a viewer that I can use that will display the colours that I
    > see in Rawshooter & CS2?
    > Your help would be very much appreciated.
    >
    > Many thanks... Rob...


    It's a matter of a generic/simple Canon RAW converter versus a fully
    calibrated converter. One of the major camera review sites, I can't
    remember which, often includes a comparison of RAW converters in their
    camera reviews.

    Later versions of Canon's Digital Photo Professional (DPP) aren't half
    bad. It's not the most exciting tool but I think it's capable of the
    best quality. I use it sometimes for batch processing and cases where
    Adobe's RAW tool is failing on clipped pixels.
    Kevin McMurtrie, Aug 25, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rob B

    Chuck Guest

    The windows viewer and Irfanview work in (and assume sRGB).
    The first thing to do is to get one of the "reference standard" pictures
    from the web, such as
    the ones at http://www.inkjetart.com/custom/
    And see what they look like on your system.

    You also may have some settings in the conversion process that need to be
    looked at.

    "Rob B" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi Guys,
    >
    > I have processed a RAW image, from a Canon 30D, in Rawshooter then
    > converted it to an sRGB Jpeg.
    >
    > When I then compare the RAW image seen in Rawshooter with the

    converted
    > Jpeg viewed in CS2 the colours of that image look the same... as expected.
    > However, if I then compare the above images with the converted Jpeg
    > viewed in 'Windows Picture & Fax Viewer or Irfanview, the colours are less
    > vibrant, and the blue tones in this image are seen as a slightly lighter
    > hue.
    > Am I doing something stupid, or should I expect this because the

    Windows
    > Viewer & Irfanview are not colour managed.
    > Is there a viewer that I can use that will display the colours that I
    > see in Rawshooter & CS2?
    > Your help would be very much appreciated.
    >
    > Many thanks... Rob...
    >
    >
    Chuck, Aug 25, 2007
    #3
  4. Rob B

    jimbok Guest

    On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 16:09:56 +0100, "Rob B"
    <> wrote:

    > Is there a viewer that I can use that will display the colours that I
    >see in Rawshooter & CS2?


    Faststone image viewer (freeware) provides color management for JPGS
    and TIFFS. Check the option in its "Settings" menu.
    http://www.faststone.org/FSViewerDetail.htm
    --
    jimbok
    jimbok, Aug 25, 2007
    #4
  5. Rob B

    Rob B Guest

    Thanks for the info Jimbok...

    I've installed the Faststone Viewer and it seems very good. However, I'm
    still getting the same problem with this viewer, even though I've enabled
    colour management.

    Take any Jpeg and view it side by side with one copy in PhotoShop and
    another copy in one of the other viewers mentioned previously and the
    results are different. I've found that the blue hues in an image, in
    particular, show up the problem nicely...

    Any further help on this one?...Please...

    Rob.

    "jimbok" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 16:09:56 +0100, "Rob B"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Is there a viewer that I can use that will display the colours that I
    >>see in Rawshooter & CS2?

    >
    > Faststone image viewer (freeware) provides color management for JPGS
    > and TIFFS. Check the option in its "Settings" menu.
    > http://www.faststone.org/FSViewerDetail.htm
    > --
    > jimbok
    Rob B, Aug 26, 2007
    #5
  6. Rob B

    jimbok Guest

    On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 11:52:39 +0100, "Rob B"
    <> wrote:

    >However, I'm
    >still getting the same problem with this viewer, even though I've enabled
    >colour management.


    Taking a guess here, but it sounds as if your monitor might not be
    calibrated correctly. If you have not calibrated it in a while, try
    doing so with Adobe Gamma (it came with Photoshop) which - if you use
    it accurately - does a pretty good job.
    --
    jimbok
    jimbok, Aug 27, 2007
    #6
  7. Rob B

    Rob B Guest

    Have recently calibrated the monitor with a 'Spyder' colourimeter, and I
    can see that Photoshop is using this calibrated profile. I can also see in
    Windows 'Display Properties' that this same profile is being used here too.

    Are you able to see the same effect on your system Jimbok?... i.e. Take
    any Jpeg and compare, side by side on screen, the results when one image is
    viewed in PhotoShop & a copy of the same image is viewed in say Windows
    viewer or indeed any of the ones we've mentioned. (I notice a large
    difference in blue tones).

    Thanks for your help... Rob

    "jimbok" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 11:52:39 +0100, "Rob B"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>However, I'm
    >>still getting the same problem with this viewer, even though I've enabled
    >>colour management.

    >
    > Taking a guess here, but it sounds as if your monitor might not be
    > calibrated correctly. If you have not calibrated it in a while, try
    > doing so with Adobe Gamma (it came with Photoshop) which - if you use
    > it accurately - does a pretty good job.
    > --
    > jimbok
    Rob B, Aug 27, 2007
    #7
  8. Rob B

    John Bean Guest

    On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 11:53:15 +0100, "Rob B"
    <> wrote:

    > Have recently calibrated the monitor with a 'Spyder' colourimeter, and I
    >can see that Photoshop is using this calibrated profile. I can also see in
    >Windows 'Display Properties' that this same profile is being used here too.


    Rob, in Photoshop set "Soft Proof" to "Monitor RGB". Now
    toggle soft proof on and off (Ctrl-Y) and watch the changes.
    It's almost impossible to get perfect calibration but if you
    see large changes when you toggle it's an indication that
    your calibration is not as good as you are think it is. In
    an ideal world you'll see no change at all.

    Incidentally all this is doing is displaying a close
    approximation to how the image will look displayed on your
    monitor using a non-colour-managed program that uses
    whatever profile is loaded by the OS, so if the profile is
    truly accurate it will look the same in either case.

    If you see a big difference try re-calibrating in a dark
    room, especially if you're using a LCD. Also it's a good
    idea to double-check that Adobe Gamma is not still lurking
    on the system - it will cause no end of problems if you're
    using a Spyder instead.


    --
    John Bean
    John Bean, Aug 27, 2007
    #8
  9. Rob B

    jimbok Guest

    On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 11:53:15 +0100, "Rob B"
    <> wrote:

    > Are you able to see the same effect on your system Jimbok?


    I used to see a difference until I correctly calibrated my monitor,
    which is why I suggested recalibration to you.
    As John suggests try testing it in Photoshop. Also, as he suggests,
    if you have two profiles loading, the one that loads last will have an
    effect on standard viewers but not on Photoshop if it's set to use the
    Spyder profile. You can stop the Adobe Gamma profile from loading
    (assuming it's creating the color difference) by deleting its startup
    link from the "Programs/Startup" menu. If Adobe Gamma is not loading
    then you might try recalibrating again with your Spyder.
    For reference, I also use CS2.
    --
    jimbok
    jimbok, Aug 27, 2007
    #9
  10. Rob B

    Rob B Guest

    Hi John & Jimbok,

    Many thanks for your suggestions guys. I thought I'd removed Adobe Gamma
    from the startup menu...but...I'll re-check. I'll go and try all your
    suggestions now, and get back with the results as soon as I can.

    Very best regards... Rob


    "jimbok" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 11:53:15 +0100, "Rob B"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Are you able to see the same effect on your system Jimbok?

    >
    > I used to see a difference until I correctly calibrated my monitor,
    > which is why I suggested recalibration to you.
    > As John suggests try testing it in Photoshop. Also, as he suggests,
    > if you have two profiles loading, the one that loads last will have an
    > effect on standard viewers but not on Photoshop if it's set to use the
    > Spyder profile. You can stop the Adobe Gamma profile from loading
    > (assuming it's creating the color difference) by deleting its startup
    > link from the "Programs/Startup" menu. If Adobe Gamma is not loading
    > then you might try recalibrating again with your Spyder.
    > For reference, I also use CS2.
    > --
    > jimbok
    Rob B, Aug 27, 2007
    #10
  11. Rob B

    jimbok Guest

    On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:16:58 +0100, "Rob B"
    <> wrote:

    >Many thanks for your suggestions guys. I thought I'd removed Adobe Gamma
    >from the startup menu...but...I'll re-check. I'll go and try all your
    >suggestions now, and get back with the results as soon as I can.


    One final suggestion, assuming Photoshop is set to use the profile you
    created with your Spyder, is to insure that that same profile is
    loading at windows startup. You can check, or select the profile to
    load, by right clicking the desktop, and selecting
    "properties/settings/advanced/color management" (or similar depending
    on your version of Windows).
    If your Spyder profile is not the one that is being used, that could
    be your problem.
    Of course you will have to prevent Adobe Gamma from changing the
    profile by stopping it from running, as stated earlier.

    --
    jimbok
    jimbok, Aug 28, 2007
    #11
  12. Rob B

    Rob B Guest

    I've done the soft proof check, as John suggested, and I can indeed see
    the difference when I toggle between states. So, there appears to be a
    calibration problem... right!

    I re-calibrated, using the Spyder in a dark room, and get exactly the
    same results in the soft proof exercise.
    I've also checked that the same profile is loading at Windows start-up,
    (properties/settings/advanced/color management), as Jimbok suggested, and is
    being set as default by Windows.
    I can see that Colorvision is loading its data to the video card upon
    start-up.
    I have checked that Adobe Gamma is not operational.

    So... It should all work fine now...But... it still doesn't.

    Am I correct in assuming that PhotoShop must display an image on screen
    using the same monitor profile as Windows would use to display the image on
    screen? If so, why would you expect to see a difference in a soft proof
    test, as John describes, when the same profile is being used?
    Even if the monitor calibration was 'wrong', it seems as though
    PhotoShop & Windows would use the same 'wrong' profile but both would
    display identical results.

    It seems as though there are two different profiles in operation.
    Forgive me if I'm talking rubbish, I'm no expert in this field...

    Very best regards... Rob.


    "jimbok" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:16:58 +0100, "Rob B"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>Many thanks for your suggestions guys. I thought I'd removed Adobe Gamma
    >>from the startup menu...but...I'll re-check. I'll go and try all your
    >>suggestions now, and get back with the results as soon as I can.

    >
    > One final suggestion, assuming Photoshop is set to use the profile you
    > created with your Spyder, is to insure that that same profile is
    > loading at windows startup. You can check, or select the profile to
    > load, by right clicking the desktop, and selecting
    > "properties/settings/advanced/color management" (or similar depending
    > on your version of Windows).
    > If your Spyder profile is not the one that is being used, that could
    > be your problem.
    > Of course you will have to prevent Adobe Gamma from changing the
    > profile by stopping it from running, as stated earlier.
    >
    > --
    > jimbok
    Rob B, Aug 28, 2007
    #12
  13. Rob B

    John Bean Guest

    On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 10:29:04 +0100, "Rob B"
    <> wrote:

    > I've done the soft proof check, as John suggested, and I can indeed see
    >the difference when I toggle between states. So, there appears to be a
    >calibration problem... right!


    I'm afraid so. Are you using an LCD?

    > Am I correct in assuming that PhotoShop must display an image on screen
    >using the same monitor profile as Windows would use to display the image on
    >screen? If so, why would you expect to see a difference in a soft proof
    >test, as John describes, when the same profile is being used?


    Ah, it's not that simple. The Spyder (or any other
    calibrator, even Adobe Gamma) does two things. First it
    writes a new video LUT (look up table) that corrects the
    hardware as best it can. This is what is loaded at startup.

    Second it writes the ICC profile that describes the
    relationship of what you see compared with what you would
    see in an ideal world. Colour-managed programs like
    Photoshop take the image and automagically change the colour
    so that what you see is as close as possible to the ideal,
    taking account of the colour spaces and/or profiles of all
    the components involved. It "knows" about the changes to the
    LUT and compebsates accordingly.

    Other programs don't do this; instead they just dump the
    data to the video display having assumed the display is
    accurately calibrated. Some may convert colour space on the
    fly, most don't even do that.

    When you soft-proof using monitor-RGB you are making
    Photoshop more-or-less do what the other programs do, so the
    result is visually similar.

    > Even if the monitor calibration was 'wrong', it seems as though
    >PhotoShop & Windows would use the same 'wrong' profile but both would
    >display identical results.


    This is an over-simplification but think of it a bit like
    having two methods to achieve the same goal - one is simple
    but hard to make accurate, the other is hard to do but far
    more accurate if done properly.

    Photoshop does it the hard but accurate way, the others the
    easy way. The problem is getting them both to match...

    It's particularly hard with LCDs. I use a Spyder Express
    (I'm a cheapskate) which recommends you start at "factory
    reset" settings on the LCD panel. The results were terrible,
    with major errors just as you reported.

    After a lot of experimentation - fortunately my panel has
    excellent adjustment controls - I found it best to use a
    test target to *visually* make the best possible manual
    calibration I could, then save that as the default on the
    LCD panel itself as the starting point for proper
    calibration. I calibrated again with the Spyder and the
    results are brilliant, hardly any visible change at all
    between Photoshop and the dumb viewers.

    >
    > It seems as though there are two different profiles in operation.
    >Forgive me if I'm talking rubbish, I'm no expert in this field...


    Not rubbish, it's confusing. There's only one profile but
    it's used in different ways. When all is not perfect the
    "different ways" of use return different results.

    Welcome to the hell that is "colour management" :-(


    --
    John Bean
    John Bean, Aug 28, 2007
    #13
  14. Rob B

    Rob B Guest

    Hi John,

    Many thanks for the excellent explanation. What you say does make sense
    to me.
    Yes I am using an LCD panel, the Philips 170B4. I have, as recommended
    by the software, reset to factory settings, the contrast and brightness
    controls. I then use the monitor's rgb colour sliders to set the white
    balance to 6500K. I aim for 6500K and approx 90 candelas per square metre
    luminance and then build the profile.
    Could you guide me through your manual, 'visible' test target route...
    I very much appreciate the time you've taken to help make things
    clearer.

    Very best regards... Rob

    "John Bean" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 10:29:04 +0100, "Rob B"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> I've done the soft proof check, as John suggested, and I can indeed
    >> see
    >>the difference when I toggle between states. So, there appears to be a
    >>calibration problem... right!

    >
    > I'm afraid so. Are you using an LCD?
    >
    >> Am I correct in assuming that PhotoShop must display an image on
    >> screen
    >>using the same monitor profile as Windows would use to display the image
    >>on
    >>screen? If so, why would you expect to see a difference in a soft proof
    >>test, as John describes, when the same profile is being used?

    >
    > Ah, it's not that simple. The Spyder (or any other
    > calibrator, even Adobe Gamma) does two things. First it
    > writes a new video LUT (look up table) that corrects the
    > hardware as best it can. This is what is loaded at startup.
    >
    > Second it writes the ICC profile that describes the
    > relationship of what you see compared with what you would
    > see in an ideal world. Colour-managed programs like
    > Photoshop take the image and automagically change the colour
    > so that what you see is as close as possible to the ideal,
    > taking account of the colour spaces and/or profiles of all
    > the components involved. It "knows" about the changes to the
    > LUT and compebsates accordingly.
    >
    > Other programs don't do this; instead they just dump the
    > data to the video display having assumed the display is
    > accurately calibrated. Some may convert colour space on the
    > fly, most don't even do that.
    >
    > When you soft-proof using monitor-RGB you are making
    > Photoshop more-or-less do what the other programs do, so the
    > result is visually similar.
    >
    >> Even if the monitor calibration was 'wrong', it seems as though
    >>PhotoShop & Windows would use the same 'wrong' profile but both would
    >>display identical results.

    >
    > This is an over-simplification but think of it a bit like
    > having two methods to achieve the same goal - one is simple
    > but hard to make accurate, the other is hard to do but far
    > more accurate if done properly.
    >
    > Photoshop does it the hard but accurate way, the others the
    > easy way. The problem is getting them both to match...
    >
    > It's particularly hard with LCDs. I use a Spyder Express
    > (I'm a cheapskate) which recommends you start at "factory
    > reset" settings on the LCD panel. The results were terrible,
    > with major errors just as you reported.
    >
    > After a lot of experimentation - fortunately my panel has
    > excellent adjustment controls - I found it best to use a
    > test target to *visually* make the best possible manual
    > calibration I could, then save that as the default on the
    > LCD panel itself as the starting point for proper
    > calibration. I calibrated again with the Spyder and the
    > results are brilliant, hardly any visible change at all
    > between Photoshop and the dumb viewers.
    >
    >>
    >> It seems as though there are two different profiles in operation.
    >>Forgive me if I'm talking rubbish, I'm no expert in this field...

    >
    > Not rubbish, it's confusing. There's only one profile but
    > it's used in different ways. When all is not perfect the
    > "different ways" of use return different results.
    >
    > Welcome to the hell that is "colour management" :-(
    >
    >
    > --
    > John Bean
    Rob B, Aug 28, 2007
    #14
  15. Rob B

    John Bean Guest

    On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 13:06:45 +0100, "Rob B"
    <> wrote:

    > Yes I am using an LCD panel, the Philips 170B4. I have, as recommended
    >by the software, reset to factory settings, the contrast and brightness
    >controls. I then use the monitor's rgb colour sliders to set the white
    >balance to 6500K. I aim for 6500K and approx 90 candelas per square metre
    >luminance and then build the profile.


    Thought so.

    > Could you guide me through your manual, 'visible' test target route...
    > I very much appreciate the time you've taken to help make things
    >clearer.


    Ok, but rather than me explaining in less detail how to
    manually calibrate can I suggest you look at this:

    http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html

    That's where I gained most insight, and the tools and
    targets (test images) are not only good for getting your
    manual adjustments about right but are great for confirming
    the final calibration, although toggling soft-proof in
    Photoshop is the ultimate test.

    I also used some Kodak calibration test prints that I had
    along with the image files that were used to create them so
    I was able to get an independent "opinion" of how good a
    match the overall colour and tonal range of the screen was
    when compared with reality. I only used these as a cross
    check, not for adjustment.

    Some pointers:

    - clear the LUT by disabling the Spyder's loader from the
    startups and reboot
    - don't use any other software calibrators at all, make all
    adjustments using the LCD controls
    - aim to get as full a range of grey as possible in the
    step wedges in the test images you can download by adjusting
    brightness and contrast
    - the test patterns for setting gamma are not a lot of use
    for LCD unfortunately

    When you're happy with the result make sure it's saved in
    the LCD and run the calibration with the Spyder and
    re-enable its LUT loader.

    Be aware that you may have to do this several times
    depending on how good your manual calibration guess was -
    the Spyder can only make an accurate profile if the LCD is
    somewhere quite close to what it should be. I got mine
    acceptably accurate on the third attempt, definitely worth
    the effort :)


    --
    John Bean
    John Bean, Aug 28, 2007
    #15
  16. Rob B

    Rob B Guest

    Thanks John...

    I'll have a look at the link you've provided and try to follow the
    calibration process. I also have a set of Kodak calibration prints and their
    display files.
    The only thing I can't find, at the moment, is how to 'Save' to the LCD
    panel. I think the 'User Adjustment' controls in the panel menu will
    automatically remain at the last input values even when the unit is powered
    off.

    I'll have a play and let you know how we get on...

    Cheers for now... Rob

    "John Bean" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 13:06:45 +0100, "Rob B"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Yes I am using an LCD panel, the Philips 170B4. I have, as recommended
    >>by the software, reset to factory settings, the contrast and brightness
    >>controls. I then use the monitor's rgb colour sliders to set the white
    >>balance to 6500K. I aim for 6500K and approx 90 candelas per square metre
    >>luminance and then build the profile.

    >
    > Thought so.
    >
    >> Could you guide me through your manual, 'visible' test target route...
    >> I very much appreciate the time you've taken to help make things
    >>clearer.

    >
    > Ok, but rather than me explaining in less detail how to
    > manually calibrate can I suggest you look at this:
    >
    > http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html
    >
    > That's where I gained most insight, and the tools and
    > targets (test images) are not only good for getting your
    > manual adjustments about right but are great for confirming
    > the final calibration, although toggling soft-proof in
    > Photoshop is the ultimate test.
    >
    > I also used some Kodak calibration test prints that I had
    > along with the image files that were used to create them so
    > I was able to get an independent "opinion" of how good a
    > match the overall colour and tonal range of the screen was
    > when compared with reality. I only used these as a cross
    > check, not for adjustment.
    >
    > Some pointers:
    >
    > - clear the LUT by disabling the Spyder's loader from the
    > startups and reboot
    > - don't use any other software calibrators at all, make all
    > adjustments using the LCD controls
    > - aim to get as full a range of grey as possible in the
    > step wedges in the test images you can download by adjusting
    > brightness and contrast
    > - the test patterns for setting gamma are not a lot of use
    > for LCD unfortunately
    >
    > When you're happy with the result make sure it's saved in
    > the LCD and run the calibration with the Spyder and
    > re-enable its LUT loader.
    >
    > Be aware that you may have to do this several times
    > depending on how good your manual calibration guess was -
    > the Spyder can only make an accurate profile if the LCD is
    > somewhere quite close to what it should be. I got mine
    > acceptably accurate on the third attempt, definitely worth
    > the effort :)
    >
    >
    > --
    > John Bean
    Rob B, Aug 28, 2007
    #16
  17. Rob B

    Rob B Guest

    Hi John...

    I'm struggling I'm afraid...

    No matter how I set the monitors hardware, I still get the same
    incorrect PhotoShop 'Proof' test results.

    I've tried setting the monitor to some of its preset values, like
    Native; 6500k; 9300k...but...still I get the same incorrect results after
    profiling with the Spyder.
    I wonder if the Spyder could be malfunctioning?...

    Best regards... Rob

    "John Bean" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 13:06:45 +0100, "Rob B"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Yes I am using an LCD panel, the Philips 170B4. I have, as recommended
    >>by the software, reset to factory settings, the contrast and brightness
    >>controls. I then use the monitor's rgb colour sliders to set the white
    >>balance to 6500K. I aim for 6500K and approx 90 candelas per square metre
    >>luminance and then build the profile.

    >
    > Thought so.
    >
    >> Could you guide me through your manual, 'visible' test target route...
    >> I very much appreciate the time you've taken to help make things
    >>clearer.

    >
    > Ok, but rather than me explaining in less detail how to
    > manually calibrate can I suggest you look at this:
    >
    > http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html
    >
    > That's where I gained most insight, and the tools and
    > targets (test images) are not only good for getting your
    > manual adjustments about right but are great for confirming
    > the final calibration, although toggling soft-proof in
    > Photoshop is the ultimate test.
    >
    > I also used some Kodak calibration test prints that I had
    > along with the image files that were used to create them so
    > I was able to get an independent "opinion" of how good a
    > match the overall colour and tonal range of the screen was
    > when compared with reality. I only used these as a cross
    > check, not for adjustment.
    >
    > Some pointers:
    >
    > - clear the LUT by disabling the Spyder's loader from the
    > startups and reboot
    > - don't use any other software calibrators at all, make all
    > adjustments using the LCD controls
    > - aim to get as full a range of grey as possible in the
    > step wedges in the test images you can download by adjusting
    > brightness and contrast
    > - the test patterns for setting gamma are not a lot of use
    > for LCD unfortunately
    >
    > When you're happy with the result make sure it's saved in
    > the LCD and run the calibration with the Spyder and
    > re-enable its LUT loader.
    >
    > Be aware that you may have to do this several times
    > depending on how good your manual calibration guess was -
    > the Spyder can only make an accurate profile if the LCD is
    > somewhere quite close to what it should be. I got mine
    > acceptably accurate on the third attempt, definitely worth
    > the effort :)
    >
    >
    > --
    > John Bean
    Rob B, Aug 30, 2007
    #17
  18. Rob B

    John Bean Guest

    On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:51:25 +0100, "Rob B"
    <> wrote:
    > I'm struggling I'm afraid...
    >
    > No matter how I set the monitors hardware, I still get the same
    >incorrect PhotoShop 'Proof' test results.


    I know the feeling... :-(

    > I wonder if the Spyder could be malfunctioning?...


    That made me stop to think - which Spyder do you have? I had
    the original one that I used to great effect on my Sony
    Trinitron but when I bought a LCD panel it was worse than
    useless. After some research I discovered that the
    likelyhood of success was vanishingly small with the
    original Spyder and LCDs.

    I ebayed the Spyder and replaced it with a Spyder II
    Express, and although it wasn't plain sailing it got me
    there eventually using the methods I described. It
    apparently works even better on better LCDs than my
    el-cheapo Lucoms ;-)

    If yours is already a version two Spyder then I'm out of
    suggestions I'm afraid.

    --
    John Bean
    John Bean, Aug 30, 2007
    #18
  19. Rob B

    Rob B Guest

    It says on the box 'Spyder2', John. It's about 3 years old.

    I'll carry on fiddling and trying...maybe try a calibrator from a different
    manufacturer... we'll see.

    Many thanks, John, for your help and suggestions. At least I understand
    what's going on from your explanations of the problem. I now have a stepping
    stone for further experiment.

    Very best regards to you and your family... talk to you soon... Rob

    "John Bean" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:51:25 +0100, "Rob B"
    > <> wrote:
    >> I'm struggling I'm afraid...
    >>
    >> No matter how I set the monitors hardware, I still get the same
    >>incorrect PhotoShop 'Proof' test results.

    >
    > I know the feeling... :-(
    >
    >> I wonder if the Spyder could be malfunctioning?...

    >
    > That made me stop to think - which Spyder do you have? I had
    > the original one that I used to great effect on my Sony
    > Trinitron but when I bought a LCD panel it was worse than
    > useless. After some research I discovered that the
    > likelyhood of success was vanishingly small with the
    > original Spyder and LCDs.
    >
    > I ebayed the Spyder and replaced it with a Spyder II
    > Express, and although it wasn't plain sailing it got me
    > there eventually using the methods I described. It
    > apparently works even better on better LCDs than my
    > el-cheapo Lucoms ;-)
    >
    > If yours is already a version two Spyder then I'm out of
    > suggestions I'm afraid.
    >
    > --
    > John Bean
    Rob B, Aug 30, 2007
    #19
  20. Rob B

    jimbok Guest

    On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:45:51 +0100, "Rob B"
    <> wrote:

    >I'll carry on fiddling and trying...maybe try a calibrator from a different
    >manufacturer... we'll see.


    Rob, a little caveat here.
    If your Spyder created profile is loading properly at bootup and all
    the viewers you have used seem to provide accurate color, as you have
    set it, except Photoshop, then is it not probable that Photoshop is
    changing something? Like using another profile or color space?
    You might want to check an image with Photoshop to see which profile
    is embedded in the pic.
    It kind of sounds like Photoshop is either changing the colorspace or
    adding a second profile. Assuming your Spyder profile is loading at
    bootup, there is no need to load it again in Photoshop. If your color
    space is other than sRGB, try changing it to sRGB and see if that
    doesn't correct the color by switching "preview" on and off. If the
    color space your are using is Adobe RGB you will not see that in other
    viewers that use sRGB mode.
    --
    jimbok
    jimbok, Aug 30, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Tor Lillqvist

    Colour blindness, photography and colour management

    Tor Lillqvist, May 18, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    1,088
    Waldo
    May 24, 2004
  2. Terry Pinnell

    Image Viewers - file association necessary?

    Terry Pinnell, Jan 4, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    579
    Terry Pinnell
    Jan 8, 2006
  3. Phil R
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    425
    Ron Hunter
    Jan 27, 2006
  4. David Dyer-Bennet
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    388
    David Dyer-Bennet
    Mar 17, 2007
  5. Scotius
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    924
    krishnananda
    Jul 13, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page