June 2014 - colorsync-users

If it looks white on your uncalibrated display, yes it is lying.
by John Robert Robinson 10 Jun '14

10 Jun '14

Would you care to explain why you believe Photoshop is lying to me when a point on the screen image says there is blue and red in the area I am measuring which appears white. I thought that was called a color cast in some instances. And anyway if images I provide are screened on Mom and Pop devices that have never heard of calibration. So whats the big deal that your “professional" screen is correct and their screen is their screen, not yours. JohnR

10 21

Re: Rel vs Abs proofs
by Graeme Gill 10 Jun '14

10 Jun '14

Rick Gordon wrote: > That being the case, might there not be a case to be made for a hybrid colorimetric rendering > that is essentially AbsCol except for pure whites, but pure white where c0,m0,y0,k0 (or > R255,G255,B255) exists in the file? I would assume that, if you are converting prior to printing, > a blend-if layering of a AbsCol and a RelCol rendering, where the AbsCol would be visible if the > value on RelCol layer is 0 to 254. We played with this type of thing for a couple of customers when at Colorbus, (using Argyll to generate the absolute device link with a fudge white point see: <http://www.argyllcms.com/doc/icclink.html#w>), but really we regarded this as something used for those who really didn't know what they were after. Yes, I suppose it's better than a pure relative colorimetric rendering, but we were usually after a visually identical match, not just something "close". To achieve it needed a whiter proofing stock than the target, a good calibration system, and fine consistent control over light tint levels by the proofing RIP and printer. Often the white point accuracy achieved by the profiles isn't quite good enough, and a fraction of a delta E nudge was needed to get a good enough visual match. Yes, trimming the non-printed areas from the print was important, if viewers were not to be distracted. Overall it is a doable, but slightly painful approach. Printing on the same media as the press (ie. for Newsprint), or choosing a proofing stock with an identical white point was a far more livable proofing solution. Some stocks are close enough, that a slight, almost imperceptible tint is enough to make it a good solution. Graeme Gill.

1 0

GretagMacbeth Spectrolino Spectroscan worth anything?
by steve＠kuau.com 09 Jun '14

09 Jun '14

I still have my old trusty GretagMacbeth Spectrolino Spectroscan. Is it still worth anything. I think as of January 2014, Xrite no longer supports the device. Is there any software left out there OSX or Windows that still has support for the device? or... Am I the proud owner of a “boat anchor”... -Steven

3 2

Re: There is no place for individual taste in screen appearance.
by John Gnaegy 09 Jun '14

09 Jun '14

Most consumers don't need to (and shouldn't, and won't) worry about this, and they're not supposed to. Tech companies have done a lot of things to try to accomplish color correctness across devices without user intervention. Display profiles are automatically created based on information in the display, some displays have builtin self adjustment to make up for changes in temperature or aging over time, and printer drivers often include profiles automatically selected for different types of paper. That provides more color accuracy than most people would even notice. So just using devices without even thinking about this stuff is ideal, and not just for consumers. Artists too don't need to think about these things for the most part. It's a matter of how picky you want to be about color, and even then it's mostly about the really saturated colors. There are some colors in the real world that are outside the gamut of sRGB, not a lot but some, which is why Photoshop created Adobe RGB, and other people have created other color spaces and profiles to describe them. These spaces can describe more colors, and their endpoints (chromaticities) can be slightly shifted relative to sRGB. What that gets you is the ability to reproduce more saturated colors, or colors that are shifted one way or the other like more orange reds, or more purple reds. Take a picture of a very red flower in direct sunlight, or a very saturated cyan object. Those images on your display won't look the same, exactly, as you saw them directly. It's not a question of brightness, but deepness of color. Even if you captured those with a huge gamut profile, chances are your display just can't reproduce some of those colors. The physical materials which emit and transmit light in the display have different optical properties than the physical material of the original object illuminated by its environment. It'll still look like a red flower. Just not exactly as red as the actual flower in sunlight.

1 0

There is no place for individual taste in screen appearance.
by John Robinson 08 Jun '14

08 Jun '14

There's only my machine here. So if I understand correctly, on my iMac, I am to calibrate by "looking" at a color proof and using calibration gizmo to match on a screen, but I am not to "look" at a proof and match to my personal "taste"? Sounds like I have to judge by individual taste either way. Sounds like in a company environment all the calibration gizmo does is match one personal taste to all machines. JohnR Sent from JRs iPad Air

7 20

Full Workflow Calibration with Chromes and IT8
by Brian T.Aderer 08 Jun '14

08 Jun '14

Hello Everyone Quick question - If I shoot a reflective IT8 color target on Chrome film, assuming accurate lighting, then scan it and generate an IT8 profile from the result, will I end up with an accurate full workflow calibration profile assuming I keep all variables constant? Would the above process work for digital cameras? Thanks Brian Sent from Windows Mail

4 3

Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 11, Issue 70
by richard＠precision-drum-scanning.co.uk 08 Jun '14

08 Jun '14

In his posting of Sat, 7 Jun 2014, writes Gerry Yaeger snip I think trying to convert Mr. Robinson falls under the same category as try to teach a pig to sing. "It wastes the farmers time and pisses off the pig." Yep I agree and it pisses me off when people fail to trim postings adequately < G > Cheers Richard Richard Kenward www.precision-drum-scanning.co.uk

1 0

Re: If it looks white on your uncalibrated display, yes it is lying
by tlabarbera 07 Jun '14

07 Jun '14

>>John Robinson <jrswebhome(a)yahoo.com>: So the world viewing on un-calibrated screens are wrong and you are right. Good luck with that. I have a hard time not thinking that you are basically a troll but, this list is not all that easily accessible so I may be wrong about your troll-ness... WHY! did you post your initial query to this list, devoted as it is to discussing (accurate) color, when you are so dismissive of--and apparently uninterested in--the information people are taking the time to give you? Troll? Not Troll? Terrie tlbtlb(a)mail.com

1 0

Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 11, Issue 69
by Gerry Yaeger 07 Jun '14

07 Jun '14

I think trying to convert Mr. Robinson falls under the same category as try to teach a pig to sing. "It wastes the farmers time and pisses off the pig." Regards, Gerry Yaeger www.TheDigitalCoach.com Now offering web based training. On Jun 6, 2014, at 6:59 PM, colorsync-users-request(a)lists.apple.com wrote: > Send Colorsync-users mailing list submissions to > colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > colorsync-users-request(a)lists.apple.com > > You can reach the person managing the list at > colorsync-users-owner(a)lists.apple.com > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Colorsync-users digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: If it looks white on your uncalibrated display, yes it is > lying. (Andrew Rodney) > 2. Re: If it looks white on your uncalibrated display, yes it is > lying. (Ben Goren) > 3. Re: If it looks white on your uncalibrated display, yes it is > lying. (Andrew Rodney) > 4. Re: There is no place for individual taste in screen > appearance. (Ben Goren) > 5. Re: If it looks white on your uncalibrated display, yes it is > lying. (Martin Orpen) > 6. Re: There is no place for individual taste in screen > appearance. (John Gnaegy) > 7. Re: There is no place for individual taste in screen > appearance. (John Gnaegy) > 8. Re: There is no place for individual taste in screen > appearance. (John Gnaegy) > 9. Re: There is no place for individual taste in screen > appearance. (John Gnaegy) > 10. Re: There is no place for individual taste in screen > appearance. (Ben Goren) > 11. Re: If it looks white on your uncalibrated display, yes it is > lying. (Anthony Sanna) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 18:14:58 -0600 > From: Andrew Rodney <andrew(a)digitaldog.net> > To: John Robinson <jrswebhome(a)yahoo.com> > Cc: "colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com" > <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> > Subject: Re: If it looks white on your uncalibrated display, yes it is > lying. > Message-ID: <21F04912-2E5C-44AE-ACB7-D07E8D5B2EBB(a)digitaldog.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Jun 6, 2014, at 6:12 PM, John Robinson <jrswebhome(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> So the world viewing on un-calibrated screens are wrong and you are right. > > It depends on how the original data was created and handled, something you still don't seem to understand. > > Andrew Rodney > http://www.digitaldog.net/ > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 17:21:03 -0700 > From: Ben Goren <ben(a)trumpetpower.com> > To: John Robert Robinson <jrswebhome(a)yahoo.com> > Cc: "colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com" > <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> > Subject: Re: If it looks white on your uncalibrated display, yes it is > lying. > Message-ID: <24F9108D-2F31-409F-BF98-242E630971F5(a)trumpetpower.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On Jun 6, 2014, at 4:53 PM, John Robert Robinson <jrswebhome(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Excluding print media, if no one viewing your calibration work is calibrated, what value is your calibration? > > I already addressed that. The display industry has, for the most part, adopted sRGB as something of a standard, and, mostly, new devices are and for some time have been factory calibrated to within shouting distance of sRGB. Therefore, if your own workflow is color managed, if you output your files as sRGB you'll be targeting results that roughly fall in line with what most devices mostly will display. > > If, on the other hand, your workflow is *not* color managed, then you'll be "baking" your deviation from standard into all your work. For example, if your display has an excessively high white point color temperature and your ambient light is incandescent, you may well overcompensate by making things yellower and redder than you otherwise would, and the majority of your viewers will wonder why your pictures have a "vintage" faded look to them. > > Will your images look perfect on all devices if you adopt an ideal managed workflow? No, of course not. As I mentioned, even _National_Geographic_ looks bad in dim incandescent light, and equally bad in cheap incandescent light. But they still carefully target the standards (which are, not coincidentally, a close proxy for daylight) and that's a big part of the reason why their reputation is what it deservedly is. > > Cheers, > > b& >

1 0

Re: There is no place for individual taste in screen appearance.
by John Gnaegy 07 Jun '14

07 Jun '14

> So if you used your calibrated screen to create a specific color numbers, then everyone viewing your numbers would read like your screen? Halfway there. Both sides need to be calibrated. Let's say I finally notice my display doesn't output as much green as it should, and I calibrate the display. The calibration process outputs a display profile, and this display profile boosts the greens to make up for my flawed display. That profile is only relevant to my display, it only describes the variation between my display and some theoretical ideal. So I recreate the logo in Photoshop, with my new display profile tweaking my flawed display, and the eyedropper now says the numbers are 255 128 128. Perfect. Until I send that tiff to you. Because unfortunately, although you haven't noticed it, the blue channel in your display has been gradually increasing its midrange output over time. To you the eyedropper reads 255 128 128, but it doesn't look like a salmon at all, more like pink bubblegum. So you have to calibrate your display too, creating a profile that reduces the midrange reds to make up for the idiosyncracies of your display.

3 4