If it looks white on your uncalibrated display, yes it is lying.
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
On Jun 6, 2014, at 3:10 PM, John Robert Robinson <jrswebhome@yahoo.com> wrote:
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.
The numbers are not a lie, that's all PS provides. How the numbers appear can be a lie. Numbers of colors alone do not tell us what they look like! If you have RGB values of a light "white" color, it might be equal values or RGB or it may not, depending on the color space. Neutral RGB values in a well behaved space where we expect R=B=G to be neutral produce non equal values for other color spaces such that both appear to look the same. If you ask me how far I live from you and I say 1000, that's meaningless, the number has no scale. If I say 1000 miles, the number now has a meaning. The numbers alone provided by Photoshop don't necessarily tell you what the color will look like. So it can lie.
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.
You can't control those mom and pop devices and neither can we. Only people who care about proper color appearance do this. Or people who want a display and some print or proof to visually match. For that you need ICC profiles and calibrated systems like your display. If you are a mom and pop and don't care about color, you don't have to worry about color and this is the last list you should be reading. The big deal about my professional display is it delivers WYSIWYG and when it cost time and money to output high quality printing, it's kind of useful. What does this color look like? R78/G129/B255? Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
Through curves if I take out the 5 each of the 10 red and 10 blue I measured in white, but allow most of the curve to remain the same, I see an immediate improvement in the overall image. I'm not correcting what the camera saw, I am correcting what humans expect white to be. If I remove the color cast who is to say that a calibrationist's screen is correct and mine isn't? Mom and Pop could care less if the calibrationist's screen is calibrated. John R iMac10,1, Mavericks 3.06 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo 12gig RAM, 1TBHD On Friday, June 6, 2014 4:20 PM, Andrew Rodney <andrew@digitaldog.net> wrote:
On Jun 6, 2014, at 3:10 PM, John Robert Robinson <jrswebhome@yahoo.com> wrote:
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.
The numbers are not a lie, that's all PS provides. How the numbers appear can be a lie. Numbers of colors alone do not tell us what they look like! If you have RGB values of a light "white" color, it might be equal values or RGB or it may not, depending on the color space. Neutral RGB values in a well behaved space where we expect R=B=G to be neutral produce non equal values for other color spaces such that both appear to look the same.
If you ask me how far I live from you and I say 1000, that's meaningless, the number has no scale. If I say 1000 miles, the number now has a meaning. The numbers alone provided by Photoshop don't necessarily tell you what the color will look like. So it can lie.
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.
You can't control those mom and pop devices and neither can we. Only people who care about proper color appearance do this. Or people who want a display and some print or proof to visually match. For that you need ICC profiles and calibrated systems like your display. If you are a mom and pop and don't care about color, you don't have to worry about color and this is the last list you should be reading. The big deal about my professional display is it delivers WYSIWYG and when it cost time and money to output high quality printing, it's kind of useful.
What does this color look like? R78/G129/B255?
Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
On Jun 6, 2014, at 5:01 PM, John R <jrswebhome@yahoo.com> wrote:
Through curves if I take out the 5 each of the 10 red and 10 blue I measured in white,
Stop right there. You've said you measured white several times and you've not defined how. We can't continue until you explain what you are doing. The numbers don't ensure the color is right or wrong all by themselves because there is another output device, your display at the very least in the mix. Go into a TV store and see 100 TV's all getting the same RGB numbers and all looking different. Which is correct? Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
So who cares if your screen is calibrated "correctly" and mine and Mom and Pop's are aren't calibrated "correctly", no one looks at a calibrated screen any longer anyway. I insert a point in Photoshop and read the RGB color measured. Are you saying that is incorrect? If I reduce a color cast this way and white is a better white, how the heck is that incorrect? Are you saying I have to have some gizmo to measure white ignoring what Photoshop is telling me? John R iMac10,1, Mavericks 3.06 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo 12gig RAM, 1TBHD On Friday, June 6, 2014 6:06 PM, Andrew Rodney <andrew@digitaldog.net> wrote:
On Jun 6, 2014, at 5:01 PM, John R <jrswebhome@yahoo.com> wrote:
Through curves if I take out the 5 each of the 10 red and 10 blue I measured in white,
Stop right there. You've said you measured white several times and you've not defined how. We can't continue until you explain what you are doing.
The numbers don't ensure the color is right or wrong all by themselves because there is another output device, your display at the very least in the mix. Go into a TV store and see 100 TV's all getting the same RGB numbers and all looking different. Which is correct?
Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
On Jun 6, 2014, at 5:15 PM, John R <jrswebhome@yahoo.com> wrote:
I insert a point in Photoshop and read the RGB color measured. Are you saying that is incorrect?
The actual numbers no. How they appear, yes more likely than not. That's WHY we use color management. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
We disagree. These calibration gizmo's have less value in the Walmart video screen world. John R iMac10,1, Mavericks 3.06 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo 12gig RAM, 1TBHD On Friday, June 6, 2014 6:16 PM, Andrew Rodney <andrew@digitaldog.net> wrote:
On Jun 6, 2014, at 5:15 PM, John R <jrswebhome@yahoo.com> wrote:
I insert a point in Photoshop and read the RGB color measured. Are you saying that is incorrect?
The actual numbers no. How they appear, yes more likely than not. That's WHY we use color management.
Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
On Jun 6, 2014, at 5:20 PM, John R <jrswebhome@yahoo.com> wrote:
We disagree. These calibration gizmo's have less value in the Walmart video screen world.
Yes we do. Sorry. At least one of us understands what the 'calibration gizmo's' do and why. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
On Jun 6, 2014, at 4:20 PM, John R <jrswebhome@yahoo.com> wrote:
We disagree. These calibration gizmo's have less value in the Walmart video screen world.
If you don't care about the quality of your work, that's certainly your decision to make. Similarly, if you think your efforts are best targeted towards the Walmart customers who value the absolute cheapest price over any and all other considerations, that's also your decision. In such circumstances, quality control of any type beyond the bare minimum that's legally mandated (i.e., in photography, none) is likely a complete waste. But if your standards are just a wee bit higher than "not bad enough to get sued over," quality control has huge value, and a $90 ColorMunki Smile or equivalent device provides incredible value for very little money, especially in comparison to nothing whatsoever. Many of the people on this list consider a $500 spectrophotometer barely adequate for what we do -- though, to be sure, for lack of features as opposed to poor quality or value, at least for the $500 spectrophotometers on the market today. But we're obviously working towards standards substantially more rigorous than what you've decided are proper for what you're doing. At the same time, should you decide that your current efforts are inadequate, we'll be happy to help you understand what it takes to up your game, as the saying goes. Cheers, b&
Excluding print media, if no one viewing your calibration work is calibrated, what value is your calibration? John R On Jun 6, 2014, at 6:47 PM 🌙, Ben Goren <ben@trumpetpower.com> wrote:
On Jun 6, 2014, at 4:20 PM, John R <jrswebhome@yahoo.com> wrote:
We disagree. These calibration gizmo's have less value in the Walmart video screen world.
If you don't care about the quality of your work, that's certainly your decision to make. Similarly, if you think your efforts are best targeted towards the Walmart customers who value the absolute cheapest price over any and all other considerations, that's also your decision. In such circumstances, quality control of any type beyond the bare minimum that's legally mandated (i.e., in photography, none) is likely a complete waste.
But if your standards are just a wee bit higher than "not bad enough to get sued over," quality control has huge value, and a $90 ColorMunki Smile or equivalent device provides incredible value for very little money, especially in comparison to nothing whatsoever.
Many of the people on this list consider a $500 spectrophotometer barely adequate for what we do -- though, to be sure, for lack of features as opposed to poor quality or value, at least for the $500 spectrophotometers on the market today. But we're obviously working towards standards substantially more rigorous than what you've decided are proper for what you're doing.
At the same time, should you decide that your current efforts are inadequate, we'll be happy to help you understand what it takes to up your game, as the saying goes.
Cheers,
b&
On Jun 6, 2014, at 5:53 PM, John Robert Robinson <jrswebhome@yahoo.com> wrote:
Excluding print media, if no one viewing your calibration work is calibrated, what value is your calibration?
The current numbers are correct and look that way in a defined way. On other devices. Print or otherwise. Any other output device, print or otherwise that you want to reproduce the image on will appear the same! The alternative is the same RGB numbers look different to everyone as you have ignored in my comment about buying a TV. If you make the image appear as you desire on your editing workstation, you can share that color appearance to anyone else who wants to see the image as you did. Now if you don't care, if you're fine with all those TV differences from the same numbers, and again, this isn't the list to be reading. You either care about representing a pile of numbers to appear a fixed and correct way or you don't. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
So the world viewing on un-calibrated screens are wrong and you are right. Good luck with that. Sent from JRs iPad Air
On Jun 6, 2014, at 7:09 PM, Andrew Rodney <andrew@digitaldog.net> wrote:
On Jun 6, 2014, at 5:53 PM, John Robert Robinson <jrswebhome@yahoo.com> wrote:
Excluding print media, if no one viewing your calibration work is calibrated, what value is your calibration?
The current numbers are correct and look that way in a defined way. On other devices. Print or otherwise. Any other output device, print or otherwise that you want to reproduce the image on will appear the same! The alternative is the same RGB numbers look different to everyone as you have ignored in my comment about buying a TV. If you make the image appear as you desire on your editing workstation, you can share that color appearance to anyone else who wants to see the image as you did.
Now if you don't care, if you're fine with all those TV differences from the same numbers, and again, this isn't the list to be reading.
You either care about representing a pile of numbers to appear a fixed and correct way or you don't.
Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
On Jun 6, 2014, at 6:12 PM, John Robinson <jrswebhome@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/
So the world viewing on un-calibrated screens are wrong and you are right. 15-years ago, My work was in a hell of a mess. You see, up until that time all of my production ended up on a CMYK offset or rotogravure press - ink on paper - it was a singular workflow. I shot my transparencies, created my layouts, and turned it all over to an engraver who scanned the TX, shot the layout, put it all together on the films that burned the plates which picked up the ink and transferred it to paper or board for the finished product. Easy. I didn’t have to be an ammeter expert because the real experts did the work, at that time, in a rather cumbersome, closed-loop, color-managed way. Then the web arrived and sites needed images that glowed in phosphorescent colors, and commercial Lambda and inkjets became available to print enormous display prints with ever-expanding sets of chromatic dyes, and suddenly, everything I had done before became obsolete. I couldn’t take that 1-inch strawberry on the front of my package and put it on the web. Wrong size, wrong colorspace; the “numbers” were meaningless. The same was true when I needed a 4-foot berry for a convention display. That’s when my whole way of working changed. The key to it all was learning about and establishing a color-managed workflow with custom ICC profiles for press and screen (mine and the mom & pops) and scanners and large format printers. Colorsync was the key for making my label strawberry match my convention strawberry match my web strawberry. I think you have to look at the greater scope of what ColorSync has accomplished. It’s not “if it looks good on my MacBook it’ll be OK on Ma & Pa’s Dell because there are no standards”. There are standards, set by color scientists & engineers, who have come up with a method for translating color information from one paradigm to another reasonably well in a world of variable illuminants, viewers, and media. Tony - Anthony Sanna (608) 206-3134 asanna@sacofoods.com<mailto:asanna@sacofoods.com>
John, Really? Some of the field's top experts have taken the time to meticulously explain the workings of calibration and the value of a systematic work flow in color management. By your facetious comments it seems like either you do not have the insight and gratitude to understand what is being offered--or you DO understand and are being purposefully disagreeable just for the fun of it. DAVID SCHARF PHOTOGRAPHY *DAVID SCHARF* On 6/6/14 5:12 PM, John Robinson wrote:
So the world viewing on un-calibrated screens are wrong and you are right. Good luck with that.
Sent from JRs iPad Air
On Jun 6, 2014, at 7:09 PM, Andrew Rodney <andrew@digitaldog.net> wrote:
On Jun 6, 2014, at 5:53 PM, John Robert Robinson <jrswebhome@yahoo.com> wrote:
Excluding print media, if no one viewing your calibration work is calibrated, what value is your calibration? The current numbers are correct and look that way in a defined way. On other devices. Print or otherwise. Any other output device, print or otherwise that you want to reproduce the image on will appear the same! The alternative is the same RGB numbers look different to everyone as you have ignored in my comment about buying a TV. If you make the image appear as you desire on your editing workstation, you can share that color appearance to anyone else who wants to see the image as you did.
Now if you don't care, if you're fine with all those TV differences from the same numbers, and again, this isn't the list to be reading.
You either care about representing a pile of numbers to appear a fixed and correct way or you don't.
Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/david%40scharfphoto....
This email sent to david@scharfphoto.com
On Jun 6, 2014, at 4:53 PM, John Robert Robinson <jrswebhome@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&
On Jun 6, 2014, at 5:53 PM, John Robert Robinson <jrswebhome@yahoo.com> wrote:
Excluding print media, if no one viewing your calibration work is calibrated, what value is your calibration?
Actually there hasn't been a film, TV show, commercial etc in the last 15+ years that wasn't viewed on a calibrated system. That you don't care to view the data as close to the ideal as possible, provides the impression you are not a content provider. Mom and pop don't care how Iron Man was color corrected. The people who produced the film did care and they absolutely worked in a calibrated display condition. You want to view it on a dimly set iPhone in bright daylight? Knock yourself out. Filmmakers, photographers, graphic artists etc all care about the color they create. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
On 7 Jun 2014, at 00:53, John Robert Robinson <jrswebhome@yahoo.com> wrote:
Excluding print media,
Excluding print media, the majority of still images are next to worthless. High value images will end up being printed and the owners will have high expectations over reproduction quality and consistency. Expectations that only “calibrationists” will be able to meet :-) -- Martin Orpen Idea Digital Imaging Ltd
On Jun 6, 2014, at 4:53 PM, John Robert Robinson <jrswebhome@yahoo.com> wrote:
Excluding print media, if no one viewing your calibration work is calibrated, what value is your calibration?
John, This is a blunt but very valid question. (the kind I like) To echo some other posts in this thread, the simple truth is that “uncalibrated” has changed a lot over the years. Anyone using any OS produced by Apple in the last 10 years or so is using a calibrated* monitor. The * means that most of them are not *custom* calibrated but iOS devices conform to a pretty tight standard (sRGB in most cases) and OS X has automatically made profiles for connected displays based on their EDID information for many years. If the display was made by Apple then it’s auto-generated profile is more trustworthy (as its EDID information is more trustworthy). On the Windows side it’s much more of a crap shoot but you get my drift. None of these calibrations are likely to be up to “pro” level but for consumer devices, again, it’s a lot better than it was years ago. So what’s the value? Primarily, the knowledge that the image you are producing, and the edits you are making, are valid. That if someone on the other end buys a higher quality device and/or calibrates it themselves (even by eye) that they’ll get a reasonable representation of what you saw. Is hardware calibration necessary? Perhaps not. But think of it this way: if both you and your viewers are using non-hardware calibrated displays the chances of noticeable differences between what you see is higher. Hardware calibration at least brings your display into a known repeatable state. I believe that is more likely to be a better viewing experience on the variety of displays out there. I certainly don’t believe anyone is “wrong” in this scenario. I just like to point my boat toward right as much as possible, and hardware calibration for content creators is relatively inexpensive, easy, quick, and doesn’t complicate the workflow. regards, Steve
John Robert Robinson wrote:
Excluding print media, if no one viewing your calibration work is calibrated, what value is your calibration?
If your media product has no defined color encoding, then even if someone wanted to go to the trouble of seeing what you intended, has no hope. You're outputting random rubbish. If on the other hand your output is encoded to a standard that display makers at least cross check against (ie. sRGB), then on average everyone will see roughly what you intended, and someone who was prepared to go to more trouble can see exactly what you intended. Graeme Gill.
On Jun 6, 2014, at 2:10 PM, John Robert Robinson <jrswebhome@yahoo.com> wrote:
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.
Increasingly -- and, honestly, they're getting "not bad" about it -- Mom and Pop devices leave the factory reasonably well calibrated to sRGB, though perhaps with a white point with a higher color temperature than 6500K. They'll have far more variation than any professional would tolerate, but the average about which they deviate is "close enough" that a professional can and should expect the best results for the largest number of people by using a color managed workflow, even if the devices the images are ultimately displayed on aren't managed at all. Cheers, b&
participants (10)
-
Andrew Rodney
-
Anthony Sanna
-
Ben Goren
-
David Scharf
-
Graeme Gill
-
John R
-
John Robert Robinson
-
John Robinson
-
Martin Orpen
-
Steve Upton