Date   

Questions

gowens01@...
 

Hi Group,

What is the differnece between findin the d-man/d-min on a negative and
setting the white and black point on curves?

Are we seeing any parallax problems with the new digital cameras?

Do the digital cameras use the NTSC work space because of the video
connection? The D1 stats list NTSC/Pat video and the fuji S1 Pro lists
NTSC Video Out.

I hear a lot about the D!. Has anyone had experience with output from
the Fuji S1 Pro?

Gary Owens


Re: Optimal TAC, dotgain for b&w newsprint

Christine Holzmann <tekila@...>
 

David,
I work with newsprint and my color is excellent. When I began with newsprint, I had a LOT of questions to ask about the color and settings and got a lot of very excellent advice from Dan Margulis's book: Professional Photoshop 5.
Anyway, to get to the point, I shall tell you what settings I use and what I have found to be optimum for newsprint. One of the MOST important settings to take into consideration for newsprint is the DOT GAIN.
The standard dot gain I would use would be 34%. I then change over to the curves settings for the dot gain and input the following settings at the 50% point for each plate:
CYAN = 84
MAGENTA = 84
YELLOW = 82
BLACK = 88
(I had calculated my settings according to Dan's advice in one of his columns when Photoshop 5 first came out. Basically, you add "50" to your standard setting of "34" to the CYAN and MAGENTA (50 + 34 = 84), you minus two points from that number for YELLOW (84 - 2 = 82) and then instead for black, ADD 4 points to that number (84 + 4 =88). I am not going to go into an explanation as to why...I am strapped for time right now....:(

TAC = 260
Black ink limit = 80
I prefer to use UCR for newsprint....you get the skeleton black plate that way with less muddiness.

85LPI is perfect.
170dpi is also perfect.
Maximum black....85% percent is good.
Maximum white.......4 or 5% is good. (For color a lot of the time I can "blow out" the hightlights to make it look even better.)

As for the pressman, you are absolutely correct about different pressmen using different methods.......on some days of the week, our paper used to get printed REALLY dark with too much ink while on other days, it was printed a lot lighter. This happened on a regular basis tho' and the way I compensated for it was by adjusting the TAC settings. One the days I knew the paper would be printed darker (which was every Friday) I would set the TAC to 240. On the other days, I would use 260.
Basically now our paper is always printed the same (not the over dark way) so I stick to a TAC setting of 260. So basically, between 240 and 260 would be your optimum range.

Hope I was able to help......it seems tho' that your settings and methods are already great the way they are....:)

Good luck!!

Crissi
___________________________________________

I realize this isn't a color question, but I think some of you may still
have some suggestions.

I've got a job going to press this week that being printed bw on uncoated
newsprint. I'm trying to find out if this is the real cheap grayish
newsprint, or the slightly whiter variety as I type. 85 lpi halftones, so
I'm figuring 170 dpi or lower on resolution at 100percent size.

In the past I've used a maximum black of about 82-85 percent black, and a
maximum white of about 4 percent black (unless it's a specular highlight). I
bring the midtones up about 10-20 percent (a 50 percent patch gets placed
about 40-45 percent).

I've had varying results with these settings, and suspect much has to do
with the fact that they have been printed at different presses. I've already
talked to the printer, and they don't have any idea for settings. Whenever
they have digital files they send them to a local blueprint/service bureau
shop for imaging to paper (not film). The blueprint/service bureau claims
that they don't do any adjustments to the files, and don't want to give out
their clients names (lots of help).

I only do print jobs for newsprint about every other blue moon, so would
appreciate any help from the collective wisdom.

TIA,

David
David Riecks * david@riecks.com 701 W. Washington St * Midwest/Chicago ASMP Champaign, IL 61820 * ph/fax 217-239-FOTO(3686) * http://www.riecks.com/



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
colortheory-unsubscribe@egroups.com
--
DIGITAL/GRAPHIC ARTIST
http://www.crissi.com

DESIGN EDITOR @ THE CITIZEN NEWS
http://www.thecitizennews.com


Re: The Wide Wide World of Color

KAB <kbrecken@...>
 

Dave,

My "canned solution" comment was a little harsh, allow me do a little
timely back peddling...

CM isn't exactly an off the shelf solution as I suggested, but many of
the commercial components are often advertised as such by vendors and
service providers.

I find it ironic the technology engineered to put color in the hands of
the creative professional has in fact launched an entire industry
dedicated to demystify the technology that's used demystify color.

My position is simply to promote knowledge before technology, and
encourage individuals to experiment with the process and understand the
issues before adopting a solution.

Respectfully

Kevin,


Kev,

It would be nice if digital color were at least as predictable as
current
Kodak and Fuji chrome films for us photographers. Sounds like a job
for CM
Man to me. If it comes in a can I'll take two. <gg>

Dave King


Optimal TAC, dotgain for b&w newsprint

David Riecks
 

I realize this isn't a color question, but I think some of you may still
have some suggestions.

I've got a job going to press this week that being printed bw on uncoated
newsprint. I'm trying to find out if this is the real cheap grayish
newsprint, or the slightly whiter variety as I type. 85 lpi halftones, so
I'm figuring 170 dpi or lower on resolution at 100percent size.

In the past I've used a maximum black of about 82-85 percent black, and a
maximum white of about 4 percent black (unless it's a specular highlight). I
bring the midtones up about 10-20 percent (a 50 percent patch gets placed
about 40-45 percent).

I've had varying results with these settings, and suspect much has to do
with the fact that they have been printed at different presses. I've already
talked to the printer, and they don't have any idea for settings. Whenever
they have digital files they send them to a local blueprint/service bureau
shop for imaging to paper (not film). The blueprint/service bureau claims
that they don't do any adjustments to the files, and don't want to give out
their clients names (lots of help).

I only do print jobs for newsprint about every other blue moon, so would
appreciate any help from the collective wisdom.

TIA,

David
David Riecks * david@riecks.com
701 W. Washington St * Midwest/Chicago ASMP
Champaign, IL 61820 *
ph/fax 217-239-FOTO(3686) * http://www.riecks.com/


Is it really worth it??

Gordon Pritchard <gordon_pritchard@...>
 

Please note:

1) Chris Murphy is quite correct: consistency is the foundation for print
manufacturing process control. This is one of the reasons people have
adopted CTP as it eliminates variation introduced by intermediary film.

2) With CreoScitex Spectrum halftone proofing there is a choice of media -
both vendor (e.g. Kodak, Imation, Fuji, Dupont) as well as type (e.g. within
Imation media you can choose, Eurocolor, SWOP, Commercial high density).
Proofs are initially set up (the "golden standard") by the chosen proofing
media vendor's technical people to corresspond to their analog (film-based)
equivalent rather than a press sheet. Of course, the Spectrum user does have
the option of building their own standard (with or without the help of the
vendor's technical people) to represent their presswork target.

3) If you are currently printing from film-imaged plates, you can choose to
calibrate your CTP so that the presswork it delivers mimics what you would
have achieved with your film workflow. Therefore your analog proof standard
can be used to represent your CTP standard. We do have some customers who,
for their own reasons, actually generate film only to generate a proof. They
then throw the film away and image direct to plate. Works fine.

thx, gordo

Gordon Pritchard
Commercial Print Specialist
CreoScitex
Vancouver Canada
T: 604.451.2700 ext 2870
C: 604.351.2437
gordon_pritchard@creoscitex.com
http://www.creoscitex.com

Print, the original dot com<

ORIGINAL MESSAGE BELOW:

From: Terence L. Wyse


<Terry Wyse said>:
Now, if you're
going direct-to-plate, all bets are off!
<and then Chris Murphy responded>:
Well no you just have to make some decisions in the right order. If
they
are going to force it to match an existing proofing system, it can be
done within certain limits. If they are going to optimize with the idea
of getting a new digital proofing system they can also go that route.
The
key is process control. CTP or DTP makes no difference. The issue is
consistency or the lack thereof. If there is no consistency then all
bets
are off.

<Terry feels the need to clarify>:
I guess I should've clarified/qualified my "all bets are off" statement in
reference to CTP. What I meant was that with CTP you most likely are not
producing film-based analog proofs so you can't calibrate to and profile
your analog proof, you need something else. At this point I suppose you
could profile a "digital analog"(?) proof such as a Kodak Approval or Creo
Spectrum-type proof but this has most likely been calibrated to match a
press sheet in the first place. If this is the case, you could just go
ahead
and profile the press sheet and be done with it. Most of my point was to
the
somewhat futile and at least very difficult proposition of profiling press
conditions as you yourself have pointed out in the past and using
something
at least a bit more consistent such as an analog proof. Sorry for the
confusion.

Regards,
Terry
_____________________________
Terence (Terry) Wyse
PrePress Specialist
All Systems Integration, Inc.
781.935.3322 voice
781.935.6622 fax
http://www.allsystems.com
terry@allsystems.com
_____________________________


old monitor

Kenji Kerins <kenji@...>
 

My older Mitsubishi Diamond Pro monitor seems as if I can't get it
calibrated anymore. The problem is that there is a magenta/red cast in
the shadows and little bit of artifacting in the shadows. The overall
gamma and brightness doesn't allow me to get anywhere near calibrated
these days.It won't go dark enough...it feels too flat and washed out
in the shadows.

So I have two questions. Is it maybe a problem with the video card, or
is it probably the monitor? And is it worth taking it in to a repair
shop? Can they get it anywhere near to being able to use it for digital
photography needs?

It's tough getting rid of hardware for me, I cling.

TIA,

Kenji


Re: untagged tiff image 300 ppi, Opens at 72 ppi on p.s.6 (John Opitz)

Dave Adams <david.a.adams@...>
 

You can download a FILE FORMAT MODULE from
"http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/DCS/dcsRegister/downloadIndex.shtml"

This module lets you open a custom TIFF as you would any image
supported by Photshop. There is a Mac and Windows version.
At the link above, you will be required to register your email to gain
access to downlaod pages. You can also download the current firmware
and a new application called PHOTODESK.

wulff.wendelstein@t-online.de wrote:


Andrew wrote re. Kodak DCS files:

"There’s no color info in the file at all; it’s a grayscale file. The
Acquire module is what allows you to actually end up with a real Tiff
or
other color file. "

My "raw" DCS files carry the ending .tif from origin and do open full
res in
PS (Windows), but too dark and with a weird color shift. Indeed only
the
Acquire module seems to render them usable. Trying to correct them in
PS
didn't give me usable results (might be possible though). Is there any
other
known way to open them correctly without the Acquire module? A
profile?

Is there any good reason for Kodak introducing a prorietary "tiff"? I
tried
to find some info about this format, but to no avail.

How do you access the preview tiff? Didn't even know it existed...

Wulff Wendelstein

eGroups Sponsor
[Click here to Win a 2001 Acura MDX]
Click here to Win a 2001 Acura MDX

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
colortheory-unsubscribe@egroups.com


Re: untagged tiff image 300 ppi, Opens at 72 ppi on p.s.6 (John Opitz)

Bob Smith <rmsmith@...>
 

wulff.wendelstein@t-online.de wrote:

My "raw" DCS files carry the ending .tif from origin and do open full res in
PS (Windows), but too dark and with a weird color shift. Indeed only the
Acquire module seems to render them usable.
That sounds odd. Are you sure you don't have the DCS format plug-in
installed in Photoshop? On Mac systems its installed along with the acquire
module and allows the Kodak proprietary tiffs to open just as any other file
(without going through the Acquire module) however you don't have any
control over the various parameters that the acquire module gives you. The
image just opens at default settings. Without that plug-in I didn't think a
color image was possible at all. I haven't tried this in ages.

Is there any good reason for Kodak introducing a proprietary "tiff"? I tried
to find some info about this format, but to no avail.
When the file is written to the disk in the camera, space and time needed to
write that file are at a premium. The DCS format just records only the data
of each pixel as captured by the CCD. Therefore each pixel is just one
piece of grayscale data. That's all that the CCD "sees". All color
processing to figure out which of those pixels represent red, green, or
blue; and to interpolate the missing color pixels is done outside of the
camera in the acquire software. That keeps the camera's job simpler and
faster and leaves the major number crunching to the host computer. Writing
a full color TIFF in the camera would really bog down camera performance.
It also causes you to lock in color processing choices at the moment of
photography rather than waiting till later to finalize those decisions.
Nikon D1s can produce finished TIFFs in camera as an option yet I rarely
hear of anyone using it.

Is there any other
known way to open them correctly without the Acquire module?
Kodak just released a new application for editing DCS images without going
through the Photoshop based acquire module. Its called Photo Desk and can
be downloaded from Kodak's site. I know its available at no charge to DCS
camera owners, but I think that others can download it as well.

Bob Smith


Re: untagged tiff image 300 ppi, Opens at 72 ppi on p.s.6 (John Opitz)

Andrew Rodney <andrew@...>
 

on 1/9/01 2:44 AM, wulff.wendelstein@t-online.de at
wulff.wendelstein@t-online.de wrote:

My "raw" DCS files carry the ending .tif from origin and do open full res in
PS (Windows), but too dark and with a weird color shift. Indeed only the
Acquire module seems to render them usable. Trying to correct them in PS
didn't give me usable results (might be possible though). Is there any other
known way to open them correctly without the Acquire module? A profile?
You take the camera files directly from the internal drive and open them?
That's very odd. I've worked with most of the Kodak DCS cameras and have
never seen a full rez color file open this way (as I said, only the tiff
header). The camera is a one shot so it's interpolating the color data
somewhere. It sounds like the dark images are linear files. That means that
the camera software isn't applying any curves which is really ideal for
profiling. Better still, you'd have more than 8 bits pre color in this
linear file. You have this option in the Kodak Acquire module along with
some control over sharpening and such.

Is there any good reason for Kodak introducing a prorietary "tiff"? I tried
to find some info about this format, but to no avail.
Kodak didn't introduce a proprietary Tiff per say. Their raw file format is
a grayscale file because that's how the camera sees. What they did (at least
with all the DCS cameras I've used) was place a tiny Tiff header, a
thumbnail if you will that opens when double clicked on. The idea being that
people that didn't have the Acquire module could at least see a low rez
"preview" of captured images. Getting the high rez file into a full color
mode took some proprietary software (one being the Kodak acquire module)
which produced the actual color.

Andrew Rodney


Re: Is it really worth it??

Terence L. Wyse <terry@...>
 

<Terry Wyse said>:
Now, if you're
going direct-to-plate, all bets are off!
<and then Chris Murphy responded>:
Well no you just have to make some decisions in the right order. If they
are going to force it to match an existing proofing system, it can be
done within certain limits. If they are going to optimize with the idea
of getting a new digital proofing system they can also go that route. The
key is process control. CTP or DTP makes no difference. The issue is
consistency or the lack thereof. If there is no consistency then all bets
are off.

<Terry feels the need to clarify>:
I guess I should've clarified/qualified my "all bets are off" statement in
reference to CTP. What I meant was that with CTP you most likely are not
producing film-based analog proofs so you can't calibrate to and profile
your analog proof, you need something else. At this point I suppose you
could profile a "digital analog"(?) proof such as a Kodak Approval or Creo
Spectrum-type proof but this has most likely been calibrated to match a
press sheet in the first place. If this is the case, you could just go ahead
and profile the press sheet and be done with it. Most of my point was to the
somewhat futile and at least very difficult proposition of profiling press
conditions as you yourself have pointed out in the past and using something
at least a bit more consistent such as an analog proof. Sorry for the
confusion.

Regards,
Terry
_____________________________
Terence (Terry) Wyse
PrePress Specialist
All Systems Integration, Inc.
781.935.3322 voice
781.935.6622 fax
http://www.allsystems.com
terry@allsystems.com
_____________________________


Re: untagged tiff image 300 ppi, Opens at 72 ppi on p.s.6 (John Opitz)

WW
 

Andrew wrote re. Kodak DCS files:

"Theres no color info in the file at all; its a grayscale file. The
Acquire module is what allows you to actually end up with a real Tiff or
other color file. "


My "raw" DCS files carry the ending .tif from origin and do open full res in
PS (Windows), but too dark and with a weird color shift. Indeed only the
Acquire module seems to render them usable. Trying to correct them in PS
didn't give me usable results (might be possible though). Is there any other
known way to open them correctly without the Acquire module? A profile?

Is there any good reason for Kodak introducing a prorietary "tiff"? I tried
to find some info about this format, but to no avail.

How do you access the preview tiff? Didn't even know it existed...


Wulff Wendelstein


Re: The Wide Wide World of Color

Dave King <kingphoto@...>
 

Gorton Pritchard wrote:

If color can be measured then why can't it be "argued, predicted or
directed"?

gordon pritchard
_________________

Gord,

good question,

I think it cant be argued because of visual perception & personal
preference,
outside of the math and numeric's who's to say the sky is blue?, it
might be
purple to some, is the grass green ? and that pumpkin is it red or orange.?

Its simply what the individual that pays the bill sees no plotted target
within any color model described with a numeric breakdown, be it LAB.,
RGB, CMYK or otherwise will change that interpretation

I think it cant be predicted because of that influence and all the other
influences ..day t o day ink set to ink set, device to device pressmen to
pressmen its all a "best guess" "shot in the dark" and "I hope it runs well"
scenario anyone that thinks they have a recipe for perfect color is simply
just not humbled by experience.

It cant be directed because the impacts can't be predicted,

I don't dismiss the technology or the science but with out knowledge and
experience a canned solution be it CM or otherwise is just a lazy shortcut,
just one more buffer behind the real issue surrounding color accuracy and
consistency.


respectfully

Kevin
Kev,

It would be nice if digital color were at least as predictable as current
Kodak and Fuji chrome films for us photographers. Sounds like a job for CM
Man to me. If it comes in a can I'll take two. <gg>

Dave King
Commercial Photography
New York City


Re: Where is the monitor calibration profile taken into account in PS 6.0

Andrew Rodney <andrew@...>
 

on 1/8/01 2:56 PM, Christine Holzmann at tekila@... wrote:

Andrew,
Thank you....:)
That makes sense. My mind can rest at peace now. (Now all that is worrying my is where I can find the "blur option" for drop shadows in PS 6 as it was in PS 5. But I know that isn't a question for this list. If you DO have the time could you answer that at some stage too?? If not, I understand...:)

Crissi
______________________________________________





on 1/8/01 2:41 PM, Christine Holzmann at tekila@... wrote:
I selected ColorMatch as my RGB working space in that area, since I
used ColorMatch as my RGB working space in PS 5. Is this not the
correct thing to do?? Do I thus have to choose between using
Colormatch (or whatever the preferred working space is) or the
monitor profile??
That's correct. Load ColorMatch if that's what you like to use to edit your files. The display profile is ONLY used for preview purposes although in Photoshop 6, as you can see, you could load your display profile as your editing space (DON'T do that). But as you can see, the profile is there so you can at least visually see that Photoshop is using a certain display profile that you picked in Monitors (or as I somewhat incorrectly stated in the last post, ColorSync).
Actually, you pick the profile in Monitors (under OS9) and then it does show up in ColorSync to indicate it's being used on a system level, AND then Photoshop sees that and shows you this as well in the RGB Popup menu.

It’s the slider called “Size” in the Drop Shadow Layer Style which is what Layer Effects were in Photoshop 5.

Andrew Rodney


Re: Where is the monitor calibration profile taken into account in PS 6.0

Chris Murphy <lists@...>
 

Now I am confused. I have Colorsync 3.0 but when I open the control panel I
have only two tabs, one is Profiles the other is CMM. The options for
Profile tab are the following: RGB, CMYK, Grayscale Defaults & Lab Profile.
Nowhere does the option of "Display Profile" come up.
In the ColorSync control panel, click on the Profiles tab. The first
pop-up has two options:

Default Profiles for Documents
Profiles for Standard Devices

You need to select Profiles for Standard Devices and in there you have
four pop-ups: Input, Display, Output, Proofer

So I'm referring to the Display pop-up.


However in PS 6.0 when I open the Color Settings window > RGB working space
popup menu I do have the "monitor bla bla my monitor calibration" at the top
of that screen with the "colorsync RGB - Adobe RGB" set, this is according
to Andrews post. Which is correct or both?
That's fine. This means that your working space is set to Adobe RGB and
that's the profile that is getting embedded in your images. That's a good
space to work in. The fact your monitor profile appears at the very top
of the pop-up (but is not the one selected) just indicates Photoshop is
aware of your monitor profile and is using it for display compensation.


Chris Murphy


Re: Where is the monitor calibration profile taken into account in PS 6.0

Christine Holzmann <tekila@...>
 

Chris,
Thank you VERY much!! That was a VERY helpful explanation. It really helped to clarify everything for me.....:)


Crissi
_____________________________

>I am just curious as to where the Monitor Calibration profile is
taken into account. In PS 5, it was in the RGB setup dialogue box.
A couple of anal retentive points (seeing as I'm officially A.R.):

It's important not to confuse calibration and profiling. They are two
totally different things. So what you're wondering is about the monitor
profile, equivalent to saying the monitor's ICC profile.

It's always been located in the ColorSync control panel. Version 3.0 of
ColorSync still has it in the ColorSync control panel, but if you want to
change it you need to go to the Monitors control panel.

In Photoshop 5 you could go to RGB Setup to see that Photoshop was
grabbing the appropriate monitor profile from ColorSync. You couldn't
actually select it here.

In Photoshop 6 they removed this because Photoshop 6 can do something
previous versions of Photoshop can't do. Use more than one monitor
profile at one time. Because of this they don't have room to display each
monitor's profile. For example with Photoshop 5, you could only select
one monitor profile even if you had two monitors attached to your Mac.
Photoshop 6 allows you to use a new feature in ColorSync 3 that lets you
select a monitor profile for each monitor connected to your Mac.

So what you want to do is go to the ColorSync control panel and make sure
it has your monitor profile selected there as the System Profile if you
are using ColorSync 2.6.1 or younger. This is renamed "Display Profile"
if you are using ColorSync 3.0 or higher.


(I really feel dumb asking this so please bear
with me...:)
There are no stupid questions. It's worse to have a question and not ask,
and then not have the answer.


Chris Murphy

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
colortheory-unsubscribe@egroups.com
--
DESIGN EDITOR @ The Citizen News
http://www.thecitizennews.com

DIGITAL/GRAPHIC ARTIST
http://www.crissi.com


Re: untagged tiff image 300 ppi, Opens at 72 ppi on p.s.6 (John Opitz)

Andrew Rodney <andrew@...>
 

The DCS cameras write a “special” Tiff file that really has a small B&W (color in newer cameras) preview of the file. In other words, the files you get off the DCS cameras are proprietary. There’s no color info in the file at all; it’s a grayscale file. The Acquire module is what allows you to actually end up with a real Tiff or other color file. Kodak realized that some users may not have either Photoshop or the Acquire module so what they do is write a tiny tiff header in the proprietary DCS file. That allows an art director or someone without the acquire module to at least double click on the DCS file and get some idea what’s in there. If you want the full rez file, you need to do an acquire, interpolate the color and save that data to whatever file format you wish.

Andrew Rodney


Re: Where is the monitor calibration profile taken into account in PS 6.0

Christine Holzmann <tekila@...>
 

Andrew,
Thank you....:)
That makes sense. My mind can rest at peace now. (Now all that is worrying my is where I can find the "blur option" for drop shadows in PS 6 as it was in PS 5. But I know that isn't a question for this list. If you DO have the time could you answer that at some stage too?? If not, I understand...:)

Crissi
______________________________________________





on 1/8/01 2:41 PM, Christine Holzmann at tekila@... wrote:
I selected ColorMatch as my RGB working space in that area, since I
used ColorMatch as my RGB working space in PS 5. Is this not the
correct thing to do?? Do I thus have to choose between using
Colormatch (or whatever the preferred working space is) or the
monitor profile??

That's correct. Load ColorMatch if that's what you like to use to edit your files. The display profile is ONLY used for preview purposes although in Photoshop 6, as you can see, you could load your display profile as your editing space (DON'T do that). But as you can see, the profile is there so you can at least visually see that Photoshop is using a certain display profile that you picked in Monitors (or as I somewhat incorrectly stated in the last post, ColorSync).
Actually, you pick the profile in Monitors (under OS9) and then it does show up in ColorSync to indicate it's being used on a system level, AND then Photoshop sees that and shows you this as well in the RGB Popup menu.

Andrew Rodney
eGroups Sponsor

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
colortheory-unsubscribe@...

--
DESIGN EDITOR @ The Citizen News
http://www.thecitizennews.com

DIGITAL/GRAPHIC ARTIST
http://www.crissi.com


Re: Where is the monitor calibration profile taken into account in PS 6.0

Chris Murphy <lists@...>
 

I selected ColorMatch as my RGB working space in that area, since I
used ColorMatch as my RGB working space in PS 5. Is this not the
correct thing to do??
That's fine.


Do I thus have to choose between using
Colormatch (or whatever the preferred working space is) or the
monitor profile??
Yes. Either or. I highly recommend NOT selecting your monitor for use as
a working space.


Chris Murphy


Re: Where is the monitor calibration profile taken into account in PS 6.0

Andrew Rodney <andrew@...>
 

on 1/8/01 2:41 PM, Christine Holzmann at tekila@... wrote:

I selected ColorMatch as my RGB working space in that area, since I
used ColorMatch as my RGB working space in PS 5. Is this not the
correct thing to do?? Do I thus have to choose between using
Colormatch (or whatever the preferred working space is) or the
monitor profile??

That’s correct. Load ColorMatch if that’s what you like to use to edit your files. The display profile is ONLY used for preview purposes although in Photoshop 6, as you can see, you could load your display profile as your editing space (DON’T do that). But as you can see, the profile is there so you can at least visually see that Photoshop is using a certain display profile that you picked in Monitors (or as I somewhat incorrectly stated in the last post, ColorSync).
Actually, you pick the profile in Monitors (under OS9) and then it does show up in ColorSync to indicate it’s being used on a system level, AND then Photoshop sees that and shows you this as well in the RGB Popup menu.

Andrew Rodney


Re: Where is the monitor calibration profile taken into account in PS 6.0

Chris Murphy <lists@...>
 

I am just curious as to where the Monitor Calibration profile is
taken into account. In PS 5, it was in the RGB setup dialogue box.
A couple of anal retentive points (seeing as I'm officially A.R.):

It's important not to confuse calibration and profiling. They are two
totally different things. So what you're wondering is about the monitor
profile, equivalent to saying the monitor's ICC profile.

It's always been located in the ColorSync control panel. Version 3.0 of
ColorSync still has it in the ColorSync control panel, but if you want to
change it you need to go to the Monitors control panel.

In Photoshop 5 you could go to RGB Setup to see that Photoshop was
grabbing the appropriate monitor profile from ColorSync. You couldn't
actually select it here.

In Photoshop 6 they removed this because Photoshop 6 can do something
previous versions of Photoshop can't do. Use more than one monitor
profile at one time. Because of this they don't have room to display each
monitor's profile. For example with Photoshop 5, you could only select
one monitor profile even if you had two monitors attached to your Mac.
Photoshop 6 allows you to use a new feature in ColorSync 3 that lets you
select a monitor profile for each monitor connected to your Mac.

So what you want to do is go to the ColorSync control panel and make sure
it has your monitor profile selected there as the System Profile if you
are using ColorSync 2.6.1 or younger. This is renamed "Display Profile"
if you are using ColorSync 3.0 or higher.


(I really feel dumb asking this so please bear
with me...:)
There are no stupid questions. It's worse to have a question and not ask,
and then not have the answer.


Chris Murphy