Problem with color management in corel to photoshop

[Laurindo]

I had the same problem, but for me settings "adobe RGB (1998)" and "apple cinema display" work fine and colours are more or less like in PS (CS2).

BUT why doesn´t PIX keep that setting? Every time I open the image in Painter again, it is less saturated and lighter than in PS. Then I go to color management and see that settings ARE right, but I must every time click OK again.

If you don´t have a mac, things are maybe different for you.

Btw, I work almost always in psd format, mainly because I have found adobe bridge so great when comparing various versions of your current work, or seeing at same time all the pictures of a project.

Lauri

[Lunatique]

Are you also noticing banding and a tilt towards purple after going back and forth between PS and Painter? If you are, update with the 9.1 patch because it fixes that problem.

[Nazuroth]

Yeah I did download the patch still doesn't seem to make a difference. It's really frustrating and since all my profs at school in illustration are traditional they can't help me. Thanks guys for your replies

[pixlart]

Hi:

Consistent color between Photoshop and Painter is achievable with the proper settings, but it all starts with a properly calibrated monitor. This can be done crudely using software-only, eyeballing-it solutions, but the best method is a hardware monitor calibrator.

Take a look at the attached file for PS/Painter settings. Also note: Painter only embeds a profile in the Photoshop (PSD) file format. It does not embed in TIF (even though it indicates that it does).

I constantly go between PS and Painter for critical photographic color work and the color is always accurate. You must manually enable CM (color management) in Painter for each image that you open. This is directly opposed to PS, in which CM is always enabled.

A quick way to enable CM in Painter is to click on the little monitor icon located above the vertical scrollbar on the right edge of any image. Even if you've got your color management settings properly configured, your image will appear washed out unless Painter's CM is manually enabled.

I hope this helps.

Viva la Painter!

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/5356/consistentcolorom5.th.jpg (http://img179.imageshack.us/my.php?image=consistentcolorom5.jpg)

[Cris-Palomino]

Thanks, John.

Cris

[pixlart]

Thanks, John.
Hi Cris!


Thanks!

[Laurindo]

Thank you, John

I had totally forgotten that handy monitor icon on scrollbar! When I some time ago changed to paint in psd format from the very beginning of a picture, I even customised a key for opening painter's CM to make enabling of settings more quickly. That small icon is a big help for my workflow.

Lauri

[pixlart]

I had totally forgotten that handy monitor icon on scrollbar! When I some time ago changed to paint in psd format from the very beginning of a picture, I even customised a key for opening painter's CM to make enabling of settings more quickly. That small icon is a big help for my workflow.

Hi Lauri:

What a difference a little icon can make!

Glad to be of service.

Viva la Painter!

[Nazuroth]

Thanks a lot John I'm gonna go print that out right away and give it a try :)

Sincerely,

Nazuroth

[frog]

May I ask why you are recommending Adobe RGB as the colour space to use John? I would personally have thought that sRGB would be a much wiser recommendation to make for any application where you are mixing your own colours on screen.

Adboe RGB is a very wide gamut colour space, so much so that it contains very saturated colours, colours which 99% of commercially available monitors are not capable of reproducing. If you mix very saturated colours in the colour palette (pure yellows, cyans or greens for instance), they will be out of your monitor's gamut and not reproduced accurately on screen. This can also lead to some serious difficulties in converting to CMYK for commercial printing.

Using sRGB is a more sensible approach, the gamut is far closer to today's monitors and therefore you are less likely to be using out of (monitor) gamut colours, with fewer surprises at later stages of your process. By using Adobe RGB you are creating colours which you simply can't preview accurately.

[Cris-Palomino]

My understanding of why you use one over the other would be based on certain considerations.

If the intended use of the art is only for web-viewing then sRGB would be suitable, but for print, the recommendation has always been made to me that it be AdobeRGB. This, primarily, because I print on high-end inkjets and they take advantage of the wider gamut and the result, for me, has always been a richer range of tones.

It will be interesting to see John's response and reasoning on this matter.

Cris

[frog]

Indeed, inkjets are just about the only device readily available that can make use of some of Adobe RGB's wider gamut, but how do you get round the problem that you are not previewing the colours on screen accurately? Since everyone uses the visual feedback from the monitor to mix colours in Painter, using a gamut that is considerably larger than one's monitor seems risky to me.

Adobe RGB is widely touted as an ideal space for certain photographic applications, and is often recommended "for print", but I personally think it does have some pitfalls due to the high saturation it can entail, so I think it should be used (and recommended) with caveats.

[pixlart]

May I ask why you are recommending Adobe RGB as the colour space to use John? I would personally have thought that sRGB would be a much wiser recommendation to make for any application where you are mixing your own colours on screen.

Adobe RGB is a very wide gamut colour space, so much so that it contains very saturated colours, colours which 99% of commercially available monitors are not capable of reproducing. If you mix very saturated colours in the colour palette (pure yellows, cyans or greens for instance), they will be out of your monitor's gamut and not reproduced accurately on screen. This can also lead to some serious difficulties in converting to CMYK for commercial printing.

Using sRGB is a more sensible approach, the gamut is far closer to today's monitors and therefore you are less likely to be using out of (monitor) gamut colours, with fewer surprises at later stages of your process. By using Adobe RGB you are creating colours which you simply can't preview accurately.

Hi:

My photographic images start as RAW files. I initially process the image in Photoshop as 16-bit files. My intent is to preserve as large a color gamut as possible. For straight photographic work, I never leave PS, so I always am working in 16-bit. In order to export these files for Painter work, I reduce them to 8-bit prior to saving as a PSD file (I always save a separate 16-bit version for maximum retained quality, as well).

In many cases, I move back and forth between PS and Painter during the course of an image project. I have Painter set up to work in AdobeRGB in order to keep from permanantly reducing the colorspace—which would occur if the image were converted to sRGB.

I always finish images in PS using Soft Proofing. This utilizes a profile for my ink/paper combination and provides a very accurate onscreen preview of the final output. The onscreen Soft Proof and the final print are never exactly the same—a comparison of the two will always show differences. Afterall, one is reflected light (the print), and the other is transmitted light (the monitor). But experience teaches you how to evaluate the monitor soft proof with these differences in mind. You have to interpret what you see on the monitor. That being said, the soft proofing method provides an accurate method for color and contrast adjustment of imagery for output.

My goal is to maintain a maximum colorspace gamut throughout the process. My images typically are finalized as inkjet printed output. Experience has shown me that I get consistent, predictable results outputting these files in AdobeRGB. Whenever I upload any of my work for the web, I convert the AdobeRGB colorspace to sRGB. This intelligently remaps the larger gamut (AdobeRGB) to the smaller gamut (sRGB) and produces a comparable image for monitor-based viewing. Of course, you can never ensure that your images will look the same on all monitors (they won't)—but by being in sRGB space, they will be within a range of acceptability for the majority of viewers.

Perhaps I should have noted that the example I posted is my preferred workflow. Others may wish to substitute the AdobeRGB colorspace for one that suits their workflow. Just be sure it is the same in both applications and that you use the PSD file format to move between the apps.

I hope this answers your questions.

Viva la Painter!

[Cris-Palomino]

And that was one of the reasons I was given to work in AdobeRGB as well. To preserve the largest gamut. My understanding was that once you went into sRGB you've lost the range you would have had in AdobeRGB. I also work with raw images.

My work is never just meant for web viewing, so I don't like to use sRGB. However, as John points out, the important factor is that both programs be working in the same color space, so then it becomes a matter of preference and intent.

Thanks for the clarification, John and for the introduction of new information, Frog. As a result of your comments, I did do a little more reading on the subject. There are definite feelings, pro and con, on the use of each color space. For the time being, I prefer to preserve the larger gamut until I see a reason to do otherwise based on this and my own findings.

Cris

[frog]

Thanks for your answers John and Cris, and I agree that in a workflow based upon RAW files from a digital camera destined for inkjet printing then Adobe RGB is indeed a sensible colour space to be using.

What might not be so clear, and which I think is worth pointing out, is that for illustration work sRGB is probably a much more sensible choice. And since we're on a forum for Painter where illustration is the primary interest I would personally recommend sRGB as the workspace of choice for most people here.

The reason being that while it may make sense for photographers to preserve as many colours as possible from their capture (in some cases anyway), for illustrators creating colours on screen and using the visual feedback from their monitors to do so, you need an accurate preview - and with current monitor technology sRGB is the best colour profile to provide this. Adobe RGB simply contains too many colours which can't be displayed.

What's more, when your work is destined for either the web or for CMYK offset printing, Adobe RGB can cause problems. Since most people here will be doing one of those I would also recommend sRGB. Inkjet printing is the exception.

[Nazuroth]

I pretty much just want what I see on the monitor to be really close to what I print at home since I sell my own work at conventions. When my blue/greens come out purple we have a problem. Since I calibrated my monitor and used John's adobe workflow which worked like a charm, thank you, things have been getting a little easier. I still have to create a printing profile with print fix plus from color vision that is accurate and than all is good. One question though, if working with AdobeRGB seems a bit to saturated or kind of off when printing or the net of for what ever reason, from my understanding wouldn't it better to go down to a smaller gamat like srgb than starting at a small one?

Thanks a lot for all your replies and advice guys I really truly appreciate it :)

Sincerely,
Nazuroth

[pixlart]

I pretty much just want what I see on the monitor to be really close to what I print at home since I sell my own work at conventions. When my blue/greens come out purple we have a problem. Since I calibrated my monitor and used John's adobe workflow which worked like a charm, thank you, things have been getting a little easier. I still have to create a printing profile with print fix plus from color vision that is accurate and than all is good. One question though, if working with AdobeRGB seems a bit to saturated or kind of off when printing for the net or for what ever reason, from my understanding wouldn't it better to go down to a smaller gamat like srgb than starting at a small one?

Hi:

For images that will be viewed on a monitor via the web, I use Photoshop's Convert to Profile dialog (Edit menu) to convert my AdobeRGB-profiled print version to sRGB and use the converted version for the web (generally scaled down quite a bit for acceptable web viewing). Painter does not possess this colorspace converting ability.

I hope this helps.

Viva la Painter!

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.