Colours in photoshop seem to have a big issue after update

[jonpxl]

Images of any colourspace and filetype are looking very off in colours in photoshop. 

I have tested on multiple devices, browsers etc and only in photoshop are the colours so off. For context, I'm woking on a series of images that I am very familiar with, have used for many yeats, printed, and used in browsers etc. So I am pretty sure that the incorrect colours are in photoshop.

I have tried to change the Edit > color settings, but the difference is very minimal.

I have tried the same images in Adobe After Effects, and although looking a little washed out, they are closer than the difference experienced in photoshop.

A screenshots is attached of the same image displayed in windows explorer, chrome browser, window image viewer and photoshop. The green one is photoshop. everything is srgb 8 bit. but my prophoto, adobe rgb etc working spaces also look all green. Even taking this screenshot into photoshop makes it even more green.

Any help greatly apprecated

[TheDigitalDog]

So ALL the applications you're viewing are color managed?

First, try disabling GPU in the preferences (Preformance tab). Any better?
If not, go to Preferences > Technology Previews... and check "Disable Native Canvas" - then restart Photoshop. Better?
If not, recalibrate and build a new ICC display profile, the old one might be corrupted.
If you are using software/hardware for this task, be sure the software is set to build a matrix not LUT profile, Version 2 not Version 4 profile.
If turning OFF GPU works, it's a GPU bug and you need to contact the manufacturer or find out if there's an updated driver for it. 
Also see: https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/acr-gpu-faq.html

[D Fosse]

So I am pretty sure that the incorrect colours are in photoshop.

By @jonpxl

I think this looks like a defective monitor profile.

As long as your monitor profile is accurate, Photoshop will always display correctly. That's the reference. This is why people use calibrators, and why a calibrator should be considered an essential Photoshop accessory.

Applications that don't support color management don't use the monitor profile at all, and so are unaffected by a bad profile.

Manufacturer profiles are often distributed through Windows Update. These profiles are very often bad, and if you don't have a calibrator, you're often better off just using sRGB IEC61966-2.1 as monitor profile. Then you should disable these updates in Windows Update.

[jonpxl]

Thanks,

I turned off my calibration profiles, and you appear to be correct. thank you

I have recently calibrated my monitors, I use hardware a calibrator.

The problem for myself with calibration, is knowing what to calibrate to. My expeieence with calibationand the calibration software either doesn't work, is outdated, or extremely complicated with too many options making it very difficult to calibrate multiple monitors to the same specifications.

Currently I use XRite iDisplay Pro + DisplayCal. But it seems I'm better off turning it all off.

[D Fosse]

I don't know DisplayCal, but the i1 Display Pro is very reliable and consistent, and probably the best mainstream colorimeter on the market. I've used it myself for many years, with Eizo software.

"Turning it all off", as you say, just means it will never be entirely correct. It will be consistent across applications, but never right. For some, that's good enough. You'll have to decide if that's good enough for you.

The last time I looked at DisplayCal I seem to remember that it had a lot of options. The general advice I can give here is to keep it simple. Don't get lost in all the options.

Two things frequently cause problems, and digitaldog mentioned both above. One is the icc version 4 specification. Choose version 2 instead. There aren't really any advantages to v4, just a lot more that can go wrong.

The other is table-based (LUT-based) profiles. Avoid that too. What you want is a matrix profile, which can go under many names. Sometimes it's just called "Curves". It's the same thing.

LUT profiles are supposedly more accurate, but that's theoretical. Matrix profiles are more than accurate enough. The problem with LUT is that the profile is a lot heavier and more complex, and, again, a lot more that can go wrong.

So I'd recommend running DisplayCal again, and keep the settings simple. Set white point at D65 and 120 cd/m², which will be a good starting point for now.

And I need to emphasize again: if the monitor profile is accurate, Photoshop will display correctly. Applications that don't use the monitor profile will display incorrectly. They won't match, and they're not supposed to.

[Per Berntsen]

Yes, DisplayCAL can be overwhelming, for instance all the options for Profile type.

I use Curves + matrix, not sure if that's the one I should use.

DisplayCAL will not let you create a version 4 profile, there is no option for it.

[TheDigitalDog]

Not calibrating and profiling is not the solution.

If this is a new issue with that software product, it's likely just a corruption of the profile so start over again as you did in the past.

[D Fosse]

Curves+matrix seems like a sensible option. That should reflect the actual tone response curve of the display better than an idealized gamma curve.

But I can see why a beginner might turn 180 degrees and walk right back when they see this 😉

[NB, colourmanagement net]

Jonpxl, My approach to display screen calibration/profiling is to work to an unequivocal visual reference. [I like the basICColor display 6 software for this].

And always check appearance in Photoshop, non colour managed applications are a waste of time for image assessment.

I would start out at 120 candelas luminance and with a white point somewhere around 5800 degrees Kelvin (possibly D58 if available, those two target values are close but not identical:

D58/D5800 is a bit more cyan/green compared to 5800K

5800K is a bit more magenta compared to D58/D5800)

Next, assess the appearance. I use this certified proof as reference. 

Sadly, no one can advise you on the exact calibration target settings that suit your viewing environment [and - to some extent - your own personal perception].

Example: I've calibrated a client site [Eizo Coloredge] screen resulting in what looked like a perfect match to me (matching a certified proof in a certified D50 print viewing light box) only to have the client think the screen looked too warm compared to the proof. Eventually, a process of iteration** resulted in what they considered a perfect proof to screen match [for him but not me*] at D65.

[*Is that an issue? No as long as their screen matches, that’s the golden result].

I have calibrated/profiled screens with hundreds of clients and never ever (apart from with this one guy) arrived at a satisfactory calibration the client agreed upon using D65 as a target.

So - literally -your one perception may mean you use different values and get a match. It’s the MATCH that’s important NOT the targeted values.

Who cares how you aim the crossbow as long as you get the bullseye.

(**"iteration" = testing target values either side of current to sense required direction of adjustment [sometimes called bracketing])

I hope this helps
neil barstow, colourmanagement net :: adobe forum volunteer:: Co-Author:Getting Colour Right
google me "neil barstow colourmanagement" for lots of free articles on colour management

[jonpxl]

Hi Everyone,

Thanks sooo much for this. I was able to get rasonable results after reading what everyone had to say on the matter.

My monitors are calibrated to eachother close enough, and they are looking again a bit more in line with how my images look when printed (with my print profile and modifications) as well as how they look on the web and importantly other devices. Obviously there is variation, but so long as everything is in the same area, then that's good enough.

I have a contact sheet of sorts of all images in a series, so even if my ccalibration goes off, or I get a new computer, I always have the image pool to reference.

I went for curve + matrix, 5800K. Another technique that helped with DisplayCal, was when using the interactive measurement option for my external display - to reduce colour values rather than increase, then increase the brightness if necessary. This avoided burning out the top end, even though the white point and level had been reached. Until that point, I was wondering why all my UI looked so awful when trying to match the ideal start point settings.

Regarding my actual images, they still look a little muddy green rather than the blues that I tend to work with, but it's workable and matching between the monitors.

Thanks!

[NB, colourmanagement net]

"Regarding my actual images, they still look a little muddy green rather than the blues that I tend to work with, but it's workable and matching between the monitors."

Maybe your images need colour correction?

Once the screen/s are accurate (matched to an accurate reference) then we know Photoshop's display  is accurate, so any image deficiencies will perhaps indicate a need for colour correction. 

Display calibrationis not about "preference" it's about accuracy.

I hope this helps
neil barstow, colourmanagement net :: adobe forum volunteer:: Co-Author:Getting Colour Right
google me "neil barstow colourmanagement" for lots of free articles on colour management