1 Correct answer
Thank you, that is helpful.
I look forward to hearing what you have to say.
Perhaps you can tell me what that document profile should be.
Explore related tutorials & articles
30
Replies
Hello D Fosse
Thank you for your reply.
The monitor is an Eizo CG277
It has 2 colour spaces set up, an Adobe RGB and an sRGB
I am working in the sRGB colour space when creating images for viewing on-line.
When I am converting the edited NEF Raw image to a JPEG I am doing it as an sRGB JPEG.
This conversion looks exactly like the original edited NEF raw when viewing through Bridge.
When I have opened them up in ACR underneath the image it says I am editing in ADOBE RGB (which I have been doing)
When I changed this to sRGB the image did not change at all, well not that I noticed.
I am assuming this is because my monitor is set to an sRGB colour space?
May I ask how I would embed the profile when converting to JPEG.
I assume ticking the box when I open the image processor in Photoshop through bridge.
May I ask what screen shots you want?
I have attached 2 images I have converted to JPEGS that look fine in Bridge but not in Windows/on web.
I have now compared these 2 images on Bridge, on this message and on Windows browser:
The 2 images look better in Bridge than on here.
ALSO, they both look better on here than on Windows browser.
Many thanks again.
You can just forget about Adobe RGB in connection to the monitor. It's irrelevant. Wide gamut monitors are just loosely referred to as "Adobe RGB" to distinguish them from standard gamut monitors. That doesn't mean they "are" Adobe RGB, because they aren't, any more than standard gamut monitors "are" sRGB. They are just fairly close.
The monitor has its own native color space. It doesn't have to match anything, Adobe RGB or otherwise. It is what it is and doesn't need to be anything else for color management to work.
Your monitor profile is a description of the monitor's native color space, just like the sRGB profile is a description of the sRGB color space. And so on. They are all standard icc profiles. It's exactly the same thing.
Here are my calibration targets/profiles at the moment. The first three are different white point and black points - I use this for output to different paper stock, to get an accurate preview on screen. You don't need to bother with that yet - but the fourth is the sRGB emulation that I use for non-color managed applications:
Adobe RGB is nowhere to be seen here. IMO that's a completely useless preset.
Here's one extremely important thing. Each of these has a corresponding profile. As I said, a profile is a description of a color space. In other words - the profile is a description of the monitor in its current, actual state. Every time I switch between these calibration targets, the profile also has to be changed to the one describing that particular behavior.
The ColorNavigator software does that automatically - but there's a catch. Photoshop loads the profile at startup and continues to use that profile until next startup. So every time you change profile, you need to relaunch Photoshop so that it can load the new profile.
That's very comprehensive Dag. You should bookmark the thread for the next person who posts with Eizo related issues. I've done that, for times you are not around. 
I used (and have as my second monitor now) an Eizo ColorEdge CG241W but wanted to upgrade the size and quality.
I went for the CG277 rather than the much newer CG2730 and CG247x as it had a good reputation among photographers.
I am learning as I progress, and even Eizo UK have been extremely helpful, I am talking to technicians rather than photographers with the knowledge. Now I am speaking to you, I believe I have that so I thank you as your help has been greatly and gratefully appreciated!
On your instruction I have now created a third native profile / calibrated target.
I have attached 3 screenshots of the Native, Adobe RGB and sRGB profiles created in ColorNavigator.
My observations looking at the 2 photographs I sent you in Bridge are:
- The images in Native and Adobe RGB profiles are very similar.
- In Native and Adobe RGB the images are richer, warmer, and more saturated and the skin tones richer. warmer and much redder in colour.
While in NATIVE I duplicated the image and re edited it again to make it look right.
I then switched the monitor to sRGB profile (which I assume most people have sRGB monitors and this is how it will look to them) and my re edited photograph looked bad. It was too pale and washed out and the skin tones made the subject look not very well.
Please can you throw some light on this for me?
OK. Here's one thing you can try if you still can't get a perfect match between Photoshop/Bridge and a color managed web browser (which you should, and which I get here).
Make a new calibration target/profile, and when you get to naming the profile, before the actual measurements start, there's a customize profile-button:
It takes you here, where you set profile policies to Version 2, and Gamma value:
The latter option makes a matrix profile, which is generally a safer option than the rather complex table-based (LUT) profiles that ColorNavigater makes by default. Most other calibrators make matrix profiles by default, but not ColorNavigator. In any case, some applications have problems with LUT profiles and may display incorrectly. In my own experience Photoshop does just fine, but Firefox has had issues with them.
Version 4 may need to be specifically enabled in the browser. There's no particular benefit to v4 over v2 anyway, so just go with v2. That's what most of us do.
Dags
In addition to my message above, below an image open in ACR one can change the colour space,
please see the 2 screenshots below.
I can change the colour space that the photograph is being editing in to any profile available to the monitor including the ones I have set up through Color Navigator.
The screenshots show an sRGB, Adobe RGB and the Native profile you encouraged me to set up.
May I kindly ask which one of these I should be editing in? Should it be the one the monitor is set to?Many thanks, again you help is appreciated!
I keep coming back to this single point that is essential for understanding how this works:
The document color space and the monitor color space do not need to match in any way. In principle, they do not need to have anything at all in common. They are completely divorced. What happens when you display an image is a translation from one to the other. This is what color management does: It recalculates all the numbers, and sends those altered numbers to the monitor, in order to preserve color and tone appearance.
For the file to be correctly represented on screen, the numbers have to be recalculated. These two color spaces can be more or less similar, but there's no way they will ever match completely, no matter how much you try to adjust the monitor. If you send the same numbers into a different color space, those numbers take on a different meaning, and the appearance changes.
For the document, you stick to standard color spaces because that makes file interchange possible. The choice depends on gamut coverage. For print you use Adobe RGB because it's large enough to contain all the colors a printer can reproduce.
For web, sRGB is the standard because that looks roughly right even without color management - provided it is viewed on a standard gamut monitor. That's about 99% of all units sold. These monitors have a native color space that is fairly close to sRGB. Not an exact match! But "fairly close" is close enough for many people.
On a wide gamut monitor, sRGB will always look oversaturated. The sRGB numbers balloon up into that larger color space, and the result is oversaturation. That's why you always need full color management with these monitors, and why you cannot use software without color management. You have to remap those numbers into the larger color space.
All this is because sRGB is the accepted standard for file interchange when color management is uncertain or missing. If Adobe RGB was the de facto standard, the situation would be the opposite - then it would look right on wide gamut units and wrong on standard ones. But of course that would lock out 99% of the users instead of 1%. You're in the minority. Take your precautions.
---
So next to the calibration parameters, white point and black point. These define the environment for color management to work within. The profile will just remap document white to monitor white, 255 to 255. It has no concept of what "white" looks like. When you set a white point, that obviously isn't absolute white, it's not the blazing white sun. It has a certain luminance value, measured in candelas per square meter, and it has a color.
Here's the trick: You want monitor white to be a visual match to paper white. You want to "see" paper white on screen. This not only puts all of us on the same page, but it translates directly to a printed image on paper. Obviously paper color varies, some are more yellow, some brighter, etc. If you don't want different targets for different papers (as I do), just settle for a "generic" paper color.
Getting that visual match depends on your whole working environment. Your perception is affected by ambient light, by wall color, even the application interface. And then not to mention what light you're viewing the actual paper in (it should be the light you want the finished print to be seen in). This is why no specific numbers can be given. What works for you won't work for me. Just get that match visually, and let the numbers fall wherever they want.
For "average" conditions, whatever that is, this usually ends up at luminance around 120 cd/m², and a color in the vicinity of 6500K on the blue/yellow axis (D65 pins it on the green/magenta axis as well). But these are average values, a rough starting point. If anyone says you "should" use these numbers, don't listen to them. If you find 100 and 6100K work better, then those are the right numbers for you.
Then to black point. This is very important and underrated. It should be a visual match to maximum ink density for that paper. It can be given as a cd/m² number, or as a contrast range relative to the white point. Just do the math. 100 and 0.5 is a 200:1 contrast ratio.
Now. A top quality inkjet print on top quality high-gloss paper has a contrast range of maximum 300:1. That's the deepest black you get. And yet monitors are sold with 1500:1, or even 2000:1 contrast ratios. You can see what happens: you're in for a massive disappointment when you see the final print. The black point has a huge impact on the final appearance. A weak black gives a generally muddy appearance. Previewing that on screen gives you the possibility to compensate.
The aim is to set white and black points so that what you see is what you get. That's the holy grail. Some people say screen and print can never match. They're wrong. You can get them to match almost to perfection.
This is the longest post I have ever written, and I normally don't have that much time on my hands. Don't expect me to do that again 
AdChoices