How to turn off all colour management?

[ShawClan]

I need to have Photoshop show me an image without any colour management at all.

However, no matter what settings I try the image in Photoshop always looks different to the same image opened in a program that is not ICC complient.

This is causing me serious problems.

What do I need to do to turn off all ICC management?

[Chris Cox]

His workflow also links/combines the adjustments for the input space (negative stock), creative adjustments (artistic intent), output space (print stock), and his display all in one big table.  (sometimes the print stock is not in there, and added as an adjustment or additional correction at a later stage)

Yeah, it's really error prone.

[ShawClan]

Wow, that just shows how little is understood of the actual calibration

process for DI.

This is not a workflow 'he' has defined.

It is the workflow adopted by the whole of the film industry...

There is no link for creative adjustment.

The LUT just links the image data to a final deliverable, via an

intermediate display system used during creative decision making.

Often film is not even in the path - it may be Rec709, P3, DCI XYZ...

Real easy. And very,, very accurate.

As I said, we fully understand ICC profiles, and what they are capable of,

and how they work.

But how any format with 'black-point compensation' can be deemed as

accurate???

However, this conversation is degrading now.

People have been kind enough to answer my questions, and we have a solution.

Thanks again.

[Chris Cox]

No, at least some of the film industry has moved beyond those primitive methods.

And there is no single, well defined color correction workflow in the film industry - that is part of the problem.

Also, again, you keep showing a lack of understanding of ICC profiles and color managed workflows.

If you understood it, you wouldn't be making such ridiculous claims.

[ShawClan]

Ok, I'll bite...

What global film post-production facilities have you worked with?

What film projects have you been involved with?

What production have you supervised?

What DI workflows have you designed?

What credits do you have for any such work?

:o)

[Chris Cox]

You mean other than writing the code in Photoshop, working with all the standards bodies, driving the research, creating the technologies, and teaching the authors, teachers, and evangelists who eventually teach you?

Gee, not much.

I'm just the guy that the experts go to for answers.

(also, our NDAs would prevent me from answering all of your questions)

[ShawClan]

Yup, that's what I though.

A manufacturer...

:o(

[ShawClan]

No, we profile all the displays and the film path as well, as I mentioned

previously.

There is no visual aspect to the profiling we are discussing here.

For the lower-end operations this is used, and we do describe this to help

understanding.

What we are discussing here is total calibration - no monitor working space.

These two, or more, profiles (say film and display) are then used to

generate a LUT to match one device to the other - usually the digital

display to the film profile.

One of the real problems is profiling the film path - as is outlined on the

website under 'Film Profiling'. It's not an easy process at all.

This full profiling manages all the process control, obviously.

[p_d_f]

"No, we profile all the displays and the film path as well, as I mentioned

previously.

There is no visual aspect to the profiling we are discussing here.

For the lower-end operations this is used, and we do describe this to help

understanding.

What we are discussing here is total calibration - no monitor working space."

I'm a little confused here. If you aren't using your calibrated monitor space as your working space, and you don't have a defined working/editing space, then what exactly are you using to define the color space that the video is in prior to converting it to your output, be it film or some digital space?

"These two, or more, profiles (say film and display) are then used to

generate a LUT to match one device to the other - usually the digital

display to the film profile."

If your source is the digital display and the destination is your film profile, then it sure seems like you're working in "Monitor RGB"

"One of the real problems is profiling the film path - as is outlined on the

website under 'Film Profiling'. It's not an easy process at all."

Having profiled film of various sorts, I know how difficult it can be, and especially how difficult color neg is. What I still don't understand is how you compensate for the invariable shifts in both chemical process and film stock, and keep a valid profile. Unless you have personal control over the lab chemistry, that alone can lead you all over the map.

[ShawClan]

The display can be any 'format', and is often P3, but it doesn’t matter, so

long as the gamma and gamut is great enough to match to the desired

deliverable. As the display is profiled that takes care of understanding

what the display shows for any given input value.

The actual input 'video' is not relevant as it is 'pushed' into the correct

'space' via the calibration LUT in combination with the grading process.

If the delivery is film the neg and print are profiled via an automated

densitometer system using a set of calibration flats, similar to those used

to profile the digital display. The neg and print density readings are used

to generate accurate XYZ values, which form the profile data. The neg and

print values are used to ensure accurate calibration. Many lower quality

systems use the print alone.

The lab processing is then watched carefully and at any sign of variation

the profiling is repeated.

Top facilities perform this profiling on a daily basis!

There really is no alternative for accurate calibration.

[Chris Cox]

Again, you're describing error prone techniques from the 80s.

There are many alternatives - most of them better, faster, and more accurate.

[ShawClan]

Ok, again I'll bite...

Go for it, describe an alternative workflow, and name the high-end post

facilities that use them, and the systems they use them with, including

digital processes as well as chemical. Oh, and name some DI projects that

have been finished this way.

But, be aware that we work with most if not all the major post facilities

around the globe...

I look forward to this reply. I may learn something.

[Chris Cox]

Again, as you well know, NDAs with the companies prevent me from documenting their workflows and procedures.

[ShawClan]

(ROFL)

Unless you only have one customer no NDA will stop you discussing a

theoretical workflows. How else will other customers understand what's

possible?

I for one would be very interested in you ideas.

Separately I have been discussing with my clients the concept of ICC based

calibration for DI, and not one has understood the possibilities.

So, now is your chance to alter the future of the business...

[gator soup]

I have been discussing with my clients the concept of ICC based

calibration for DI, and not one has understood the possibilities.

This reminds me of the printing industry a few years back:

The classic example is the old-school print shop's clueless "color expert" who ignores our embedded profile, because he says, he has "turned color management off" and "doesn't use profiles."

He tells us our file is bad because his print is bad, and he will try to correct our bad color and print another round of proofs.

Does this sound familiar?

What the cave man actually did was strip our embedded file of its profile, and/or he Applied-Assumed-Assigned his own working space to our file — then he takes a sledgehammer and beats our color up into his closed workflow....

Of course, savvy print workflows today have adopted color management steps and modern standards of CMYK mixes, ie, ICC profiles, to make their lives less of a crap shoot.

If I know what the "mix" is — I can PROOF (view) and edit source files faithfully in Photoshop on calibrated monitors, and I can PROOF (view) it faithfully on a printed contract print before sending it downstream.

Moreover, if I CONVERT my color to the proper "mix" (profile) of CMYK (or your target DI standard), I can send it successfully downstream tagged or untaged — the danger occures (just like in the printing industry) when someone downstream wants to look at the file (or make a conversion) and doesn't understand what he's doing...

You may find this basic rant useful for the theory: www.gballard.net/psd/cmstheory.html

+++++++

I like to think of Photoshop (in the context of this discussion) as merely a PROOFING device to evaluate the color.

For that you will need a good ICC profile for your Target/Destination viewing space — and learn how Photoshop (and unmanaged proofing devices) deal with profiles and color spaces)...just like the print industry is doing.

Otherwise, as Chris said, you are working in the 1980s.

[ShawClan]

Sorry, I didn't mean my customers don't understand ICC profiles - they are

actually very competent with them - what they can't see is any benefit for

an ICC based workflow over a LUT based one, or indeed how an ICC based

workflow for DI would work.

Sorry for the confusion.

We have no problem at all with the calibration workflow in use for the film

and tv industry, and you see it every day you go to the cinema or watch tv.

We understand, and use, ICC profiles for print all the time, so please stop

this 'you don't understand' approach.

For DI workflows the hoops ICC profiles make you go through are just not yet

making their use worth while.

If we could talk to someone who actually used ICC profiles for a DI workflow

then we would be interested.

You must understand that Photoshop is only ever a very small component in a

DI operation, and only ever works on a few frames form the project, and

never for colour critical work.

The likes of Mistika, Pablo, Lustre, Resolve, Scratch, FilmMaster, etc, etc,

are the key DI systems out there and none use ICC profiles.

All - and I mean all - rely on close-loop LUT based calibration.

[gator soup]

Okay, I'll bite

We understand, and use, ICC profiles for print all the time, so please stop

this 'you don't understand' approach.

I got very confused following this thread so I went back to the OP:

I need to have Photoshop show me an image without any colour management at all.
However, no matter what settings I try the image in Photoshop always looks different to the same image opened in a program that is not ICC complient.

This is causing me serious problems.

What do I need to do to turn off all ICC management?

Hmmm...

[ShawClan]

Yep, that was the whole reason for this thread...

Which was answered by someone pointing out Photoshop doesn't always act on

menu changes until re-booted - what I would call a bug.

Once that was pointed out the original questions was answered. I had

everything set as I though it should be, but it wasn't working. A re-boot

and all was ok.

The rest of the thread has just been a diversion, and a bit of fun.

[Chris Cox]

>Which was answered by someone pointing out Photoshop doesn't always act on

>menu changes until re-booted - what I would call a bug.

Color-wise, Photoshop acts on changes immediately.

The only things that require a relaunch are VM and memory related changes.

[Noel Carboni]

Chris Cox wrote:

Color-wise, Photoshop acts on changes immediately.

The only things that require a relaunch are VM and memory related changes.

Sorry Chris, but I have to break with you on this one.  No reboot is required, but a relaunch of Photoshop is required under some conditions.  For example...

Try this experiment:

1.  Open an image; something with bright colors.

2.  Select View - Proof Setup, then select Monitor RGB.  Note that the image now looks as it normally does in a non-color-managed app, such as Internet Explorer.

3.  Select a funky monitor profile as the default in Windows 7, via the Control Panel - Color Management panel, ticking the [ ] Use my settings for this device box.  Pick a profile that's extreme so that your document looks visibly different, color-wise.  If you don't have such a profile on hand, let me know, I have one called MaxRGB.icc just for testing profile changes.

4.  Note that the color of your open document changes from what it looked like in step 2, even though View - Proof Colors is still selected.

5.  Try selecting View - Proof Setup - Monitor RGB again.  Note that the image does not change and does not look like it did in step 2.

6.  Now close Photoshop and reopen it.  Open the same image as above and select View - Proof Colors, and note that your document's colors now look like they did in step 2.

Clearly the profile Photoshop considers "Monitor RGB" in the Proof Setup dialog is not being reloaded except when starting the app.  This can confuse people experimenting with color management changes.

-Noel

[Chris Cox]

It means that for some reason we're not getting the notification that the display profile changed.

Yeah, there's a bug there somewhere.  (and it used to get picked up correctly!)

Which OS are you testing on?

[Noel Carboni]

Chris Cox wrote:

Which OS are you testing on?

Windows 7 Ultimate x64, fully updated.

-Noel

[Chris Cox]

OK, we're looking into the display notification problem.

One QE tried it and couldn't reproduce, and I'm asking others to take a look (and double check our test matrix to verify that we tested that case).

[Noel Carboni]

If it makes a difference I have an ATI 4670 card and Catalyst 10.9 drivers.  I'm not sure how much the video driver is involved in this particular operation.

-Noel

[tom attix]

Noel-

Can you try this with the GPU setting set to OFF (it's in the Performance settings in Preferences). You'll need to set the preference first and then open the image.

-Tom Attix

[Chris Cox]

>We have no problem at all with the calibration workflow in use for the film

>and tv industry, and you see it every day you go to the cinema or watch tv.

What I see in cinema and TV is color all over the map, and effects that look horrid because of simple color mistakes (couldn't match the white point, black point, etc.).  Oh, and overuse of cyan/orange color schemes.

ICC profiles are a superset of LUT based workflows, with better standardization, better developed tools, generally more precision, better support in software, etc.

And ICC profiles make you go through LESS hoops than you do with your current LUTs, because they can be attached to files, interpreted unambiguously, are tied to color standards instead of just values, and are far more flexible.