Re: White is not 'White', it is YELLOW!

D Fosse · ‎Sep 03, 2015

The interesting thing about this thread is that the very first reply is the correct one, and is even marked as correct by the OP. But they still keep coming in, and nobody seems to make the connection. Yes, Naktaube, you have a bad display profile, coming either from the Dell "installation" CD or through Windows Update. Either way, the problem is the Dell profile. You're on the right track with "ignore profile". What it does is throw out the Dell profile and replace it with sRGB. You can also do this manually in Windows > Control Panel > Color management: Post #6 explains the procedure in detail. I'd just like to add that you also need to relaunch Photoshop so that it can pick up the new profile at startup. And of course that the real solution is to use a calibrator to make a new custom display profile. But for most people a generic profile like sRGB is close enough. I suppose the non-intuitive part in this is why a bad display profile should affect only Photoshop and not the other applications. This is because Photoshop is color managed and will actually use the profile, while the others are not and just ignore it - or, as in your case, different color managed apps react differently to a bad profile. Most people think a display profile is something global that should affect everything equally. It isn't. It is used strictly on application level, not OS level. The OS just makes it available for the apps if they want to use it.

D Fosse · ‎Sep 02, 2015

Chuck Uebele wrote: The star filter? It is very cool! Yup, that's it. I love it. At first I wrote it off as a cheap effect, but it turns out it can really give a shot that extra punch. Don't overdo it, that's the ticket But I'm also impressed with Noel's implementation and the UI in general. Very intuitive and efficient.

D Fosse · ‎Sep 02, 2015

Bo LeBeau wrote: a bit combative, just ask Chris Cox. ...or ask me . Anyway, He mellowed out and so did I. We're on great terms now. I'm also testing one of his plugins, which is really excellent.

D Fosse · ‎Sep 02, 2015

Ah, Marian Driscoll...aka Jim Oblak. Never understood why everybody hated him so much. You could go through all his posts and there was not one single word of BS there. All to the point and factually correct to the letter. But he was a hard nail and just wouldn't let go... Loved his various aliases too. The "Marian" twist was brilliant, threw everybody off. But my favorite is "deafeningechochamber". You had to be there... If there are PS forum legends, he's up there with Phos±4dots, dave milbut, buko, John Joslin, Ho, Ramôn and the others. It was fun back then...

D Fosse · ‎Sep 02, 2015

Terri, ask yourself this: why am I here? Me, I'm here out of curiosity. I might pick up something, even learn something. If there's a question I know the answer to, I reply, if I don't have anything better to do. No big deal. The instant I feel I'm wasting time, I just leave and do something else. It's my own time and I decide how to spend it, not some kid who just got Photoshop for his birthday and doesn't know pixels from popcorn. If I have time, I don't mind pointing the kid in the right direction. It doesn't have to be an essay, and I don't even expect to be thanked. In short, it's just an internet forum and this is how they all work.

D Fosse · ‎Sep 02, 2015

Well, it's not all that bad IMO. Even if the OP doesn't respond, others might pick up something. I used to say that we didn't primarily respond to help the OP, but to learn ourselves in preparing the responses. And the poster gets help as well, so we all win. I'm actually more concerned with the rapid turnover. Posts drop off the horizon so fast nowadays, that unless you take time to check in very frequently, you miss half of them. That's the main reason I half-dropped out (I used to be a frequent contributor). Now I only have time to pick posts that seem within my particular areas of interest, on the basis of title alone, and I let the others pass. I just don't have time to read them all. Can a forum be too busy for its own good? I tend to head over to Luminous Landscape now, where the pace is more leisurely, and discussions much more in-depth because of it.

D Fosse · ‎Sep 01, 2015

Answered in your other thread.

D Fosse · ‎Aug 04, 2015

sishamDSS wrote: I would create it at 200-300dpi so the final output would come in at 480x240 inches at 50-75dpi Why? You gain nothing, the file is the exact same size. You still have the same number of pixels. To Photoshop it makes no difference whatsoever. Resolution (ppi) is just metadata. It can be changed arbitrarily according to desired output size after the fact, at any time, without affecting the file itself. You can use the very same file for a book, or a poster, or a large banner. All you need to do is change the ppi figure according to desired physical print size. EDIT: The point I'm trying to make, in short, is that telling people to design at quarter size is a red herring. It confuses the issue, confuses people, and adds unnecessary noise to the conversation.

D Fosse · ‎Aug 03, 2015

The quarter size advice is meaningless. You need a certain number of pixels to fill a certain angle of view. This is how you need to think: So from how far away will it be seen? Obviously you won't stick your nose into a banner this size. If from across the street, 25 ppi is usually good enough. A high resolution photograph of good technical execution, say 7000 to 10000 pixels, will normally work whatever size. The bigger the banner, the further away, so the net perceived effect is the same.

D Fosse · ‎Jul 01, 2015

Still seems Mac-specific. I have absolutely identical black levels between Lr/PS on a Win7 system, using an Eizo CG246 and ColorNavigator v6. But all my current profiles are matrix, not LUT (mainly because Firefox has for a long time had problems with LUT profiles, known issue).

D Fosse · ‎Jun 12, 2015

And you're positive that a resolution of 300 ppi is really required for this? That's a 35000-pixel wide file. There's no way that can ever get "small". In fact I'm surprised you get as low as 1GB. Normally, 300 ppi is for books and magazines, held right in front of your nose.

D Fosse · ‎Jun 03, 2015

It seems the point has been hammered well down by now, so I'll just sum it up: CMYK is a can of worms. Don't open it unless it's absolutely necessary. In addition, CMYK is very much dependent on geography. Here in Europe, most commonly used are either ISO Coated (eci) 300%, or Coated FOGRA39. SWOP isn't used anywhere, and the Photoshop default is probably responsible for more bad color here than anything else. People just hit Image Mode > CMYK without any idea what they're doing. ISO Coated isn't even in the Photoshop installation, you have to download it. But it's not bad as CMYK goes. It's pretty wide gamut, and you need Adobe RGB (and a wide gamut monitor) to cover it.

D Fosse · ‎Apr 29, 2015

Photoshop preserves any incoming embedded profiles (as it should). That will always override the working space. So what you need to do is set Lightroom preferences:

D Fosse · ‎Apr 26, 2015

I see a reasonable explanation in Eric's post: Second, GPUs are marvelous at high-speed computation, but there's some overhead. For example, it takes time to get data from the main processor (CPU) over to the GPU. In the case of high-res images and big screens, that can take a LOT of time. This means that some operations may actually take longer when using the GPU, such as the time to load the full-resolution image, and the time to switch from one image to another. While cards that are 4 to 5 years old may technically work, they may provide little to no benefit over the regular CPU when processing images in Lr, and in some cases may be slower. Higher-end GPUs from the last 2 to 3 years should work better. Bottom line - if OpenGL doesn't speed things up, just turn it off. If that's still slower than 5.7, there's a legitimate reason for concern. Otherwise you're no worse off. The way I read this, the main immediate priority was to make 4K and 5K usable. I trust further optimization for the rest of us will come in future releases.

D Fosse · ‎Apr 22, 2015

Another "me too"-post. Radeon HD 6670, driver updated from AMD less than a week ago.

D Fosse · ‎Apr 21, 2015

Excellent. Thank you EDIT: the "thank you" was for Madison, but goes for Jerry's poem as well. That's almost uncanny... ...come to think of it, there may be yet another account...no. Stop that thought.

D Fosse · ‎Apr 20, 2015

Yes, that's perfectly fine, Madison, if you could do that. 1970 points is about as much as I can handle anyway I mostly posted because it was kind of funny bumping into oneself this way (here's one whose career has come to a dead end - oh wait, there's something familiar with that face...)

D Fosse · ‎Apr 17, 2015

Ah, well, who knows what mischief my shadow self can come up with...better strip him of his weapons... Appreciate the concern. Thank you, and go ahead if it's not too much trouble. But just for the record - I'm really not here for the points.

D Fosse · ‎Apr 17, 2015

Goes to show how ridiculous the whole thing is. No, I don't want my alter ego's points. He can have them...

D Fosse · ‎Apr 12, 2015

I think you need to forget everything you think you know and take it all from the start. If your prints are too dark, your monitor is too bright. Yes, it really is that simple. All this provided you are using the correct printer profile for your printer/paper/ink. These are typically called things like <printer name> premium glossy photo and so on, depending on the paper used. Also remember to set the correct paper type in the printer driver. This controls the total amount of ink. Adobe RGB is the document profile. That's something entirely different. There are two profiles involved here and both need to be right.

D Fosse · ‎Mar 17, 2015

LupeRamirez wrote: Do you guys think I should stick to a mac book pro? There's little room in my heart for anything Apple, but when it comes to laptops - yeah, I think the MBP is the best out there. Very sensible machine, well worth the price. Good display too.

D Fosse · ‎Feb 09, 2015

Er, I don't think we should confuse the issue by dragging InDesign into this, a page layout program that naturally deals in physical print size only...100% does not have the same meaning in InDesign as it has in Photoshop.

D Fosse · ‎Feb 09, 2015

Well, have it your way then. You've been given the answer, but refuse to accept it, which I suppose is your right. I don't really care one way or the other.

D Fosse · ‎Feb 09, 2015

The browsers are scaling. That's part of the "retina support". Photoshop isn't, because its purpose in life is to be accurate. 72 dpi is irrelevant on screen. That's for printing on paper. Screen resolution is a fixed pixel grid. You can't adjust resolution on screen as you can on paper.

D Fosse · ‎Feb 09, 2015

You're not getting it. The retina screen has higher resolution. That means the screen pixels are smaller, because there are more of them. This is what Retina is all about, and what you paid good money for. And since screen pixels are smaller, the image displays smaller at 100%. 100% means that one image pixel is represented by one screen pixel. Not more, not less.

D Fosse · ‎Feb 07, 2015

D Fosse · ‎Feb 07, 2015

The image is not "too small" - your screen has more pixels, therefore smaller pixels, therefore higher resolution. That's the whole point of a Retina display! 100% simply means that one image pixel is represented by one screen pixel. 1:1. Now consider what that means. UI scaling, however, is a different matter. But that doesn't affect the image display.

D Fosse · ‎Feb 03, 2015

I work as photographer at an art museum, and obviously "correct" color is always an issue. For color-critical work I always include a ColorChecker in the shot - not to make profiles, but used as a first target for adjusting tone and color in Lightroom (some final tweaking is always necessary). Anyway - my experience is that the Adobe Standard profile, for the Nikon D800, is the one that consistently requires the least amount of adjustments to get there. It may look "dull", but it is the most neutral of all the profiles, and that's what I need. I use the DNG Profile Editor for non-standard light sources only (fluorescent or LED). I basically don't care what the camera LCD shows, except as a hint that my exposure is roughly right. The work starts when I have the shots up in Lightroom. I'm not saying the other profiles are "bad". It's nothing personal, just business

D Fosse · ‎Feb 03, 2015

I've been thinking of replacing my Radeon with a FirePro, but I get the feeling it's not really worth the trouble. Especially not with a hardware-calibrated unit like an NEC PA or Eizo CG/CX, where the 8 bits are utilized fully, coming out of a high bit monitor LUT. It might be a different matter for a video card-calibrated display, where the 8 bits are used to perform the actual adjustments. Here banding is a very real concern. And to be honest I'm not really ready for the ugly Basic mode in Win 7 (sans Aero). I make my living through aesthetic considerations, and these things matter when I have to look at it for ten hours a day...

D Fosse · ‎Feb 01, 2015

trshaner wrote: Virtually all 10 bit/color monitors available today use 8 bit/color panels and advanced Frame Rate Control to create the "illusion" of two additional bits of data onscreen using temporal dithering. That seems to be the case. Here's the TFT-central listing of 27" AH-IPS panels from LG Display (although no data for the last item): These are the panels used in all recent high-end monitors, with the exception of the CG-xx6 generation of Eizo ColorEdges, which used PLS panels from Samsung. They are probably 8 bit + FRC as well, although no information is available. Eizo just called these panels "IPS". In fact the only true 10-bit panel in recent use that I know of, was the 24" panel more or less custom made by LG for the hp Dreamcolor LP2480ZX - at the time an extremely expensive unit. Now it can be had for only $600-ish. It also used true RGB LED array backlighting (as did the even more expensive NEC MultiSync 2180WG before that). And to conclude this brief history, Eizo made the world's first wide gamut monitor in 2004 (CG220).

D Fosse

D Fosse

Activity

Re: White is not 'White', it is YELLOW!

Re: Wasting Contributors Time

Re: Wasting Contributors Time

Re: Wasting Contributors Time

Re: Wasting Contributors Time

Re: Wasting Contributors Time

Re: Defective monitor profile

Re: How is the working size of 40 feet X 20 feet b...

Re: How is the working size of 40 feet X 20 feet b...

Re: Lightroom 5 ICC profiles clipped shadows under...

Re: How to create small size PDF in Photoshop

Re: How do I export a file with a CMYK color profi...

Re: How do I set sRGB as my default color space?

Re: GPU notes for Lightroom CC (2015)

Re: GPU Acceleration not working

Re: Just met myself in the stairs...

Re: Just met myself in the stairs...

Re: Just met myself in the stairs...

Just met myself in the stairs...

Re: Photos printing darker than monitor

Re: Would anyone recommend a Lenovo Yoga 3 pro for...

Re: Photoshop 100% 72dpi is too small on Mac Retin...

Re: Photoshop 100% 72dpi is too small on Mac Retin...

Re: Photoshop 100% 72dpi is too small on Mac Retin...

Re: Photoshop 100% 72dpi is too small on Mac Retin...

Re: Lightroom 5 importing photos in random order

Re: Photoshop 100% 72dpi is too small on Mac Retin...

Re: Camera Calibration - which Profile to use?

Re: PS cc and 30 bit

Re: PS cc and 30 bit