Absolutely. A request for unspecified "CMYK" is a sure sign of an outdated process and people out of touch with modern color management. I wouldn't trust them for a second. Adobe RGB is the current industry standard because it allows prepress to easily repurpose the file if press conditions change. Soft proofing is a different matter, but no point as long as they don't give you a specific profile. ... View more

The thing is that it's adaptive, so it's really different from image to image. The sliders don't perform the same fixed operations. As for me, I was a bit uncomfortable with the old basic panel, since I found it difficult to visualize what the sliders were supposed to do. Recovery, fill light...I just couldn't relate to that (and recovery in particular didn't really work as advertised). So I tended to rely on Photoshop for the final touches, using smart objects and lots of adjustment layers, ending up with massively complex files. Highlights, shadows, whites and blacks - that I can understand. And on top, PV 2012 is so effective that I now usually finish the image in Lightroom, never even touching Photoshop except in special cases. It's a huge relief, and it has made my life a lot simpler. Actually I believe Lightroom has made me a better photographer. Knowing the image will end up in Photoshop sooner or later, it's so tempting to get lazy and say "I'll fix that later" instead of taking the trouble to get the lights right, physically remove disturbing elements, in short get it right in camera. The final image always benefits. And, it turns out, takes less time. ... View more

Can't be done, and rightly so. If something goes wrong in transfer your images may be lost. The safe way to do this is to use a card reader, and format the card in the camera afterwards. After a while it becomes routine. ... View more

Well, I gave up on HP some time ago, for precisely this reason. They make good hardware, but they insist on doing all the thinking for you. "Just push this button, everything's taken care of"...I hate that. I'm a bit surprised that icc profiles actually exist for this printer, because HP is known not to do that, at least for the consumer models. But if they don't show up, what's the use. ... View more

I think John means where does he set the printer profile. The internal space in Lr is of course linear Prophoto, which you can't change nor ever need to, but that is converted to the printer profile when it is sent to print (just as it is converted to the monitor profile when sent to the display). It's here, in the Print Job panel: Try to click "other" and see if there's anything there. ... View more

This is getting interesting. That's four people so far, myself included, who experienced the same thing: 4.3 RC resolved all performance problems, 4.3 final returned them. The odds of this being mere coincidence are diminishing, although I suppose it still could be. So what happened between RC and final? Are the Lr engineers testing something, but decided to hold back full implementation a while longer? I hope so. Either way, it tells us that this thing can perform like any other software, it is not our machines that are underpowered. ... View more

bob frost wrote: Is Color Eyes making v2 or v4? It's optional. I think the default is v2, in any case I've always stuck with that. It's notable that many canned profiles (shipped with monitors) have been v4 lately (this surfaced in the PS forum IIRC). But those profiles are notoriously bad in so many ways that they should be avoided at all costs, few manufacturers get it right. Usually sRGB, or Adobe RGB for wide gamut, is much better. The problem is that many people just run the disc that comes with the monitor, not knowing what it installs. ... View more

bob frost wrote: Eizo ColorNavigator software produces LUT profiles which seem to work fine. It's probably not LUT profiles as such, only those made by CEDP. If Lightroom spends a great deal of its time reading in the monitor profile (as someone else found out a while ago), a small error could rapidly turn into considerable slowdowns. I don't know how Eizo's ColorNavigator software (for ColorEdge monitors) differs from EasyPix (for Flexscans), but it's likely that they write profiles in basically the same way - but with an expanded feature set and possibly higher precision. As I noted above, I don't have any problems with EasyPix. Actually it gives vastly better results than CEDP on my two Flexscans, even if I use the same sensor - probably because it calibrates to the monitor's internal 10-bit LUT instead of the video card. As for the profile itself, some calibrators have been known to cause problems in Photoshop in the past, not strictly following protocol, so errors can happen. ... View more

Back to ColorEyes Display Pro: I haven't uninstalled completely, but did disable it from startup, set sRGB as default monitor profile at OS level, and rebooted. I verified in Photoshop that sRGB was indeed the active monitor profile. No change in Lr. But actually it's not so bad now, after switching from LUT-based to matrix-based profiles. In Library, 1:1 previews render in about a second. In Develop, switching between images likewise takes about a second until the image snaps and the sliders become active. The sliders themselves are still a bit jerky, but basically follow the cursor and the image updates accordingly. I guess this is as good as it gets. With the LUT profiles, 4.3 was really, really slow. Still, it baffles me why the RC apparently handled that while the final didn't... ... View more

bob frost wrote: I seem to remember someone else with problems was using Color Eyes Display software. Have you tried uninstalling it and just using a simple sRGB profile as a test? Or using the Eizo software on both? Yes, I read the same re ColorEyes a couple of days ago, which is what got me thinking. Up to now I haven't been all that worried since the machine is on its way out anyway. I know I should test this ASAP, but there's always some urgent work so I keep putting it off...it'll have to be plain old sRGB because the Eizo software won't work with those monitors. I'll see what I can find out. What's certain is that LUT vs matrix made a difference. ... View more

Victoria Bampton wrote: Don't forget to include details such as your system specs Not to sound too negative, but people have been doing that since day one of 4.0, and still nothing even remotely resembling a pattern has emerged. Hardware-wise, it's just completely random. Yes, PV 2012 is CPU-intensive, but old single core laptops churn happily along while high-end octo-core workstations choke. I have two systems, one has performed well ever since 4.0, the other one (although older) has had problems in varying degrees with the different versions. Two things that helped were updating video card driver and swithing from LUT to matrix-based monitor profiles. Still, there is something odd going on, and those two things were clearly relieving symptoms but not curing the disease. Good machine: Core i5 750 (the only quad-core i5), Gigabyte UD3 mobo, H55 chipset, 16 GB DDR3. Win 7 pro 64-bit. Bad machine (old, but still performing as new): Core2Duo E6750, Asus P5K, P35 chipset, 8GB DDR2. Vista business 64-bit. Video card identical, ATI HD 5850, same driver version. Software installed identical, the two machines are kept synchronized at all times so that I can work on either. WITH ONE EXCEPTION: calibration software. Good machine Eizo EasyPix, bad machine Color Eyes Display Pro. --- I'll be replacing the Vista machine in a month or two, and when I do, I'll install Lightroom on a completely naked OS and test for each piece of software added. If time, I'd also like to do the same with the old machine before it's ditched, just out of curiosity. ... View more

Someone in that other thread reported 4.3 RC solving his slowness problems - only to have them return full force with the final 4.3 release. That made me jump, because that's exactly what happened here too. Of course I have no clue why that should be. He was on Mac, I'm on Windows (Vista 64). Then someone else reported that a full reformat seemed to fix it - until he added ColorEyes Display Pro and 16 bit LUT monitor profiles. Switching to matrix profiles cleared that up. I also use CEDP, so I looked, and sure enough, my monitor profiles were LUT based. I've now recalibrated to matrix based profiles, and everything runs much smoother. Not snap-of-the-fingers instantaneous like Photoshop, but workable. I can live with this. Incidentally, I also have another system which has performed well all along, so I know it's possible. If monitor profiles are involved in this, it's notable that this machine has two Eizo Flexscans connected, both hardware calibrated to monitor LUT with Eizo's EasyPix. This machine runs Win 7 pro, but otherwise the two systems are very similarly configured. ... View more

BTW blame Nikon in this case. It wouldn't cost them a calorie to support the openly specified DNG format, which is the only thing with potential as a universal standard format. Leica does it, and a very few others. Then all of this would have been a non-issue. ... View more

The DNG converter is a stand-alone application. Version 7.1 will work irrespective of Photoshop version. The DNGs can then be opened through ACR 6.7 in Photoshop CS5. You'll be no worse off than you were with the D3100. You'll find it >here< (Win) or >here< (Mac). ... View more

I would agree with all that if it wasn't for the fact that Windows Photo Viewer is fully color managed. Not only does it honor the embedded profile, but it also converts to the monitor profile. It has been color managed since Vista, when it was called Windows Photo Gallery. In XP, however, it was not color managed. But there could still be a problem with the profile, with Photo Viewer not reading all the properties of the profile. ... View more

Manko10 wrote: I thought it might affect how Windows handles images without assigned profiles internally such as the desktop wallpaper. Windows itself has no color management, it just makes profiles available for applications (including some, but not all, native Windows apps). All color management is application-level, not OS-level. ... View more

If I were you I'd just connect the Dell and recalibrate. This should set all necessary associations. Then see what it looks like. ... View more

Manko10 wrote: What is the system wide default profile on your machine? Mine is "sRGB virtual device model profile" Never mind that. It's just what the system defaults to if no other profile is present or assigned. This is the one that matters: ... View more

Well, when I assign a wrong profile to the external monitor and the color changes (only on that monitor) and then reassign the correct profile and the color changes again this should be prove enough. Again: that doesn't prove it's using the right profile. ... View more

I don't have any better troubleshooting steps to provide than emil emil, but let me just say that in my experience things like this are always the monitor profile. Well, most of the time at any rate. I'd concentrate on that. The thread you referenced in your first post actually did get resolved: his Mac didn't load the correct profile for the second monitor. I noticed one thing you wrote above: (the profile in Color Settings > Monitor RGB is...) the Spyder profile I created for the integrated notebook monitor. But that's not actually the one Photoshop is using for the external wide gamut monitor. But I proved it's using the right profile anyway as described in my last posting by temporarily changing it to a wrong profile in the Windows Color Management options. That doesn't prove it's using the right profile, just a different one. ... View more

Noel, there's no point in wasting any more bandwidth on this. Let him yell. ... View more

From time to time people say "no, I don't want to use that function. I'm perfectly fine without it". And you can't really argue with that, can you? But what we can do, and should do, is point out that there are better and more efficient ways to get there. No one's twisting your arm. Let's just call it well-intentioned advice. You're not talking to casual hobbyists here, you're talking to people who do this for a living. If you want to build a house using nothing but a screwdriver and a pen-knife, go ahead. But it would be rather silly if you had all the necessary tools just sitting there, wouldn't it? ... View more

Sidarthurr wrote: You people disagree that the history palet is ESSENTIAL in ANY Photoshop project? You should realize that people use Photoshop for different things. Yes, for painting History is probably essential. For me, a photographer...well, I think I open it maybe once or twice in a busy week. Almost anything I ever need to do can be done in a non-destructive, re-editable way. I don't go back. I just re-adjust. ... View more

OK, sorry if I took it the wrong way. Still, sometimes you need to be politically uncorrect, for purely practical reasons. ... View more

Yeah, I know the practical side of it, how it behaves, but I have no clue about the rocket science behind it . That's more up your alley. Luckily, the functional concepts are beautifully simple and logical. Anyway, I'm flattered. I still don't understand why color management discussions are so inflammable. They always tend to get the blood pressure up - yes, mine too, I'm no better. As witnessed above. I promise to behave ... View more

Lundberg: Dont "for ******* 's sake" me. And don't "Read. Understand. See" me. I know perfectly well how this stuff works. I know perfectly well what happens when you use this type of profile for that and vice versa. It's so basic I didn't even comment on it. I'm trying to be pragmatic in a situation where the OP does not have and is at present not able to get a calibrator. I'm just trying to keep him floating in the meantime. ... View more

Incidentally, this is why camera calibration is a totally different meal than monitor calibration. The mechanism works in reverse. ... View more

Hudechrome wrote: Actually, I'm trying to uncomplicate it by insisting on calibration first, and offering reasons why. Yes, that's a good approach This should put it all in perspective: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_constancy Looking at the monitor you essentially have no context to judge color by, and that's when color constancy kicks in: a fresh green apple will look fresh green even under a strong overall color cast. Put that image on a white piece of paper, however, and the apple is suddenly not so tempting. Color constancy is broken with the context. This is why we use calibrators. They don't suffer from color constancy. It doesn't really matter if they're not perfect, they still perform much better than the eye and brain do, even under the most favorable circumstances. ... View more

Tafflad, in your situation I would try Calibrize, but make sure you start with Adobe RGB. Use the plain one, I've no idea where the other one comes from. And also keep in mind what I wrote above: anything that is not color managed, like Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer, will be over-saturated and wrong on that monitor. But Photoshop will display correctly. One alternative approach is to look for the monitor's sRGB preset in the OSD menus. This will effectively turn it into a standard gamut monitor, and will solve some of the more immediate problems, and will also allow you to use sRGB as the monitor profile. ... View more

Hudechrome wrote Let's not overcomplicate this. The main point I was trying to make re calibration and wide gamut monitors, is that you don't have an immediate reference for the colors if you're inexperienced. It's like free fall, there's nothing to hold on to. All the basic stuff that with a standard gamut monitor displays more or less right, is suddenly wrong. A calibrator gives you that reference. But you need one more thing: you need to know that with that monitor only color managed material will look right. Anything that is not will simply be wrong and there's nothing to do about it. This is why these monitors aren't for everyone. So who needs to calibrate? I think it depends on what environment you're in, and what your end product is. If you're in a production chain where you rely on others and others rely on you, there's really no choice. You just have to be on the same page as everybody else; if you're not the whole production line stops dead. Wasted time and money. If you control the whole process yourself things are different. As long as the end product, like a print, comes out right, it doesn't really matter how you got there. If you work for web or other types of networking, you're somewhere in between, but mostly because it's uncontrollable anyway. When color management becomes mainstream on the web, standards inevitably tighten. ... View more