Processing RAW Photos in Photoshop (1 Viewer)

I have a fair bit of experience in Photoshop and using the ACR plugin for basic needs, and alot of experience in print production.

But I've started shooting in RAW with my RX100 Mk. III and have run into an issue that has me befuddled.

I am working on them in Photoshop, saving in PSD, using Smart Layers and various filters as I always do. Looks great on screen, histogram seems okay.

I save the JPEG files for use in this forum, email, etc. as I always do, removing the embedded color profile. I do this quite intentionally because this can cause issues during printing: either by choking the PostScript RIP, or it's simply superfluous because a properly set-up RIP generally ignores it. And generally, few users without access to an end-to-end calibrated workflow can make use of them.

I remove the profiles from photos at work (they shoot RAW an save masters in PSD) all the time at work at it has zero affect on the images on-screen or in print.

But the JPEGs I save from my photography that originate in RAW do not match the PSD files. The color loses saturation, tonal balance is a bit wonky, etc.

So at the moment, I assume removing the profile is doing it? If so, is there a way to "flatten" the profile data into the image so it doesn't change when saving the perfectly fine PSD to a JPEG?

Stumped...

What profiles are you using? Do you convert you PSDs to sRGB before saving to jpeg?

Mono said:

What profiles are you using? Do you convert you PSDs to sRGB before saving to jpeg?

Click to expand...

They are in the RGB color space in Photoshop when being saved to JPEG using Save As...

The embedded profile from the camera (or at least as applied by ACR) is Adobe RGB (1998), apparently; but is removed as stated in my original post.

You don't want to remove the profile from the image. Most desktop web browsers can now read ICC profiles and will display accordingly, but it there is no profile attached then they will assume it is sRGB. if you have used a wide gamut profile such as Adobe then if this is wrongly translated as sRGB then it will look washed out.

Either change to sRGB in Photoshop (Edit>Assign Profile) then adjust the image to suit and then save to jpeg with or without the embedded profile or save in a wide gamut profile of your choice and the make sure the profile is embedded. (There may still be a problem on phones as some mobile browsers don't read ICC profiles.)

Mono said:

You don't want to remove the profile from the image. Most desktop web browsers can now read ICC profiles and will display accordingly

Click to expand...

Good to know, though you did mention problems with phone browsers later, which is kinda important.

Also, such profiles really can mess with printing, which is why I try to remove them. Also makes the file smaller.

Mono said:

Either change to sRGB in Photoshop (Edit>Assign Profile) then adjust the image to suit and then save to jpeg with or without the embedded profile

Click to expand...

This was the bit I was missing.

Interesting that in decades of doing this, it never came up until now. Something specific to the Sony RX100's RAW files maybe? Don't have this problem with RAW from the SX60.

THANKS!

This is not exactly this problem but similar one and can happen to anybody.
Some of monitor drivers set for Windows atypical, rare ICC profile spoiling colors in some of windows of some programs.
So you have to set Windows ICC profile manually: In my case worked out:
(added and set as defaul)
Also looked well: Adobe RGB (1998) downloaded from:
https://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/iccprofiles/iccprofiles_win.html
https://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/iccprofiles/icc_eula_win_end.html
but it is often not reccomended.

Perhaps these settings are wrong, BE CA-RE-FUL !!!

I'm on a Mac. ||

CalvinFold said:

I'm on a Mac. ||

Click to expand...

MACs still have ICC profiles. You can use an X-Rite, for example, to color calibrate your mac monitor.

Diglloyd has many articles about ICC profiles and MAC and web browsers. E.g.: https://diglloyd.com/blog/2009/20091229_3-FirefoxFix.html

Marc

marcsantacurz said:

MACs still have ICC profiles. You can use an X-Rite, for example, to color calibrate your mac monitor.

Click to expand...

Quite true. I have been using Datacolor Spyders for years, and Radius PressView's before that. I finally decided to get an X-Rite i1Display Pro, and I'll be installing that soon. Also have an Eizo EV2436W for a primary display.

Some people here buy expensive binoculars and cameras; because of my profession and hobbies I tend to invest my money in my display color. ||

CalvinFold said:

Quite true. I have been using Datacolor Spyders for years, and Radius PressView's before that. I finally decided to get an X-Rite i1Display Pro, and I'll be installing that soon. Also have an Eizo EV2436W for a primary display.

Some people here buy expensive binoculars and cameras; because of my profession and hobbies I tend to invest my money in my display color. ||

Click to expand...

You know, I sometimes print my photos and put them up on the wall and color calibration is very important! You can print in a wide gamut much easier than viewing in one. I have the x-rite system and a BenQ Sw monitor (aRGB color space).

marcsantacurz said:

You know, I sometimes print my photos and put them up on the wall and color calibration is very important! You can print in a wide gamut much easier than viewing in one.

Click to expand...

Wide gamut is certainly nice. I have wide-format, 8-ink printers available at work for that purpose...their wide gamut is aimed in such a way to hit PANTONE spot colors and Hi-Fi colors, but the side effect is a nicer color gamut for everything in general. Inkjet, solvent, and UV printing...we have lots of "toys" I can use.

I have the x-rite system and a BenQ Sw monitor (aRGB color space).

Click to expand...

BenQ is another higher-end display in the same territory as the Eizo and high-end NECs...very nice! I drool over the higher-end Eizos, but can't justify it for home use. :eek!:

If I might ask, what is your profession? Rare to find someone else with nicer imaging gear. It's an under-appreciated side of hobbies like photography.

CalvinFold said:

Wide gamut is certainly nice. I have wide-format, 8-ink printers available at work for that purpose...their wide gamut is aimed in such a way to hit PANTONE spot colors and Hi-Fi colors, but the side effect is a nicer color gamut for everything in general. Inkjet, solvent, and UV printing...we have lots of "toys" I can use.


BenQ is another higher-end display in the same territory as the Eizo and high-end NECs...very nice! I drool over the higher-end Eizos, but can't justify it for home use. :eek!:

If I might ask, what is your profession? Rare to find someone else with nicer imaging gear. It's an under-appreciated side of hobbies like photography.

Click to expand...

I bought a BenQ SW2700PT refurbished directly from the benq website. It was about $500. I cannot justify the truly high-end wide gamut monitors. I was thinking the same thing "Oh, he has an Eizo, that must be amazing."

While I have some of those same types of printers at work, I do my personal stuff at Bay Photo Lab (https://www.bayphoto.com) who accepts Adobe RGB -- their metal printers in aRGB can be really vibrant.

I have degrees in physics, medieval history, and computer engineering, the last of which is what actually pays the bills I work at a research lab, mostly on L2/L3 layer network protocols, distributed systems, and cyber-physical security. Nothing at all related to photography or color workflow or birding. The research lab I work for is related to a large manufacturer of color production equipment, but it is not my area. I understand color management, but I'm not at all an expert in it.

Personally, I think personal computers and the mass of internet content is a negative influence on the actual art of producing images. Even though that's the area I work in (computers, not art). People used to look at fine & graphic art, with beautiful colors, then to technicolor which was still somewhat rich, then to TVs and low-end PC monitors. Nowadays, color is sRGB or if you're lucky P3, though it looks like 709 and 2020 is starting to make inroads (if stuff if actually produced for it). I think gamut is one of those things most people don't recognize they are missing until you see it. And even then trying to explain a hardware accelerated LUT vs. faux calibration gets glazed eyes. Though I must admit much of what I've learned came from diglloyd.com, so I'm still rather superficial in the area.

It has often seemed so retrograde to me that a person of this modern time can go to a museum, look at a 500 year old painting, and say "wow, look at those colors, have you seen anything like that before?" With all the technology and modern pigments and displays, you would think we'd be inured with saturated color not deprived of it.

Marc

marcsantacurz said:

I bought a BenQ SW2700PT refurbished directly from the benq website. It was about $500. I cannot justify the truly high-end wide gamut monitors. I was thinking the same thing "Oh, he has an Eizo, that must be amazing."

Click to expand...

Even the lower-end Eizo I have was quite the improvement over the "nice but not Eizo" displays I've had for a while.

The research lab I work for is related to a large manufacturer of color production equipment, but it is not my area. I understand color management, but I'm not at all an expert in it.

Click to expand...

Yeah I work in marketing with the design group with a wide range of printing technologies from $10,000 printers to our new $250,000 printer. I semi-run the RIPs and do some spot-color profiling, though I get a fair bit of help from the inhouse color separators and a RIP profiling expert.

Personally, I think personal computers and the mass of internet content is a negative influence on the actual art of producing images.

Click to expand...

Myself, and my quite-alot-more-artistic girlfriend would beg to differ. It's a different medium, but in the right hands, it can create "fine art." Sure, there is alot of garbage...but not all of it. I happen to count as a co-worker one of the top 3D artists in the country and his stuff is at once dazzling, disturbing, and jaw-dropping...and all digital.

Even though that's the area I work in (computers, not art). People used to look at fine & graphic art, with beautiful colors, then to technicolor which was still somewhat rich, then to TVs and low-end PC monitors. Nowadays, color is sRGB or if you're lucky P3, though it looks like 709 and 2020 is starting to make inroads (if stuff if actually produced for it). I think gamut is one of those things most people don't recognize they are missing until you see it. And even then trying to explain a hardware accelerated LUT vs. faux calibration gets glazed eyes. Though I must admit much of what I've learned came from diglloyd.com, so I'm still rather superficial in the area.

Click to expand...

Well, this is no different than crummy lighting at a gallery. Or a gallery with a bad presentation. Or the fact that a masterpiece hasn't been restored since it was created. One shouldn't confuse the art as displayed from it's original state. Ansel Adams had similar complaints about film-to-print back in his day.

It's one of the reasons I try to "get it right" by starting with a calibrated monitor. Then I know it looks decent to me and should look the same on another properly set-up display; I can't control how bad it looks to someone else's monitor or printer that isn't even close to accurate.

Heck, even on-screen photo adjustment isn't "correct"; a color separator could do it on a horrible monitor simple by going by the numbers given to them by Photoshop.