While most people in this digital age seem overly concerned with noise, and mainly want noise reduction, I tend to like grain: It can really improve a digital image, and even make it appear sharper. Until now I had to simulate it using Photoshop for instance.

No longer: Recently, Adobe released ACR 6.1 and LightRoom 3. In these there was a new option added: “Grain”, with three controls: “Amount”, “Size” and “Roughness”. It produced some pretty nice “film like” grain. Way better then a simple “add noise” in Photoshop for instance.
That could be a time saver and simplify the workflow quite a bit.
Of course, I’d need to upgrade to LR3 for this feature. But, along with the mayor improvements in IQ due to the new demosaicing and processing algorithms (Process Version 2010) that would be totally worth it to me. Some of the other new features would be the icing on the cake.

One problem

I’d need a new Mac to run it: LightRoom 3 and PSCS5 only run on an Intel Mac, not on my Dual G5 PPC.
Since buying a new Mac just for this is a bit over the top, I decided to see what my options were.

A while back, Adobe updated the previous versions of ACR and LR to ACR 5.7 and LR 2.7: These versions also support the demosaic algorithm from Lightroom 3.
From what I’d read on the web, these should render the file as seen in Lightroom3, but not allow you to make changes to the new Develop settings, like “Grain”.

A bit more researching led (as often) to the excellent site of Victoria Bampton, AKA. Lightroom Queen. She had a bit more detailed info: ACR 5.7 should use the same Demosaic, and match the new additions closely. She also mentioned “5.7 can read LR’s settings but there’s no UI to change the new settings.” Sadly, LR2.7 will ignore the new LR3 settings. (Why Adobe, why?)

Then I got an idea when answering a question on POTN. Would it be possible to “hack” an .XMP file to only adjust the Grain settings?

The answer? It is!

All you need is an .XMP file with settings applied in LightRoom3 (thanks Anouk!) and a text editor.
It really is that simple.

An .XMP file is simply a plain text file, with instructions for the Adobe Raw converter: “Set this slider to this value”.
The part we are interested in, is this:
<crs:grainamount>58</crs:grainamount>
<crs:grainsize>30</crs:grainsize>
<crs:grainfrequency>59</crs:grainfrequency>

All you need to do is copy-paste this into a “blank” .XMP file.
To do that, open a Raw file (not a DNG) in ACR 5.7. Then go to the “flyout” menu and choose “Save settings…”.

To make life easy on yourself, only save one set of parameters, for instance “sharpening”.
The advantage of doing it like this, is that all other settings will remain the same. So if you’d already made adjustments to the Raw, they will remain.

Close ACR.

Open the .XMP in a text editor. I like Smultron.
That gives you an .XMP that looks like this:

<x:xmpmeta xmlns:x="adobe:ns:meta/" x:xmptk="Adobe XMP Core 4.2-c020 1.124078, Tue Sep 11 2007 23:21:40 ">
<rdf:rdf xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
<rdf:description rdf:about="">
xmlns:crs="http://ns.adobe.com/camera-raw-settings/1.0/">
<crs:version>5.7</crs:version>
<crs:processversion>5.0</crs:processversion>
<crs:sharpness>62</crs:sharpness>
<crs:sharpenradius>+1.0</crs:sharpenradius>
<crs:sharpendetail>8</crs:sharpendetail>
<crs:sharpenedgemasking>81</crs:sharpenedgemasking>
<crs:hassettings>True</crs:hassettings>
</rdf:description>
</rdf:rdf>
</x:xmpmeta>

Delete the “Sharpening” settings, and replace them with the “Grain” settings you want.

You get this:

<x:xmpmeta xmlns:x="adobe:ns:meta/" x:xmptk="Adobe XMP Core 4.2-c020 1.124078, Tue Sep 11 2007 23:21:40 ">
<rdf:rdf xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
<rdf:description rdf:about="">
xmlns:crs="http://ns.adobe.com/camera-raw-settings/1.0/">
<crs:version>6.1</crs:version>
<crs:processversion>5.7</crs:processversion>
<crs:grainamount>50</crs:grainamount>
<crs:grainsize>30</crs:grainsize>
<crs:grainfrequency>60</crs:grainfrequency>
<crs:colornoisereductiondetail>50</crs:colornoisereductiondetail>
<crs:hassettings>True</crs:hassettings>
</rdf:description>
</rdf:rdf>
</x:xmpmeta>

Save this under a new name. “Grain50_30_60″ seems a logical choice in this case. You can of course save a number of different settings under different names.
Open a Raw file, apply the preset, and BOOM. You just added Grain

But wait, there’s more

So, what if you want to alter just one of the settings? Do you need to open a text editor every time?
No. It’s easier to create a few more presets, each only adjusting 1 parameter.

I created separate presets for GrainAmount, GrainSize and GrainFrequency, in different values.
So, if I open an image in ACR, it looks like this:

Then I apply three presets to set the Grain I want.

In this case GrainAmount80, GrainSize20 and GrainFrequency80. Not as flexible as sliders, but pretty close.

The other way around

In LR3, there’s another new addition that is lacking in LR2.7: There’s a point curve added.
In LR2, you could only adjust the (wrongly named) “point curve” as the ACR “Parametric Curve”. So it was not possible to create a curve to invert the image or set the black and white point to something other then 0 and 255. (Something quite a few people like to do, which makes absolutely no sense to me).

There’s a way around that as well: Open a CR2 file in ACR, adjust the curve as you like, and click “Done”. You just created an .XMP file with all the info you need.
Open that .xmp file in an editor, and look for the second entry for tone curve:

<crs:tonecurve>
<rdf:seq>
<rdf:li>0, 255</rdf:li>
<rdf:li>255, 0</rdf:li>
</rdf:seq>
</crs:tonecurve>

the first entry for “Tone Curve” is the Parametric Curve. Don’t mess with it, since LR allows you to adjust that.

<crs:tonecurve>
<rdf:seq>
<rdf:li>0, 0</rdf:li>
<rdf:li>32, 22</rdf:li>
<rdf:li>64, 56</rdf:li>
<rdf:li>128, 128</rdf:li>
<rdf:li>192, 196</rdf:li>
<rdf:li>255, 255</rdf:li>
</rdf:seq>
</crs:tonecurve>

Now, in LightRoom2, create a new Preset. Use only the “Tone Curve” setting,

Open this preset in a text editor as well.
It will look different then an xmp, but will be plain text as well.

s = {
id = "847A699E-AEA0-4E00-BF19-F6E681D5EBD7",
internalName = "Negative",
title = "Negative",
type = "Develop",
value = {
settings = {
ParametricDarks = 0,
ParametricHighlightSplit = 75,
ParametricHighlights = 0,
ParametricLights = 5,
ParametricMidtoneSplit = 50,
ParametricShadowSplit = 25,
ParametricShadows = -5,
ToneCurve = {
0,
0,
32,
22,
64,
56,
128,
128,
192,
196,
255,
255,
},
ToneCurveName = "Medium Contrast",
},
uuid = "F2FF3CF0-C863-43EA-B051-B624A8113D3A",
},
version = 0,
}

Remove the stuff you don’t want, and change it to this:

s = {
id = "847A699E-AEA0-4E00-BF19-F6E681D5EBD7",
internalName = "Negative",
title = "Negative",
type = "Develop",
value = {
settings = {
ToneCurve = {
0,
255,
255,
0,
},
ToneCurveName = "Negative",
},
uuid = "F2FF3CF0-C863-43EA-B051-B624A8113D3A",
},
version = 0,
}

Restart LR2, apply the preset. You just inverted the image

Of course, there might be a number of other things you’d want to “hack” into either LR2 or ACR 5.7. Just give it a try! And be sure to post any nice results you get in the comments!

Simply put? Nothing.
Well, if that were all I had to say on the subject, this would have to be my shortest blogpost ever… Okay, a bit more info then:
A lot of first time DSLR users are concerned that their shiny new camera delivers files that are “only” 72dpi, while their old point and shoot delivered 300dpi files. Why is this concern unwarranted? Surely 300 is more then 72, and more is better, right?

Wrong

The old wisdom saying is that “300dpi is for printing and 72dpi is for screen”.
There are a few things wrong with that.
First and foremost, the term “dpi” stands for dots per inch. In a digital file there are no dots, only pixels. So the correct term is pixels per inch (ppi).
Also, 72ppi originated as it was the resolution of an ancient Mac monitor. Current monitors have a much higher pixel density: My old 12″ PowerbookG4 for instance has a screen resolution of about 100ppi. Most current screens are somewhere between 80 and 120ppi.

Do the math…

for your screen: Simply measure width and height and divide the number of pixels by the measured values… Tip: Once you found the figure for your screen, be sure to enter it in the PSCS4 preferences under “Units and Rulers, Screen resolution”: That way, the “Zoom, Print size” will show an accurate sized preview.
So, is a 300ppi file better then a 72ppi file?

No difference

If you hadn’t gathered as much from the above, for display on screen, only the display you’re using will determine the “resolution”.
So, a file that contains for instance 500×750 pixels will be displayed at a different size (in inches, centimeters, or whatever you prefer), depending on the screen you’re using to view it. The arbitrary ppi figure set in the file has no relevance whatsoever.

To illustrate that, here is an example: Each file is 500×750 pixels. One is 72ppi, the other 300ppi.

Notice the difference? No? That’s because there isn’t any.

Why use it then?

Because you have to put something in the box: There is no way that Photoshop will allow you to not fill in a value. However, what you put in there is pretty arbitrary. Use whatever you like basically for display on screen.
I prefer to use 300ppi for general use, since then the “image size” dialog box will quickly tell me about how large I can print an image at decent quality. For web, I mostly use 72ppi (unless I forget) since, well, that’s what some people expect…

Some more reading: here

Never thought I’d blog about something as individual as PS Color Settings… Then again, there is so much conflicting, incomplete or downright inaccurate info on the web, I thought it might be time to set the record straight.

Individual

First of: Like more things in photography life there is no “Magic Bullet”. If that’s what you are looking for, better get used to this idea: You need a basic understanding of Color Management.
On the bright side: The settings in the Color Settings dialog box affect a number of things. However, unless done totally wrong, how your images are displayed is not one of those things.

Settings nobody should use

There is no “Magic Bullet”, but there is a “one size fits no-one”: The setting called “Monitor Color”.

What does it do? Let’s go through the main problems step by step:

It sets your monitor profile as default working space. So every time you calibrate your monitor (you do that regularly, right?) your default working space changes. And your default working space is limited to your monitors gamut. Not good if you are on a laptop for instance.
One additional problem is that equal values for R, G and B might not give a neutral gray. And there are other problems.

One of those problems is, that it sets all color management policies to “off”. Note that, contrary to popular belief, setting “monitor profile” does not turn off color management altogether: The one good thing in all this mess is that you are presented with this dialogue box when opening an image with an embedded profile:

Damage

The damage you can do here is very real:
If you tick the top option (“Use the embedded profile”), no damage is done. The image will be shown correct, and all data is retained. Not bad at all.
If you pick option #2 (“Convert to working space”), irreversible damage is done: The pixels in the image will be converted (changed!) to your monitor profile. Color numbers are converted (so colors will display correctly), but all colors out of your monitors gamut will be clipped. Poof! Gone. Forever.
If you pick option #3 (“Discard the embedded profile”), at least you won’t be damaging the file on import as in option #2 (it’s reversible by assigning the correct profile). But you will not be seeing the image correctly. So any “color correction” you do will be incorrect. The fact that the color numbers aren’t changed is a moot point because of this: What you see definitely will not be what others see.

Other problems

Yet another problem is that, even if you use embedded profiles, you will get no warning when you copy-paste an image into a new document (which by default will not have an embedded profile), or into an image with a different working space: The colors will change. See option #3 above.

So, I see no reason for anyone to use it. Not even web designers. Yes, I know that lots of browsers are not color managed. However, there are not lots of people using your screen, are there?
The only reason to temporarily set it, is when you need to check whether Photoshop is using the correct monitor profile.

Better

Just about any of the other “presets” is better. These presets are grouped in a few categories. When you scroll trough them, you might notice a few things:

There are settings for Europe and North America. And in every region there are 3 settings: for “General Purpose”, “Prepress” and “Web/Internet”. When you tick “more options” Japan appears, which has the same trio but adds “Color For Newspaper” and “Japan Magazine Advertisement Color”. There also appear a few other “international” presets.

Rather then going into each one in depth, I’ll generally explain some differences and possible pitfalls: They are “presets”, but IMO none is perfect. You can use them as a starting point however.
I start of with “more options” unchecked. And the screenshots are for the European presets. However, the comments I give are the same for the other localisations.

General Purpose

It Isn’t. It’s really that simple. Like I said: There’s no magic bullet.
Main drawback is that you get no warning whatsoever for profile mismatches: When you open two images in a different working space, and paste one into the other, colors will be converted. Which, as said, is irreversible and might give irreversible damage. If I’m going to damage my image, I damn well want to be notified.

Prepress

Is quite a decent choice if you are doing prepress work. Profiles are preserved, you are warned when you get a mismatch, and reasonable profiles are chosen for CMYK, gray and spot. (depending on the area you chose, CMYK and dot gain are different.) Then again, if you are doing prepress work, I’d hope that you know enough about color management that you don’t need to read my thoughts on it…

Web/Internet

This is the only preset where converting to working space might make sense in my opinion: If you are just doing work for internet, anything should be sRGB. If you have to ask why: Read my blogpost on the subject. Then again, I’d like a warning if an image has no embedded profile: In some cases it might be because someone screwed up. This is largely a personal preference however.

Other presets

Are “more of the same” (two other Japanese presets only differ in CMYK, gray and spot from Japan Prepress2). The “Phase One” workflow is the odd one out: It sets a gray profile of Gray Gamma 2.2 which is quite sensible. Then again, the CMYK profile is “Euro-Catalog”, which I never need.
The other options (Colorsync (mac only), PS5) are obsolete legacy.

Create your own

Since everybody’s needs are different, it makes sense to make your own preset then, doesn’t it? Sure! But you need to know what each setting does. Some things are pretty straight forward, others not so much.

Default working spaces: RGB

Pretty much up to personal preference. The question “what RGB color space is best” I’ll leave be for now. Use whatever working space you use in your raw converter of choice. Two points I do want to make: If you don’t understand color management, do yourself a favor and use sRGB as a working space everywhere. On the other hand, if you are using a wide gamut color space (anything larger then AdobeRGB) do so in 16 bit per channel only!
Settings never to use are AppleRGB, ColorMatchRGB or GenericRGB. These are based on monitors that went the way of the dodo…

CMYK and others

For CMYK working space: Most people won’t ever print something on an offset press, so won’t ever be needing CMYK. When you do need it, make sure the printer tells you what profile to use, and set that as the default: It has some impact further down the road in PSCS4.
Don’t ever use GenericCMYK or one of the “old” Photoshop CMYK settings here: No good reason to. When in doubt, you probably won’t ever need it, so pick the “default” for your region.
Same goes for Gray and Spot working space. If you do a lot of grayscale images for web, gamma 2.2 is the best setting. If you print them to a specific Offsetpress and you know what dot gain to use, by all means do. But in that case you probably wouldn’t be reading this article… For same reasons as above never, ever use Gamma 1.8. It’s obsolete.

Policies and Notifications

Choose “Preserve Embedded Profiles”, unless as explained above, you are a web designer and have thought about the subject a bit.
I don’t see the need to tick the “Profile mismatch: Ask when opening” box, since I edit images from a known source, and the embedded profiles are what they are for a reason. So YMMV. I do tick the “Ask when pasting” and “missing profiles” boxes. The first because I want to be notified if an image profile is converted, the second because if there is no profile embedded, someone screwed up.

Note that if you choose “Discard the embedded profile (do not color manage)” here, the image will be shown as if it had the default working space embedded. This has the same effect as assigning your default working space: The image won’t display accurate, but it is reversible (by assigning the proper profile).

Another note (a big one) is that PS somehow doesn’t display this warning when pasting an image without profile into a document with an embedded color space! Colors will change.

Advanced: Conversion options

Engine: Leave at “Adobe (ACE)”. It’s the best choice, and if you have a specific reason why you would want to use another, you would not need my advice.
Rendering intent: Either perceptual or relative colorimetric for photographic images. Which is best will depend on the image. Not that this setting matters much: This is the rendering intent used by default when you go Image > Convert to profile (where you can change it in the dialog box) and it is used when going Image > Mode > CMYK for instance (which I would strongly advise against, since it offers no preview and no direct control)
The description says it all:

Always tick “Use Black point compensation” and also “Use Dither”: It makes banding or posterization much less likely.
The last option “Compensate for Screen -referred profiles” is only important if you make documents for Adobe After Effects. In that case: Tick it. Otherwise: Tick it as well, since it won’t matter then.

Advanced, but not to be used

“Desaturate Monitor Colors By” and “Blend RGB Colors Using Gamma”: Easy: Don’t tick those. They are not meant for photographers. Again: Read the description:

Possible pitfalls

As already mentioned, the settings set in the “Conversion options” will be used when changing from one color space to the next by going Image > Mode. So do not go there. Use Edit > Convert to profile instead. Yes you can also use it to convert from RGB to CMYK…

Another, less well known fact, is that the default profile is what determines the values in the info palette (Color picker) for anything but the color space the image is in. So if you use a CMYK or grayscale color picker on an RGB image, the readout will be for your current default CMYK or gray working space!

Another of the stupid less-then-brilliant decisions on Adobes part was to have the Select > Color Range > Out of Gamut selection be based on the default CMYK working space. Makes no sense whatsoever and makes the tool all but unusable for anyone who prints at home, but there it is…
Here is an sRGB image, softproofed for my Epson R2880, using glossy paper. The Gamut warning is on and shows no out of gamut colors. Notice the selection?

Conclusion

After reading this, you should know enough about the subject to create your own settings. After you did, save them as your own preset. It might also be a good idea to add a description.
Here’s mine:

The human eye is most sensitive for yellow-green light. Take a look at the next gradient for instance:

To me, indeed the green-to-yellow part looks brightest. Not so to Photoshop however.

About a hundred ways to loose the color

Well, maybe not thàt much, but quite a few anyhow. The easiest way (but offering zero control) would be to go through Image > Mode > Grayscale. That’ll give you this:

Your image just became 1/3 of the original size, and that weight loss is caused because there’s now only a ‘gray’ channel instead of a red, green and blue one.
Big drawback of this method, is that it’s destructive: You indeed loose the color: It’s gone for good. Since you also have zero control, I’d never use this method.

Layers

So, we want something that’s reversible. Lots of ways to do that, using (adjustment) layers, but not all of them good… Let’s start off by naming just about the worst way imaginable: Desaturate. What this does, is that it removes all color information from an image, without the option for any user intervention. While that may or may not be important to you, this should be: All colors are treated as if they were equal.
While equality is a great thing, in this case, it isn’t, since to us different colors aren’t equal.

What does Photoshop see?

Simply put: Numbers. If you’d open the above color gradient in Photoshop, the eye dropper will show you what it’s made of: A simple gradient in each channel. The image below shows the channels:

To understand what Photoshop sees a bit better, have a look at the info palette, and in particular the HSB values there. The only thing changing there is the hue angle! Saturation and Brightness remain at 100 percent in the entire gradient.

Not vastly surprising then, that this is what you get when you do a ’straightforward’ desaturate:

Hue and Saturation are at 0, Brightness is at 50 percent. This might be correct “by the numbers”, but it’s not what I’d want for making a nice black and white image…

A better way

As with most things in Photoshop, there’s plenty of ways to convert a color image to a grayscale. I’m going to show a few here that do a better job then desaturate, and offer more control then ‘Image > Mode > Grayscale’.

One simple way would be to use blend modes: Duplicate the background layer, desaturate the duplicate layer and set the blend mode of the top layer to color.
This can all be done using keyboard shortcuts: Cmd+J, Shift+Cmd+U, Shift+Opt+C, so is very quick.
Disadvantage of that method is that it doubles the file size.

Photoshop is acting more then a bit goofy here by the way: If you desaturate the top layer, you essentially fill it with medium gray. However, if you create a new layer and fill that with medium gray (or black or white or whatever shade of gray in between) by using the fill command, the file size does not double. Very weird indeed.

So the fastest way to go black and white without doubling the file size would be this: Shift+Cmd+Opt+N, Cmd+Backspace, Shift+Opt+C.

Control

All nice and fast, but this doesn’t give you much control. So let’s try a different method. Make a Hue / Saturation adjustment layer. Set saturation to 0. Now you have the uniform gray image of the example above. Now, set the blending mode to ‘Color’ (Or Hue, or Saturation. Doesn’t matter in this case.) Same as when you use that blend mode on a layer filled with pixels! Yet still no control.
To get control, add another hue saturation adjustment layer between this one and the background image. Set the blend mode to ‘Luminosity’. Do not touch the Saturation slider here however. Instead, use the ‘Hue’ slider to alter the grayscale image.
The example below shows the effect of a shift in hue of +40:

Alternatives

As said, in Photoshop there are more ways to do this.
You could for instance just copy the contents of one channel into the image. What works better then that, is to use either the ‘Calculations’ command or, more flexible and a bit easier to understand, a Channel Mixer adjustment layer.
Tick the grayscale box there, and PS will default to these values:

You can then drag any slider to wherever you want, creating the type of black and white image you want. For instance for a portrait, using more red will result in lighter skin tones, using more green will give more contrast… As can be seen in the screenshot, Channel Mixer will warn you when the total of channels goes over 100 percent. However that does not mean that you must never go higher. Depends on the image really… The Histogram is your friend here.

The two gradients made with channel mixer: First default setting, then the altered setting:

Channel mixer has the strangeness that if you untick the ‘Monochrome’ box, the values for all channels stay at what you set (83, 24 and 5 percent in the above example). If however you then tick the ‘Monochrome’ box again, you’re back at the default values! Not the brightest decision Adobe ever made I think.

New to CS3

In PSCS3, Adobe introduced the ‘Black and White’ adjustment layer. It’s quite a bit like a Channel mixer, but is adjustable for 6 colors, instead of 3 channels. So it offers more control (and more options for the user to screw up).

Apparently, someone at Adobe must have been watching Spinal Tap, since the sliders of this adjustment layer range from -200 to +300. ‘Goes to eleven‘ indeed. For the adventurous: There’s also an ‘Auto’ button.

New to CS4

In PSCS4, Adobe included the new ‘Vibrance’ adjustment that was first introduced in Lightroom and ACR. That adjustment also features a ‘Saturation’ slider.
If you use that slider to desaturate an image, it quickly becomes clear that this is working different then the ‘Hue Saturation’ adjustment. You could say it’s actually working nice.

This is whet you get if you drag the Saturation to -100: A contrasty version of what you get using ‘Channel mixer’.

Some tips

If you set any of these adjustment layers to blend mode ‘Color’, you get the exact same result as in the above example with a gray pixel layer set to blend mode ‘Color’: A standard B&W conversion.
This can be useful as a quick way to compare your conversion to a ’standard’ grayscale conversion to see if your version is actually better…
Blend mode ‘Color’ will also work for a ‘Solid Color’, ‘Gradient’, ‘Gradient Map’ or ‘Pattern’ adjustment layer. While I cannot think of a use for ‘Pattern’, the first two work similar to a gray pixel layer set to ‘Color’, while the third offers interesting possibilities. Maybe not what you’d want for your average, day to day grayscale conversion, but nice to experiment a bit.

I leave you with an example of that: A ‘Gradient Map’ adjustment layer, using the preset ‘Copper’, then set blend mode to ‘Color’, on an actual photo:

In my previous blog post about the subject, I mentioned a workaround for the bug, and also said I didn’t like the idea of converting to GenericRGB somewhere in the process since it might clip colors…

Gave it a quick try today, and yeah, it does clip “somewhat”…

Same image as last time. Original is AdobeRGB. In this image, some purples and dark blues are out of gamut for the R2880, using Epson Premium Glossy paper. Admittedly, not your “average” color palette, but one that does show problems if they are there.

Softproofed

Let’s start by showing the original converted to sRGB;
(again: all screenshots converted to sRGB for web display)

Nice and colorful. Not that big a difference from the AdobeRGB original. (It’s only slightly out of sRGB gamut in the shadow areas.)

When softproofing for the Epson Glossy Paper profile, you see a difference, but about what’s expected. Purples turn a bit blue-ish. Not a huge problem in this case I’d say. Not worth a screenshot. If it were a problem, I’d correct it while softproofing.

Okay, so far so good.

Now apply the workaround: Convert to the paper profile. No change obviously, since I was already softproofing. Then assign Generic RGB. Totally whacked colors. Also to be expected and also not worth a screenshot.

If the workaround were without drawbacks, the image would be sent to the printer and be converted from paper profile to GenericRGB somewhere along the lines. But since we  “compensated” for that by assigning the GenericRGB profile beforehand, you’d expect the results to be the same: The printer gets the right “numbers” sent… But are the numbers the same?

Timeline, step by step.

This is what the image goes through:

1. Open original in PSCS4. Softproof & edit as needed
2. Convert to printer profile (workaround step 1)
3. Assign GenericRGB (workaround step 2)
4. Press “print” in PSCS4
5. Convert to printer profile (by PSCS4s print engine)
6. Convert to GenericRGB (done by OSX because of this bug)
7. Assume printer profile. (by the R2880, because it knows nothing about color management, and just prints the data it gets)

The problem lies in step 6: (For those interested: It’s easily reproducible by doing the same steps manually in Photoshop.)

The image after step 5 is massively out of the GenericRGB gamut, as shown here:
The funky colors are the result of assigning GenericRGB in step 3 obviously.

This results in clipping. Big time.

The result…

…is a print that is way less saturated then it should have been: Top left would be like printed from PSCS4 using the “workaround”, bottom right is the print that PSCS2 would produce:

I hope that this bug gets fixed pronto. I know I’ll keep using PSCS2 for printing in the meantime… Which sucks is a bit of a drawback quite frankly.
(Again: Apple and Epson: Are you reading this?)

When testing my Epson R2880 on PSCS4, it was quite obvious that something was off; The print came out looking nothing like the softproof on screen.

To give an indication of what it looked like: Here is a splitscreen: Top left is the softproofed image, bottom right is what the print looked like:
(screenshot converted to sRGB for web display: The difference is bigger in print)

The same image printed from PSCS2 was a perfect match to the softproof. Very weird.
I remembered that another photographer had complained to me about similar issues, and showed me some pdf files in preview. (In OSX you can preview a print as pdf file in Preview).

So I tried that. What a surprise: pdf generated when printing from PSCS2 was entirely different from the one using PSCS4. Same printer driver, same settings in Photoshop, same everything.
Neither of the pdfs looked even remotely like the respective prints by the way. The PSCS4 pdf looked like the softproof (as did the PSCS2 print).

Getting weirder by the minute.

A search on the net only brought up a “Double profiling” issue in OSX 10.5.something. Not what I was experiencing. Also, I’m running 10.4.11.

So, I decided to investigate further.
The pdf generated when printing from PSCS2, has an AdobeRGB1998 profile embedded. No idea why, since it is obvious the wrong profile (should be the paper specific profile for the R2880 I’d think, but that also isn’t the case)
Even weirder, the PSCS4 pdf, had a GenericRGB profile. What? Why on earth… That one has an even slightly smaller gamut then sRGB as far as I know…

Workaround

Some messing about testing with profiles followed.
It turned out that converting the PSCS2 pdf to GenericRGB, then assigning the paper profile, gave two identical images (easier to compare that way around, since the pdf coming out of the PSCS2 print path was very saturated and weird looking because of the wrong profile). Both were now again looking like the softproof in Photoshop.
So, doing the reverse (Convert to paper profile, assign GenericRGB) should give a decent print out of PSCS4. (at least, looking at the pdf. Haven’t wasted any paper on it yet).

So far for a workaround, now for the explanation…

Including “GenericRGB” in the search term proved to be a good idea. On the Adobe Forums I found a thread about grayscale printing (no wonder I hadn’t found it earlier).
In that thread Eric Chan explains how OSX Leopard will convert the image data to Generic Gray or Generic RGB before handing it off to the driver. So, yeah. That’s likely to screw things up…
I’m still not sure why or where the PDF out of PSCS2 gets an AdobeRGB profile. Seems rather silly if you ask me.

I might use the workaround when in PSCS4, or print from PSCS2 until this issue gets fixed… I think I’ll mostly use the latter, since I don’t like the idea of converting to GenericRGB somewhere in the process; it might clip colors without me having any control…
Have to compare a few prints, to see if there are differences.

Edit: The workaround does have its drawbacks: See my next blog post.

(Apple and Epson: Are you reading this?)