Color problem

As far as gamut? Well, yeah. Darn few monitors can display the Adobe RGB color space

The so-called "high gamut Adobe RGB" monitors — including the EIZO — (I) would avoid on a Mac because of how the OSX and ColorSync apply the Default monitor profile to untagged color.

That means all UNTAGGED color on the internet and in Finder, Preview, iPhoto look highly over saturated especially in the reds.

More here: http://www.gballard.net/photoshop/srgbwidegamut.html

+++

A few weeks back a Photoshop user on Adobe.com PS Mac forum had a similar problem trying to profile a new glossy-screen 24-inch iMac and claimed to have info that his Xrite couldn't profile that type of screen (same thing, loading fresh sRGB in Displays> Color and the color anomaly cleared).

I recall a new Xrite puck/software package was out that was supposed to fix this issue.

Maybe this is not the same issue and it is just defective hardware...

(I) would avoid on a Mac because of how the OSX and ColorSync apply the Default monitor profile to untagged color.

I wouldn't use them either if I weren't calibrating one. But I do tag everything I scan for that reason, among others. These types of monitors are useful to me, though. Some blue ranges of CMYK are hard (sometimes actually impossible) to reproduce on a monitor. I know that doesn't make sense since RGB is such a greatly larger color space. But I've both read that numerous times and compared profiles myself in Monaco's GamutWorks application (comes with Profiler). There really are some CMYK colors outside the range of RGB. The wider the color space the monitor can handle, the more print colors I can pull into range.

I also do a fair amount of work for the general public copying old/new photos. Again, the more RGB color I can capture, the more I can accurately reproduce the original on photographic silver halide paper.

I recall a new Xrite puck/software package was out that was supposed to fix this issue.
Maybe this is not the same issue and it is just defective hardware...

Could easily be either in this case, then.

No I don't feel like putting almost 3000 $ in laptop that can't display blue.

It's not the computer's fault, it's the calibrator. The Spyder 3 is also supposed to be an excellent unit. Still, if your Eye-One Display 2 is still under warranty, X-Rite should replace it without the hassle.

I thought EIZO Color Edge was the best choice but now I'm confused. I'd need this LCD mostly for working with photography (color correction, retouching, soft proofing) and maybe some design for Web (flash sites and applications) plus some logotype design.

Let's put it this way. There's a limit to how useful a large gamut monitor is. And then, it also depends on what your output needs are. If you're doing mostly prepress, then a nice monitor is good enough. There's no need to spend a fortune on a prestige model. Always remember too that paper cannot reproduce your screen no matter what you do. The white of the paper will never even come close to the luminance of a light emitting device. Which in turn makes it impossible to print many of the bright, light colors your monitor can display.

That said, my Epson 4000 can produce bright blues and greens, and rich saturated pinks and oranges that are outside the range of even Adobe RGB. The monitor I have on order will be able to allow me to capture and print many light and darker saturated colors that are outside the range of my current monitor. So it's a plus for me to have one. Both with the Epson and photographic paper. Especially gloss photo paper.

Unfortunately, there may well be some truth to what Xrite is saying regarding your laptop LCD display.

Well, at least understand this before you make your judgement: The LCD displays in (recent) Apple laptops are vastly different from the true 24-bit LCD displays in Apple Cinema Displays. Most, if not all, are actually only 18-bit displays (6 bits for each color channel), meaning they are only capable of natively displaying 2^18, or 262,144 colors. I don't know exactly how the whole thing works, that is, what methods are used in order to emulate a wider gamut. (Possibly "Frame Rate Control", which quickly cycles pixels over time to simulate a given shade?) Perhaps the colorimeter is having trouble with that?

See the following sites for more info:
http://peewaiweb.free.fr/
http://www.nerdlogger.com/2008/08/things-you-need-to-know-before-buying.html

After checking with SwitchRes, I found that my LCD model/part number (from first generation 17" MacBook Pro) was "LP171WE2", which you can see on the following page is listed as "262,144 (6bit)" colors.

http://www.lgdisplay.com/homeContain/jsp/eng/prd/prd300je.jsp


On a side note, I just realized X-Rite is about two minutes from my house....

Kurt Lang wrote:
So if the OS were indeed damaged, reinstalling it would still accomplish nothing?

You have no evidence to suggest that any part of the OS is damaged.

That's funny, I've profiled a fair number of laptops and gotten excellent results. And X-Rite is inept? I suppose you think that the Eye-One, designed and marketed by the former Gretag-MacBeth is then also inept? You must be doing something wrong.

What's funny is that I've actually used all of their current software and equipment on currently shipping Apple laptops and am therefore more qualified to make claims as to their efficacy in this regard than anyone who has not. I've also dealt with numerous X-Rite officers and engineers over the past several years I've been attempting to use their bug-ridden software. Every bug I've ever reported has been confirmed, and everyone who's ever promised a fix that never came has been fired for one reason or another, so I'm not sure what it is I'm doing wrong apart from questioning the credentials of those self-proclaimed Photoshop experts who subscribe to the check-every-layer-style-option-there-is school of UI design.

Oh brother. Where did you hear that!? If you had the display set to 256 colors instead of millions it would. But how would you manage that otherwise?

Experience has taught me that anything I might link to regarding this highly publicized issue on this forum will be removed immediately, but suffice to say there's no shortage of information out there regarding this little 6-bit switcheroo if you simply look for it. Should you continue to experience difficulty, throwing the names *Fred Greaves* and *Dave Gatley* into your search terms may prove beneficial.

The bottom line is that the Macbook line to date is not suitable for critical color evaluation, and the only people who will tell you otherwise are usually trying to sell you a copy of Aperture.

I don't feel like putting almost 3000 $ in laptop that can't display blue.

I might have my threads mixed up, but didn't you write the blue problem clears in Photoshop when you go to System Preferences> Displays> Color> Display Profile (and load sRGB)?

If YES, that points directly at your Xrite building a bad monitor profile (and the only point I would make to Xrite, if it is defective or incompatible, and if the 3 version will profile your type of screen properly).

IMHO, the Apple MacPro laptops are the best out there.

Try www.skype.com (cheap internet phone service) and call Xrite USA Sales...

The LCD displays in (recent) Apple laptops are vastly different from the true 24-bit LCD displays in Apple Cinema Displays.

I think you hit the answer, why the Eye One 2 can't profile the laptop correctly...then question becomes can the Xrite 3 series profile (recent) Apple laptops (and glossy iMac screens) correctly...

Lastly, I don't think any Apple monitors or laptop screens have the so-called wide-gamut Adobe RGB gamut panels.

Most, if not all, are actually only 18-bit displays (6 bits for each color channel), meaning they are only capable of natively displaying 2^18, or 262,144 colors.

That could certainly cause a problem. Why on Earth would Apple do that? The Eye-One Match software is likely trying to build a profile for a 24 bit display. Still, 0,0,255 is a fixed gamut point in profiles. In theory, it should still work.

You have no evidence to suggest that any part of the OS is damaged.

I never said it was, orangekay. I said it was a possibility. It was just someplace to start in order to rule out software as the issue, as I stated more than once earlier in this thread.

Experience has taught me that anything I might link to regarding this highly publicized issue on this forum will be removed immediately, but suffice to say there's no shortage of information out there regarding this little 6-bit switcheroo if you simply look for it.

I read quite a bit on color as it applies to computers, but until Mark Douma mentioned it above, I'd never heard of it before. Thanks for the related search items.

The bottom line is that the Macbook line to date is not suitable for critical color evaluation, and the only people who will tell you otherwise are usually trying to sell you a copy of Aperture.

Ha! Now that's funny. 🙂 I certainly agree that no matter how much you pay for a laptop, it shouldn't be your main choice for high end color work. That's just not what they're marketed, or intended for.

Yes thats true every thing is all right when using any other standard profile of default factory Color LCD.

Then it has to be the colorimeter.

That's the best response you've gotten so far. Still doesn't address the colorimeter itself, but does provide good information.

a) working on a laptops, basic approach by monitor quality is to get neutrality than optimum color, if you want better viewing conditions, use an additional external monitor, otherwise further discussions are redundant.

Not what you want to hear, but the same thing both myself and orangekay have said. A laptop is not a good choice for high end color work. Their main selling point is portability, not color production work.

b) different colorspace (RGB standard profiles) not only have different gamuts but as well Gamma curves implied AND one of the aspect neglecting, diffenrent white points. Adobe and sRGB have the same.

Completely true. All profiles have gamuts that make them different from one another. If they didn't, we'd only need one profile for every RGB device out there. That they have a different white point isn't as big an issue. Say you have one profile with a 6500K white and you're opening it to a monitor with a 5000K white point. The whites will be adjusted as best as possible to maintain the correct color range. But since 5000K is a duller, warmer white, your brightest colors will also become less brilliant and warmer in order to fit in the new space.

c) ProPhoto is the most inappropriate to use as a working color space. for european purpose use ECI_RGB (see www.eci.org)

Also true. Yes, it's closer to filling the visual color range we can see in the real world, but is unsuitable to computer work. No monitor, and especially no printed piece could ever hope to come close to replicating that color space. So why bother to even try to use it?

d)the "factory Color LCD" is not a factory profile but generated as general profile wich does not really fingerprint the monitor. If you delete all displayprofiles on a Mac and reboot apple system will create a default display profile (what ever that means) in oder to be operational)

Correct again. I never, ever use canned profiles for anything. Not even the ones that came with my printer for their own papers. That profile does not represent my printer with that paper. For the same reason, you should create your own monitor profile. The supplied profiles do not in any represent what your monitor is displaying, or capable of displaying. Your whole problem to this point is getting a good profile.

reminds me of the dribble I got back from xrite when I asked xrite why my new Dell wide-gamut monitor displayed sRGB so oversaturated, especially in the reds, when I stripped the sRGB profile (a very simple answer BTW that you think they should know)

the simple fact your color problem clears when you disable the xrite profile clearly identifies the culprit, xrite is either defective or incompatible

unfortunately these xrite 'geniuses' speak so high and mighty in their meaningless esoteric mumbo jumbo that it is hard for us to follow through on our question, because it is clear they don't understand the question (or they could give the answer in simple terms)

sorry...