The Psychology of Color Management and Calibration

The cliche experience that many have had is watching a family member trying to master the color on the family TV set. The people-centric medium of TV makes us to look at images where the color being off becomes unbearable and unnatural because skin tones just look wrong. We all know what skin tones should look like so we are compelled to change the screen to make the skin tones look as we expect. It's natural to trust that the color being broadcast to your TV is correct, only changing the settings on the TV can make it right. Hopeful TV color experts twiddle the controls trying to achieve a vague balance that only they can, while everyone else sits idly looking on hoping thing would be alright soon, impatient with the technology, wondering why it can't just be right in the first place -- or if adjusting it is the thing that is screwing it up.

People are more apt to assume that what they see on their computer monitor is accurate when they pull it out of the box. Monitors are not constantly replete with skin tones that remind us that something may be off, as you spend considerable time using it for other activities like checking email or word-processing, which has nothing to do with skin tones at all. When a digital photographer sees a face, it might more often be in Photoshop, where they just change the color with tools in the program offered for that type of control. Regretfully, changing the color and trusting what you see in Photoshop and on your monitor can lead to martian prints and web postings of people in your images, and a quandary: why should color that looks correct in one place be off or plain wrong in another.

The answer is Color Management.

As they say, a little knowledge can be dangerous. Knowing enough to adjust the color in Photoshop doesn't turn out to be enough to make the color right. While some will come to the conclusion that the poor results have something to do with color management, just what they need to do to work with color management is less clear. They may revert to familiar territory and seek out the computer's brightness, contrast and color controls figuring this is how they have to make adjustments fiddling like you might do with a TV. They might get close and even get lucky with this method, but generally nothing could be worse. Adjustments made with the monitor controls as a means of color management end up being a best guess at what everything should look like on screen, and a compromise much like the TV expert's attempts at balancing RGB with the primitive TV controls. Guessing is not a good approach to color.

Some may go a little further and read a few web postings that have to do with adjusting color on their monitor, and these will range from the incorrect to the absurdly simple to the horribly technical ones that you are not quite sure are written in English. Naturally, the TV-color-minded inclination that "it is just color, how complicated could it be..." pushes people more toward accepting the absurdly simple and incorrect approaches. Some may take it a step further to seek out help from an expert (who may be anyone from a well-respected authority in Photoshop or color management to a neighbor who knows "a bunch about computers"). Regretfully the better answers (like the book Real World Color Management by Fraser, Murphy and Bunting, a 500+ page book) may be long and involved and daunting from the outset. On the other hand, getting the color right doesn't require getting a college degree in the subject, and such extensive study may be unnecessary for common folk, who, after all, just want the right color.

Those who want the right color without the doctorate end up taking suggestions from friends or people on forums, or look for the 'right' way to set up their color management. Truth be told, there is not one right way: more than one method will work. In fact, any method of color management that makes sense will work...but the other side of the coin is: the same color management scheme just doesn't work for everyone, and some will work better than others. The best way to get the color right and pick an applicable color management scheme, is, in my opinion, understanding the shorthand version of what you want to achieve and applying the simplest steps possible to get there.

The basics of color management requires:

• Calibrating your monitor
• Creating an ICC profile (usually part of step 1)
• Setting up color management in Photoshop or Elements (and perhaps other programs) correctly
• Setting up previews/screen proofing that make sense (Photoshop, not Elements)
• Applying appropriate color tagging to your images

If you neglect any one of these, you are gambling with your color results, plain and simple. If you do a few and not the others, you are not necessarily any better off than doing none at all. More frustrating, if you don't do them all, things may work sometimes, and not others, and you'll never be able to tell why. But attack each of these components with the intent to know why they are important, how they apply, and how to apply them, and you'll have the skeleton of color management, which is enough to hang your color on. You get skin on your skeleton when you define the purpose of what you are trying to achieve. Do you print to the same printer all the time? Do you print to many? Do you post images to the web exclusively? Do you print and post? Do images all come from the same camera? Do you have many sources of images (multiple cameras, images from friends, clients, etc.)? All these questions filter into your color management choice.

This is not the first time I've mentioned color management in my blog, and it won't be the last. Here are some other Color Management entries:

• What Color Space Do I Use? (Part 1)
• What Color Space Do I Use (Part 2)
• Calibrating My Home Printer

These additional resources should give you some background on making better color management choices.

For more info on approaching color management seriously, I have a 4 week primer course at betterphoto.com called From Monitor to Print that will work you through these 5 essentials, and test your results, making you color competent in a short amount of time with the least amount of work. You'll want to look into good calibration tools like the ColorVision Spyder (by the way, I posted an article on 9.11.08 about using the ColorVision Spyder Express to calibrate a dual monitor system -- which the manufacturer says is impossible). You can also simplify your color life by finding a system and sticking to it (don't change printers, papers, profiles, inks, or services without a plan).

Competent color handling is more than just calibration, but don't get psyched out. Make the effort to know what to do, and you can put it safely behind you.

What Color Space Do I Use (Part 2)

[Continued from Part 1]
In the previous entry in this blog, I discussed some of the theory involved in choosing a color space. Let's look at my current workflow as an example.

My Choices
I choose to use an AdobeRGB (camera)>sRGB (convert to sRGB in Photoshop)>sRGB (add an sRGB profile to send to print) workflow for what I believe are sensible reasons based on my long experience in digital imaging.

I capture in AdobeRGB for a few reasons:

*I have a high-bit digital image sensor that captures at least 12-bits -- or 16 times the number of colors captured in 8-bit images. With 16 times the number of colors as 8-bit, most or all of the 8-bit sRGB colors will be captured If a few are not, I’ll never know.
*The added range may come in handy at some point when technology becomes enhanced and if not, conversion to 8-bit RGB for output should not create much unusable color.

On the other hand, I work in sRGB as a working space for several reasons:

*I like the concept of working with color in ranges that can be properly displayed on my monitor.
*I seldom output to CMYK, but instead use light-process (LED/color laser) printing.
*The process and service I use all the time requests sRGB files, and tests with AdobeRGB have proven the service’s request to be right--for this closed system.
*sRGB is a broadly-used 'default' color standard, that even in systems where profiling fails to make a good translation, the results are within a predictable range. AdobeRGB images where the profile is dropped will usually desaturate drastically. I don't want that problem for the small potential benefit.
*I am not sure that I can define it as a benefit when "better images" would mean NOT matching what I see on screen...I'd have to define it as luck.

I print to light process as it is more efficient than using ink, and the results are closer to what I see on my monitor, as well as more durable.

My closed process (closed, meaning I just about always do the same thing) ending with a need for RGB dictates most of the rest of the workflow, and my decided preference for seeing all the color I work on, solidifies the outline. One of the keys to any successful workflow is testing, which means taking an image and trying to process it both ways, and seeing if the result is better either way. "Better" to me can only be defined by the ability to match the screen...and that really eliminates AdobeRGB as a benefit, as if I can't see the colors that Adobe RGB can produce, any benefit of additional color – beyond what I see on screen -- would naturally not match.

All that said, if you are more adventurous than me and don't mind working on color that you will not see on your monitor, an AdobeRGB workflow may be adopted and used with success mostly in a closed workflow where results go to a CMYK printer. However, should the AdobeRGB workflow be adopted, you will need to be diligent about following the process and being sure the profiles are not dropped, or the result will be a sometimes serious desaturation and compression of dynamic range. This happens because when a profile is dropped (or if it is not included on save), devices will likely assume an sRGB profile, or something very close, and remap the colors in the image: the 'broader' range of colors is mashed down into the 'smaller' space and the result is less impressive than just starting with sRGB and sticking with it. Also, images with AdobeRGB profiles posted to the web either using browsers that do not recognize profiles, or which drop profiles as part of processing will result in the same desaturation and loss of dynamic range.

Why Do I choose This?
My conclusion to this point is that I can certainly get an AdobeRGB workflow to produce results, but I am not convinced that these are 'better' – and I am not convinced that the added risk of color trouble is worth the potential gain. AdobeRGB images may be brighter in print, and in some cases may show a difference, but that surprise may not be accurate in the sense that what you see on your monitor is NOT what you get in print. Things may change in the future, but now, with the broad popularity of the RGB workflow (having shifted with the advent of digital cameras and inkjet printing conversions), sRGB seems a more stable and reliable flow. That may change at some time in the future.

Your Choices
If you have read all the way through this entry and the last, hopefully the sense of this comes through. You can get results with either color space –- or other color spaces not mentioned. But what you choose to use needs to make sense to you, to where your images originate, the processes you choose, and those choices need to blend with your workflow rather than being considered as independent. My considered opinion is that my workflow is best –- for ME. Yours may be different, but hopefully you have made your choices for good reason. If you have not calibrated your monitor, have no real concept of how to make the best corrections to your images, and don’t make other sensible choices in your digital imaging, don’t be quick to blame your color space. There is more to making good images than choosing a color space.

Those are all considerations for a latter blog entry.

Postscript
If you have enjoyed this entry or found it useful, you might like my new book The Adobe Photoshop Layers Book. It will be out in July of 2007!

What Color Space Do I Use? (Part 1)

Question:
I've been trying to come to terms with color management and working color space. What color space do you use, and which is best?

Answer:
Short Answer: I use sRGB. There is not really a 'best' color space, though I find sRGB best and most consistent for what I do.

Color spaces are confusing to most people, and become a heady topic for debate. It is good to know at least the basics before making a choice between which to use. I have my preferences after 15 years of working with digital color, and they have changed with the technology...but let's look at some concepts. In part two of this entry, I'll add in a discussion of why I choose the color management settings that I do.

The "Best" Way...
Working color spaces have trade-offs and advantages, or there wouldn't be choices. If there were a 'best way' to handle color it would likely be handled automatically (e.g., Adobe would put best practices in place programmatically). I consider sRGB as a "realist" color space. It is based on standard monitor display--you deal with colors that can be safely seen on screen (16 million of them in 8-bit). AdobeRGB portends to make color that is better apt for printing--it extends beyond the model of colors you can safely see on your monitor to map colors available in print that are not 'seen' on a monitor (also 16-million in 8-bit). The fallback of sRGB is that it doesn't have a representation of a broader color set. AdobeRGB is said to have a 'broader' color model, but most people don't know what that means: to me it means the set number of colors is mapped differently--not that there are more or even necessarily 'better' colors. People do a LOT of arguing about the potential advantages of using either sRGB or AdobeRGB as a working color space.

In a perfectly theoretical arena, you'd want to work with images in optimal conditions: colors that you would be able to see on screen would readily translate into print. There-in lies the rub. RGB and CMYK reproduce different color sets. RGB is color theory based on light where red, green and blue make up all the potential colors on your monitor; CMYK is color theory based on ABSORPTION of light, as inks of cyan, magenta, yellow and black that represent all colors in print. While slightly over-simplifying here, RGB favors reds, greens and blues to the slight failing in representation of cyan, magenta and yellow. CMYK favors cyan, magenta and yellow with a failure in being able to represent the brightest reds, greens and blues. Though CMYK has an additional 'color' (black), it does not add representation to the theoretical space: black is added to compensate for the inability of ink to be perfectly efficient in absorption...black helps compensate the CMY model so that it will have a full dynamic range. Such things as the physical properties of the ink, paper, and available light will contribute to the lack of perfect performance in ink absorption. All this really means is: the colors represented by CMYK and RGB are different, and what you see on your monitor is not the same as what printing in CMYK can represent.

Making Compensation
There are all sorts of ways that technology tries to compensate for the difference, such as providing printers with additional colors, or allowing translation using color mappings and embedded profiles. Adobe claims that AdobeRGB is a better model in representing the potential of CMYK, because it maps to more CMYK colors than sRGB. It is generally argued that AdobeRGB is more geared to printing images because of its mapping to print colors and that sRGB is better on screen based on its mapping for colors associated with monitor display. The idea is intreguing, in that the color sets promise to allow you to do more direct correction of assoviated colors optimized for a particular use. Yet the reality is, just like RGB and CMYK have different colors, you can't see AdobeRGB color with reliability on an RGB screen...it becomes a conundrum. One solution used to lie in converting to CMYK and that works for those doing certain types of printing, but is really not as helpful for most people who just send images to a service, or run them out on a home inkjet.

There are practice of using color profiles (and embedding them in your images) helps describe the color in an image to different devices, acting like a type of translator. If you work in a color space and place a profile in your image, the THEORY is that you will be able to send that file to other devices (printers, monitors) that will recognize the color mapping and interpret it correctly. Once the device can interpret the color, in theory it shouldn't matter what color space it is in: If the colors can be translated and interpreted, the results should have a reasonable chance of matching.

The problem becomes defining what is supposed to be matched. If you are in sRGB, and you match what it looks like on screen, that may make sense, but using Adobe RGB if you match what is on screen you aren't taking advantage of the broader color space; if you match what is not on screen, you can't ever see what you are adjusting. But the problems just start there whether you use sRGB or AdobeRGB. Add to the problem the fact that not everything prints as CMYK. If AdobeRGB gives you better CMYK and you print to a light process or display images on the web, it may not really offer an advantage. Another issue is the reality that color management theory doesn't always work in the real world: profiles can get dropped (intentionally or not) or remain unused by devices. When you consider the world might not be perfect, you have a better picture of the real mess and why color management becomes such an issue for debate. One person swears by how they achieved success in their workflow and another opposes as they achieved success a completely different way. The fact is that they may both be right, either for the right or wrong reasons.

And the Answer Is?
So the answer to the question of whether you should use one working space or another is: either sRGB or AdobeRGB can work...but you need to accept the advantages and disadvantages of either workflow. Which will work better for you may be answered by taking a look at your workflow as an entire process. That is, based on how you work with images, your choices for what is best in adopting a workflow should be based on what you do with images, rather than what someone else does--whether or not they do it with success. In the next entry we'll look at the workflow I use and why I've made the choices I have to give you a peek into a considered workflow.

POSTSCRIPT
I've just finished writing my new book The Adobe Photoshop Layers Book. It will be out in July of 2007.

What Do I Do With Photoshop?

Question:
I am fairly new to Photoshop, but rarely use it because I don't know what to do with an image. In your last blog entry you mentioned having a 'workflow'. I guess you mean by that a process to follow when editing images. Can you tell me what I'm supposed to do?

Answer:
Short Answer: Yes. Have a workflow and use it with every image.

Working with images isn't random. You shouldn't just fiddle with some filters and auto-corrections and hope to suddenly stumble on something to make your images look good. What you really want to do is outline a process to follow so you are sure your images will look their best every time.

A good workflow takes setup into account as well as image correction.

1. Calibrate your monitor, create an ICC profile, and make color management decisions
   
2. Store your original images safely
   
3. Evaluate the image (composition color and tone) to develop a list of things to correct (in steps 4-8)
   
4. Make general color and tone corrections
   
5. Make small damage corrections (dust, etc.)
   
6. Make composition changes (cropping, replacing, removing objects...other 'heroic' measures)
   
7. Make targeted color and tone corrections.
   
8. Add enhancements (soft-focus, sharpening, etc.)
   
9. Save the working/layered version of the working image
   
10. Save a purposed/final image for output/use
    

Even long-term users of Photoshop may not have a sensible workflow in place, but the fact is that it can save tons of time and account for consistent results.If asked which is the most important of the 10 items above...I'd have to say you need every one of them to get the most out of your images. If you are missing any of them, you'll want to consider adding them to your workflow.

• Calibration and color mangement decisions can greatly affect your outcome
  
• Storing your images is essential to ward off data loss
  
• Evaluating an image tells you what to do and keeps you on track with corrections
  
• Having an order to your corrections helps you correct logically so you aren't taking on the wrong issue at the wrong time (color correcting a hat that is the wrong color before color correcting the whole image makes no sense)
  
• Storing your layered work can save tons of time in making later changes or enhancements
  
• Saving your final image separately allows you to make the best image for any purpose (e.g., a downsized JPEG for the Web, a full-sized EPS or TIFF for print)

With a workflow established, you'll never be puzzled about what to do with your images and you'll be ready to explore them the same way every time, checking over your list so nothing gets missed.

I teach a course on betterphoto.com that will help with workflow issues. It is called From Monitor To Print, and helps you establish a full workflow, covering all 10 items in the list. You can find the course here:
http://www.betterphoto.com/photocourses/RIC01.asp

If you are simply uncomfortable with Photoshop, you may need even more basic help, which I can provide in my Photoshop 101 course, found here:
http://www.betterphoto.com/photocourses/RIC03.asp

But whether you take a course or not, take notes on what you want to do and establish a workflow. It will save you time, and probably money as well!

Calibrating My Home Printer

Question:
I am struggling a lot with thee idea of color management and how it is best to approach it. I am not completely happy with my home printing results. I think I need printer profiling. I can have a printer profile made for $40 each, but I've also considered packages like X-Rite that cost about $1,000. What is the best route to take?

Answer:
Short Answer: I wouldn't do either.

One of the strangest things occurred to me several years ago when I was asked about how I process my images. At the time I was working on my fourth book, after years of doing digital processing and even working pre-press. I had a calibration device, gave people advice, made prints for shows...and my main workstation didn't even have a printer connected to it. In fact, I had a printer or two still in boxs that I never bothered to open. It may seem downright unnatural, but to me there is no need for a printer.

Now, that may seem strange at first, but there is a good reason why I don't have any printing equipment running. I am in the habit, and I think it is a good one, of sending my work out to be printed at a service. To me this has many advantages, not the least of which are cost, convenience, and consistency. These three C's may be a little different than the way most people look at them who are considering working with printers at home, but hear me out.

I use a service for image output and forgo the color profiling for the printer, printer cost, paper expense and maintenance entirely. I save time conceptually and actually not having to worry about issues of profiling for specific paper types, calibrating the monitor, and maintaining the additional software/hardware. I get to print on the most expensive equipment around (these are machines you would never buy for the home) for virtual pennies, and I lose all of the headache that goes with having my own printer, buying and maintaining supplies, potential for maintenance and repair, and finding a place to put it in my office. As long as I go with a good service (that calibrates regularly and uses top-notch equipment, processes, materials, and is responsible for mistakes), my result should be better than I could ever achieve at home.

If you look at cost alone in the proposed scenario, I save $1000 on the X-Rite, another $500 on a top notch home printer, more on paper and inks...and with a few inexpensive tests I can upload images to my service via ftp with confidence in the results, and have far more flexibility for sizing and format than I would at home. In other words, the $1500+ budget for my printer and supplies is something I spend directly on prints instead, without the hassles and headaches, and responsibility for keeping the equipment at peak performance. I am also not fussing with shopping for paper sales, and keeping a stock on hand. I don't have to have a paper cutter...and I am not limited to a smaller size print.

Each print may cost a little more if you look at it as materials alone (paper and ink--though the machines I print on don't use ink). The actual difference is pretty slight. But let's not forget the difference in equipment costs between using a service and printing at home in this scenario: $0 and $1500. It would take me a while to spend that $1500+ dollars in prints, and meanwhile it is earning extra money in interest, or I can invest it in other equipment. At the same time, I might never match the quality of the prints I get at the service, where I get beautiful, digital LED photographic prints on quality photographic paper. I am never longing to upgrade to the next better printer that comes down the pike, I don't have to read articles about home printer technologies, and I can rely on the service to absorb those periodic equipment upgrade expenses.

So, while I am probably fully qualified to run a printer at home and coulkd probably get good results, working without a printer, I can focus on what I do best -- working with my images and focusing on the capture and editing process.