| Author |
Message |
blumesan
Guest
|
 Posted:
Thu Nov 03, 2005 8:25 am Post subject:
Re: color profile embedding (not conversion) utility? |
|
|
Don,
A quick addendum. I tried the procedure outlined in my last post.
Overall I was pleased with the results. One surprise however: When
importing the image into Photoshop I am informed that the file is
tagged with the sRGB profile. To me this means that the native scanner
data were massaged to convert the image into the sRGB color space. I
thought the idea was to avoid any manipulation to the "raw" data. Can
you comment?
Cheers,
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
John
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 03, 2005 6:00 pm Post subject:
Re: color profile embedding (not conversion) utility? |
|
|
"blumesan" <blumesan@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1131000815.699859.121970@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Don,
A quick addendum. I tried the procedure outlined in my last post.
Overall I was pleased with the results. One surprise however: When
importing the image into Photoshop I am informed that the file is
tagged with the sRGB profile. To me this means that the native scanner
data were massaged to convert the image into the sRGB color space. I
thought the idea was to avoid any manipulation to the "raw" data. Can
you comment?
Cheers,
Mike.
That is not what is happening really. When you *import* an image into |
Photoshop e.g. using TWAIN (as opposed to *opening* an image using
File|Open), Photoshop assigns the current working space profile to the
imported file. You will notice that if you change your current RGB working
space to (say) Adobe RGB (1998), your imported images will be tagged with
this instead.
To avoid this behaviour and end up with an untagged file (if that is what
you want), uncheck 'Preserve Embedded Profiles' in your colour settings.
--
John
Replace 'nospam' with 'todnet' when replying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:43 pm Post subject:
Re: color profile embedding (not conversion) utility? |
|
|
On 2 Nov 2005 20:58:14 -0800, "blumesan" <blumesan@verizon.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Don,
Many thanks for your reply. I really appreciate your taking the time
to answer my posts. I hope you will forgive my obsession with details,
but I really want to get this technique right.
|
Hi Mike,
My pleasure. I'm glad you find it useful. I've benefited from this
group greatly and it's just my way of giving some of it back.
| Quote: | Don wrote:
Yes, it's determining exposure using Analog Gain and looking at the
histogram. It's no different to what Auto Exposure does only you have
more control. The idea is to keep increasing exposure until the
histogram data starts to touch the right edge. That's the ideal
exposure where nothing is lost.
If I understand correctly the procedure (using NikonScan) would be:
1. Turn off color management, editing function and autoexposure.and
make a Preview scan of the image.
2. Open the Curves and Analog Gain Palettes.
3. For each of the color channels in turn; look at the histogram and
make a ballpark adjustment to the analog gain. Since the effect of the
adjustment is not reflected in the histogram in real time, click on
Redraw.
|
That would work, with one caveat. Redraw is really only a "guess". It
simply applies a formula to the Preview data to *emulate* Analog Gain
settings. In theory, that should work, but in practice there are
inaccuracies due to various reasons (usually more boost is needed).
If you want to really be sure, you should re-scan with the new
settings. You still have the 8-bit histogram and limited Preview
resolution (see below) but a re-scan would be more accurate.
Of course, a re-scan will take longer, so you'll have to decide if
that extra accuracy is really worth the trouble of waiting for another
preview scan. Try a few tests (examining the full scan in Photoshop
later and compare to NikonScan histogram) and then see. This may be
hard, though, due to 8-bit histograms (see below).
| Quote: | 4. Readjust the analog gain settings as needed, redraw again and
repeat until you are happy with the histogram.
5. Ensure that color management, editing functions and autoexposure
remain off. Gamma may be set at 2.2; autofocus and ICE may be engaged.
Perform final scan.
|
Yes, that's it in a nutshell. You may actually turn Curves panel "off"
by clicking on the checkmark in the upper left palette corner and
turning it into an "x". However, if you keep the curves "flat" (a
diagonal line from lower left to upper right, it's the same thing
because even though the Curves are processed they are flat and should
not affect the image. And you can examine individual channels, etc.
Do note that what you see there is based on the preview image! Nikon
Scan is good in that it actually uses the full 16-bits for the preview
but the resolution is greatly reduced and the histogram display is
only 8-bit. That means once you import the full scan into Photoshop,
there may be some small differences. Do note also that Photoshop
histogram is 8-bit too. If you want more accuracy here's a free 12-bit
histogram you can use as a Photohop plug-in:
http://www.reindeergraphics.com/free.shtml
Look for the "Wide Histogram".
I'm a bit picky and even that wasn't good enough so I wrote my own
true 16-bit histogram. Also, I wanted to run it outside Photoshop. But
the above histogram is quite useful if you care for such level of
detail. I mean, all that's probably overkill, but I mention it just in
case.
Don. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:43 pm Post subject:
Re: color profile embedding (not conversion) utility? |
|
|
On 2 Nov 2005 22:53:35 -0800, "blumesan" <blumesan@verizon.net> wrote:
| Quote: | A quick addendum. I tried the procedure outlined in my last post.
Overall I was pleased with the results. One surprise however: When
importing the image into Photoshop I am informed that the file is
tagged with the sRGB profile. To me this means that the native scanner
data were massaged to convert the image into the sRGB color space. I
thought the idea was to avoid any manipulation to the "raw" data. Can
you comment?
|
Just to add to what John says, when an image is tagged with a profile
that data in the file is not changed. The tag simply indicates which
profile to use in the future. You can change this tag at any time. The
only time the image data is actually changed is if you select the
Photoshop option "convert to profile".
BTW, when I used NikonScan I always used it standalone and not as
TWAIN from Photoshop. I'm normally doing all this on my notebook and
running NikonScan alone requires far fewer resources. It's also
probably much quicker because the data doesn't have to be passed to
Photoshop which occurs through temporary files, etc.
I also had some problems with my flatbed (which can only be used with
a TWAIN module). Namely, it would occasionally hang bringing Photoshop
down and then I lose all the images in memory. That's why I prefer to
save to disk first, backup, and only then work on a copy.
Don. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lorenzo J. Lucchini
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:49 pm Post subject:
Re: color profile embedding (not conversion) utility? |
|
|
Don wrote:
| Quote: | On 31 Oct 2005 13:13:58 -0800, "blumesan" <blumesan@verizon.net
wrote:
[snip]
In theory, Auto Exposure should not clip if you set clipping to 0 but,
it does especially in case of negatives because of other reasons (the
image is inverted and processed, etc).
|
Hey, didn't you forget the very main reason why it may clip, i.e. the
tiny size of the preview that Auto Exposure is calculated on...?
"In theory", there are very valid reasons why Auto Exposure cannot
guarrantee zero clipping on a single scan (plus low-resolution preview).
Not to be the devil's advocate (the devil being you here of course ;-),
but you know, using a preview to calculate things cannot only be a
problem when it's LjL doing it! :-P
by LjL
ljlbox@tiscali.it |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blumesan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:04 am Post subject:
Re: color profile embedding (not conversion) utility? |
|
|
John,
Thank you for taking an interest in my problem. You wrote:
| Quote: | That is not what is happening really. When you *import* an image into
Photoshop e.g. using TWAIN (as opposed to *opening* an image using
File|Open), Photoshop assigns the current working space profile to the
imported file. You will notice that if you change your current RGB working
space to (say) Adobe RGB (1998), your imported images will be tagged with
this instead.
To avoid this behaviour and end up with an untagged file (if that is what
you want), uncheck 'Preserve Embedded Profiles' in your colour settings.
|
I am sorry if I have not been specific enough about my procedure. I
never use NikonScan as a TWAIN interface to import an image into
Photoshop. I use NikonScan as a stand alone program which scans and
writes the file to disk. Subsequently I close this software and open
Photoshop; then import the file using File | Open. My PS color
management policies are set to use Adobe RGB as the default working
space. Policy is set to "Preserve Embedded Profile" and Profile
Mismatch and Profile Absent warnings are set. Consequently if the file
being opened had no profile embedded I would get a warning informing me
of this fact. However what I do get is a warning informing me that the
file has an embedded profile that does not match my current RGB working
space; and further states that the embedded profile is sRGB.
I can only conclude that the profile was embedded by the scanner
software before writing the file to disk. And no sane software would
embed a color space profile without first converting the file data into
that color space.
Cheers,
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blumesan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:36 am Post subject:
Re: color profile embedding (not conversion) utility? |
|
|
Don,
Once again thank you for your replies.
| Quote: | Just to add to what John says, when an image is tagged with a profile
that data in the file is not changed. The tag simply indicates which
profile to use in the future. You can change this tag at any time. The
only time the image data is actually changed is if you select the
Photoshop option "convert to profile".
BTW, when I used NikonScan I always used it standalone and not as
TWAIN from Photoshop.
|
There is a bit of confusion (at least on my part) about the meaning of
a "tagged image". Putting this aside for the moment, the meaning of
"embedded profile" is quite clear. To me, an embedded profile
describes the color space of its associated file. The file was either
created in that color space or subsequently converted (from whatever
color space it was in, e.g. raw scanner) into that color space. Thus
when I find that the file output by the scanner software has an
embedded profile (sRGB) it suggests that the "native" scanner data have
been converted into this color space before writing the file to disk.
That, of course, requires changing the data. [See my previous post to
John which describes my workflow and PS color settings.]
In a second post Don wrote::
| Quote: | "That would work, with one caveat. Redraw is really only a "guess". It
simply applies a formula to the Preview data to *emulate* Analog Gain
settings. In theory, that should work, but in practice there are
inaccuracies due to various reasons (usually more boost is needed).
If you want to really be sure, you should re-scan with the new
settings. You still have the 8-bit histogram and limited Preview
resolution (see below) but a re-scan would be more accurate. "
|
I'm still a bit confused. When I select Redraw the scanner does a new
Preview scan. I assume therefore that the new histogram is based on
the results of the new Preview rather than a software emulation of the
changed analog gain settings. Nevertheless I can understand that
examining the histogram of a full scan would give a more accurate
representation of the analog gain changes.
| Quote: | "Of course, a re-scan will take longer, so you'll have to decide if
that extra accuracy is really worth the trouble of waiting for another
preview scan."
|
Your phrase "waiting for another PREVIEW scan" adds to my confusion.
As noted above, when I select "Redraw" the scanner performs another
preview scan.
| Quote: | "Do note that what you see there is based on the preview image! Nikon
Scan is good in that it actually uses the full 16-bits for the preview
but the resolution is greatly reduced and the histogram display is
only 8-bit. That means once you import the full scan into Photoshop,
there may be some small differences. Do note also that Photoshop
histogram is 8-bit too. If you want more accuracy here's a free 12-bit
histogram you can use as a Photohop plug-in:"
|
It is my understanding that when the image imported into PS was 16 bit,
the histogram display used all 16 bits. I am using PS CS(8). Please
correct me if I am wrong.
Once again thank you for your reply.
Cheers,
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:04 pm Post subject:
Re: color profile embedding (not conversion) utility? |
|
|
"blumesan" <blumesan@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1131048262.269446.109730@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | John,
Thank you for taking an interest in my problem. You wrote:
That is not what is happening really. When you *import* an image into
Photoshop e.g. using TWAIN (as opposed to *opening* an image using
File|Open), Photoshop assigns the current working space profile to the
imported file. You will notice that if you change your current RGB
working
space to (say) Adobe RGB (1998), your imported images will be tagged
with
this instead.
To avoid this behaviour and end up with an untagged file (if that is
what
you want), uncheck 'Preserve Embedded Profiles' in your colour settings.
I am sorry if I have not been specific enough about my procedure. I
never use NikonScan as a TWAIN interface to import an image into
Photoshop. I use NikonScan as a stand alone program which scans and
writes the file to disk. Subsequently I close this software and open
Photoshop; then import the file using File | Open. My PS color
management policies are set to use Adobe RGB as the default working
space. Policy is set to "Preserve Embedded Profile" and Profile
Mismatch and Profile Absent warnings are set. Consequently if the file
being opened had no profile embedded I would get a warning informing me
of this fact. However what I do get is a warning informing me that the
file has an embedded profile that does not match my current RGB working
space; and further states that the embedded profile is sRGB.
I can only conclude that the profile was embedded by the scanner
software before writing the file to disk. And no sane software would
embed a color space profile without first converting the file data into
that color space.
Cheers,
Mike.
|
In that case, I think the problem is a default EXIF profile. Now that you
mention it, I have had exactly the same problem, and happily, there is a
simple fix.
For some reason, NikonScan writes the sRGB profile in the TIF EXIF data by
default - why, I have no idea. This profile is not actually embedded in the
image, but is in the EXIF data. It is not the correct profile for the image,
which is in fact untagged. The problem is that Photoshop CS2 (and probably
CS as well) by default will assign the EXIF profile in the absence of an
embedded one.
The solution lies in the Preferences, surprisingly not in the Colour
Settings. Go to Edit|Preferences|FileHandling and check 'Ignore EXIF Profile
Tag'. Your images should now open untagged.
I note in your reply to Don, you ask about 'tagging' as opposed to
'embedding'. I must admit, I tend to use these terms loosely. Tagging an
image is, as you suggest, merely assigning a profile to an image in an image
editor. It does not change the data. Embedding is what happens when you
write the image to a file - the ICC profile itself is incorporated within
the image data so that it can be recovered by an image editor, even if the
profile is not installed on that particular computer.
I have to admit, I don't understand how the EXIF profile is implemented -
whether it is simply a tag refering to the profile name or whether the
profile data itself is included in the file. I suspect the former, but I may
be wrong - perhaps others can help here ....
However, the issue here is that the EXIF profile is incorrect in this case.
That would appear to be a problem with NikonScan. You can rest assured that
in NikonScan, if you select either ScannerRGB or turn off colour management
altogether, you will get native scanner RGB, or as Don likes to say
'Uncorrupted data' :-)
--
John
Replace 'nospam' with 'todnet' when replying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blumesan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 5:06 am Post subject:
Re: color profile embedding (not conversion) utility? |
|
|
Hi John,
You are right on the money. Checking "Ignore EXIF Profile Tags" in PS
Preferences does the trick. On import into PS the warning shows: no
embedded profile.
I was not aware that the entire profile itself (the lookup table) was
ever embedded into an image file; I thought that just the profile
designator was included. However what you say makes sense since, in
some circumstances the destination software may not have independent
access to the profile.
As for my understanding of "tagging", I always assumed that this was
simply an instruction to the editing software telling it to disregard
the embedded profile (or absence thereof), assume the file is in color
space X and assign that profile as the document working space, (i.e.
tag the file with that profile). No data conversion occurs, and the
file is saved with its original profile (or no profile). I welcome any
corrections or additions to this hypothesis.
Thanks again for your input.
Cheers,
Mike
John wrote:
| Quote: | In that case, I think the problem is a default EXIF profile. Now that you
mention it, I have had exactly the same problem, and happily, there is a
simple fix.
For some reason, NikonScan writes the sRGB profile in the TIF EXIF data by
default - why, I have no idea. This profile is not actually embedded in the
image, but is in the EXIF data. It is not the correct profile for the image,
which is in fact untagged. The problem is that Photoshop CS2 (and probably
CS as well) by default will assign the EXIF profile in the absence of an
embedded one.
The solution lies in the Preferences, surprisingly not in the Colour
Settings. Go to Edit|Preferences|FileHandling and check 'Ignore EXIF Profile
Tag'. Your images should now open untagged.
However, the issue here is that the EXIF profile is incorrect in this case.
That would appear to be a problem with NikonScan. You can rest assured that
in NikonScan, if you select either ScannerRGB or turn off colour management
altogether, you will get native scanner RGB, or as Don likes to say
'Uncorrupted data' :-)
John
.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blumesan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 5:17 am Post subject:
Re: color profile embedding (not conversion) utility? |
|
|
Hi Don,
On the chance you may have missed my reply to this message (#38) it is
just above in message #37, in my reply to John.
Many thanks for the link to the wide histogram. That is a vast
improvement. It's a pity that it doesn't function in real time
simultaneously with editing the image with the Levels adjustment. But
one shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth.
Cheers,
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 4:02 pm Post subject:
Re: color profile embedding (not conversion) utility? |
|
|
"blumesan" <blumesan@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1131145588.718696.238210@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Hi John,
As for my understanding of "tagging", I always assumed that this was
simply an instruction to the editing software telling it to disregard
the embedded profile (or absence thereof), assume the file is in color
space X and assign that profile as the document working space, (i.e.
tag the file with that profile). No data conversion occurs, and the
file is saved with its original profile (or no profile). I welcome any
corrections or additions to this hypothesis.
Thanks again for your input.
Cheers,
Mike
|
Your hypothesis is sort of half correct. I think the word 'tag' is maybe a
source of confusion - better to use the word 'assign'. When you *assign* a
profile to a document, you are associating that profile with that document.
In other words, you are defining the calibration of the RGB data and making
it device independent. When you assign a profile to an image in Photoshop,
as you correctly observe, you override any existing profile with the new
one. In other words, the RGB data remains unchanged, but you are re-defining
the calibration of it.
As an example, suppose you have a file with sRGB embedded. If you *assign* a
wide gamut colour space to it (e.g.Wide Gamut RGB) you will note that the
colours become extremely saturated. This is because you have effectively
re-defined the definition of the RGB values to represent more saturated
colours.
What happens when you save off the file depends on your colour settings; if
you have 'Preserve Embedded Profiles' enabled, the assigned profile will be
embedded in your saved file. However, if you have 'Preserve Embedded
Profiles' disabled, the file will be saved off without an embedded profile,
so that when you open it subsequently, it will be 'untagged' (have no
assigned profile), and Photoshop will *assume* the current RGB working space
profile. (BTW, you can also choose to embed or not during a save via the
File|Save dialogue, irrespective of your colour management policy.)
Your working space profile is not affected by any embedded profiles in
individual documents. It remains as set by your colour settings. However,
working space only affects 'untagged' documents (i.e. documents without an
assigned profile). In such cases, the working space profile is *assumed* for
editing purposes, but will not be saved off in any files unless you
specifically instruct it to be.
The embedded or assigned profile will always override the working space
profile. You will see the colours according to the document's own profile
because Photoshop does an 'on the fly' conversion from the document colour
space to the monitor's colour space. The file data itself does not change,
as you are aware.
If you are taking Don's approach of hand crafting raw scan files, you will
be assuming your working space profile and colour corrrecting so that you
effectively end up with a valid file in that colour space, say Adobe RGB
(1998). It is therefore wise to embed this profile to your *edited* files
rather than leave them unembedded - this will ensure that you have the
correct profile on subsequent opening. However, leave your unedited raw
archive files unembedded.
--
John
Replace 'nospam' with 'todnet' when replying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 4:23 pm Post subject:
Re: color profile embedding (not conversion) utility? |
|
|
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 10:04:07 -0000, "John" <warthog@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
| Quote: | You can rest assured that
in NikonScan, if you select either ScannerRGB or turn off colour management
altogether, you will get native scanner RGB, or as Don likes to say
'Uncorrupted data' :-)
|
LOL! Very good! ;o)
Don. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 4:23 pm Post subject:
Re: color profile embedding (not conversion) utility? |
|
|
On 3 Nov 2005 14:36:13 -0800, "blumesan" <blumesan@verizon.net> wrote:
| Quote: | There is a bit of confusion (at least on my part) about the meaning of
a "tagged image". Putting this aside for the moment, the meaning of
"embedded profile" is quite clear. To me, an embedded profile
describes the color space of its associated file. The file was either
created in that color space or subsequently converted (from whatever
color space it was in, e.g. raw scanner) into that color space. Thus
when I find that the file output by the scanner software has an
embedded profile (sRGB) it suggests that the "native" scanner data have
been converted into this color space before writing the file to disk.
That, of course, requires changing the data. [See my previous post to
John which describes my workflow and PS color settings.]
|
I think I better "tag" John, now... ;o)
You see, I only have Photoshop version 6 here so John's remarks are
much more appropriate. PS 6, for example, totally ignores EXIF data
and strips it all away when the file is saved (a major annoyance for
my digicam images!).
Having said that, I think a part of the problem is probably the
terminology as well, so let's settle for Photoshop terms.
Assign (or Tag as we have been calling it) simply means a marker is
saved with the file indicating the profile to be used but the image
data is not changed.
Assign and Convert, by contrast, means change the image data.
Finally, "Leave as is..." as Photoshop calls it means don't do
anything to the file; don't assign a profile and don't change the
data.
BTW, you can test all this out as follows. Take a scan without a
profile and import into Photoshop. Assuming your preferences are set
to "Ask" a dialog pops-up. Select "Leave as is..." and then save the
image as RAW. When you do that only image data is saved without any
prefix or suffix (which is where profiles, tags, EXIFs, etc live).
Close and open the same image again. This time select "Assign
working..." and again "Save as" using the RAW option.
Finally, close again and open but select the third option "Assign"
click the check mark for "convert". Again, save as RAW.
You can then compare these three files to see what action causes image
data to change. If you don't have a compare program, you can use "fc"
(file compare) in DOS. Type "fc /?" for parameters.
| Quote: | "Of course, a re-scan will take longer, so you'll have to decide if
that extra accuracy is really worth the trouble of waiting for another
preview scan."
Your phrase "waiting for another PREVIEW scan" adds to my confusion.
As noted above, when I select "Redraw" the scanner performs another
preview scan.
|
It could have been the NikonScan version (I used both 3 and 4 over two
scanners LS-30 and LS-50) but I remember distinctly that in some cases
the image was just redrawn instantly without performing the new scan.
Anyway, I don't use NikonScan anymore, but if every time you press
Redraw the scanner does perform another preview scan then everything's
fine and just ignore what I said.
BTW, you probably know this, but an exclamation mark in a yellow
triangle indicates when the Analog Gain settings has been changed but
the display was not updated with a Redraw. This icon appears in the
information panel.
| Quote: | "Do note that what you see there is based on the preview image! Nikon
Scan is good in that it actually uses the full 16-bits for the preview
but the resolution is greatly reduced and the histogram display is
only 8-bit. That means once you import the full scan into Photoshop,
there may be some small differences. Do note also that Photoshop
histogram is 8-bit too. If you want more accuracy here's a free 12-bit
histogram you can use as a Photohop plug-in:"
It is my understanding that when the image imported into PS was 16 bit,
the histogram display used all 16 bits. I am using PS CS(8). Please
correct me if I am wrong.
|
There are two issues here. One is that Photoshop's 16-bit mode is
actually 15-bit. At least for version 6. I'm not sure about version 8
but I believe that hasn't changed. Maybe someone else can jump in to
clarify this. If so then any histogram uses this reduced 15-bit image.
The second issue is more important, because the Photoshop histogram
display (at least in version 6, again) is only 8-bit i.e the data is
reduced to fit into 256 bins available in the display window.
Don. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 5:45 pm Post subject:
Re: color profile embedding (not conversion) utility? |
|
|
"Don" <phoney.email@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1hnnm1toh8p56omvv4qkfbjiiumsu94b7r@4ax.com...
| Quote: | I think I better "tag" John, now... ;o)
You see, I only have Photoshop version 6 here so John's remarks are
much more appropriate. PS 6, for example, totally ignores EXIF data
and strips it all away when the file is saved (a major annoyance for
my digicam images!).
Don.
|
Yes, it was when I upgraded to CS2 from Photoshop 6 that the problem with
the EXIF profile first reared its head - before that, images saved from
NikonScan with CM off came in untagged as they should. Desks were hammered,
expletives were uttered, then I worked out what was going on. What actually
pointed me in the right direction was the name of the sRGB profile - it
wasn't sRGB IEC61966-2.1 or Nikon sRGB - just plain sRGB. So I looked at the
EXIF data and there it was. I still don't understand why that profile is
there though - I assume that it's a default that doesn't get removed rather
than a deliberate insertion.
--
John
Replace 'nospam' with 'todnet' when replying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 5:50 pm Post subject:
Re: color profile embedding (not conversion) utility? |
|
|
On 4 Nov 2005 15:17:43 -0800, "blumesan" <blumesan@verizon.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On the chance you may have missed my reply to this message (#38) it is
just above in message #37, in my reply to John.
|
Hi Mike,
Yes, I did see it and answered it but my news server was on the blink
last night so I sent it out first thing this morning.
Anyway, looks like John solved that EXIF kink!
| Quote: | Many thanks for the link to the wide histogram. That is a vast
improvement. It's a pity that it doesn't function in real time
simultaneously with editing the image with the Levels adjustment. But
one shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth.
|
I know, that would really be nice. The trouble is with huge 16-bit
files there's a lot of data so it takes a while to tabulate it all.
Don. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in