Windows XP Color Management - Opinions, Please

[Peter D]

Windows XP Color Management
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/icm_overview.mspx

Is this worth installing/setting up, or can you recommend a better product
to coordinate the colour input/output of all devices?

 

[Maris V. Lidaka Sr.]

It's a good and useful article, and refers to monitor and other profiles.

One thing I would do would be to purchase a combination hardware-software
monitor profiling creator. I believe the least costly is Colorvision's
Spyder II with PhotoCal or Optical software

http://www.colorvision.com/profis/profis_search.jsp?op=search&department_id=81

For printing, besides using the printer's standard settings, you have 3
options:

Download the appropriate profile for your printer and the paper from the
paper manufacturer's website;
Create your own custom profile using purchased software;
Order a custom profile (this is the best, but also the most expensive -
they use spectrophotometers rather that scanners, which is what most
software you might purchase uses).

Read Bruce Fraser's article "Getting a Handle on Color Management" as well:

http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/13605.html

And check out some of the articles linked from Stephen Marsh's website at

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/PSTV_links.html#C

especially in the sections "Colour Settings" and "Colour Theory"

Maris

 

[Hecate]

Windows XP Color Management
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/icm_overview.mspx

Is this worth installing/setting up, or can you recommend a better product
to coordinate the colour input/output of all devices?

Windows Colour Management is a joke.

That doesn't mean it's not worth doing colour management. It just
depends on whether you need it or not. So, for what purpose? And to
what level (i.e. amateur use or more than that).?

--

Hecate - The Real One
(e-mail address removed)
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

 

[birdman]

Why do people post idiot statements like "windows color management is a
joke"?
If you are serious about printing your own photos and want a predictable
relationship between what you see on the monitor and what comes out of your
printer you need to learn about color management, invest in at least a
monitor calibrating device, and learn how to use a color managed photo
program like Adobe Elements or Photoshop.
The effort is worth it.
Once implemented in Windows color management is every bit as accurate as
under Macs.
In fact there is so much more hardware and software available for high end
digital photo processing under Windows and the overall cost, power of the
processors and memory subsystems, etc so superior in the Wintel environment
that adherence to Macs is not based on any rational analysis or
understanding of the hardware or software.
Even Apple has joined the x86 dark side . . .

 

[Don]

Why do people post idiot statements like "windows color management is a
joke"?

And why do people emotionally overreact based on their biases? ;o)

Once implemented in Windows color management is every bit as accurate as
under Macs.
In fact there is so much more hardware and software available for high end
digital photo processing under Windows and the overall cost, power of the
processors and memory subsystems, etc so superior in the Wintel environment
that adherence to Macs is not based on any rational analysis or
understanding of the hardware or software.

Hecate never mentioned Apple or Macs anywhere!!

Why are Macites so touchy? ;o)

Even Apple has joined the x86 dark side . . .

Oh, yeah. That's why! ;o)

BTW, Apple is now basically a division of Microsoft in charge of
monopoly alibi. This is not meant to be inflammatory but is just a
fact. After Apple went bankrupt a few years back Microsoft (in the
middle of that antitrust suit) saved it by injecting some $300 mil.

To spare you jumping to another conclusion ;o) and to set the record
straight, I do find Microsoft to be an incarnation of absolute evil.

Don.

 

[John]

Windows XP Color Management
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-
us/icm_overview.mspx

Is this worth installing/setting up, or can you recommend a better product
to coordinate the colour input/output of all devices?

Windows itself does not provide colour management - it provides a colour
management *facility*. Basically, the OS allows the association of colour
profiles with input, output and display devices and a colour management
'engine'. However, it's up to individual applications to invoke/implement
the colour management functions themselves.

Most serious image editors have their own implementations (e.g. Adobe) and
work independently from ICM, but may make use of some of the facilities
provided, e.g. profile association or CM engine. Photoshop, for example,
makes use of the display profile association but output profiles do not need
to be associated with the device in ICM - it can access them so long as they
are in the proper directory, (which is the same as that for ICM as it
happens).

Applications which do use ICM directly (e.g. Microsoft Publisher) sometimes
have a Mickey Mouse approach. Publisher has a checkbox labeled along the
lines of 'Improve matching between printer and screen'. So we have a display
profile and a destination profile, but the question you are asking is 'Where
do you specify the source profile' The answer, to the best of my knowledge
is 'You can't, it's built in'.

 

[Jim]

Windows XP Color Management
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/icm_overview.mspx

Is this worth installing/setting up, or can you recommend a better product
to coordinate the colour input/output of all devices?

I can't see that this product does anything additional to what you can do
for yourself right now.
Let's see:
You need a profile for your monitor... Right now, you can use such products
as Monaco and Colorvision.
You need profiles for your scanner... Right now, you can use the profiles
furnished by the scanner manufacturer which work OK for most people (myself
not included)
You need profiles for your printer. Right now, you can use the profiles
furnished by the printer manufacturer which also work OK for most people
(myself not included)

So, how does this product make any difference?
Jim

 

[Neil Gould]

Windows Colour Management is a joke.

Color management is not a platform-dependent issue. There are a broad
range of CM implementations, from dedicated workstations tied to specific
printing presses or other output devices such as photo printers that
integrate color matching from input to the final print, to the simplest of
desktop computer implementations, which assign pre-fab profiles
generically to scanners, monitors and printers that lack any facility to
adjust or control their performance. The better desktop systems support
the major platforms and peripherals, and work equally well with them.

I suspect that this product falls short of a full ICM implementation, but
may make it easier to have some integrated control of scanners, monitors
and printers if one would otherwise have nothing to go by. As has been
pointed out, calibration tools are supplied with image editing and
scanning software, and monitors and printers that are used in professional
settings. If you have some of these, then this XP Color Management
software may be redundant, or worse, may muck up the system.

Neil

 

[Maris V. Lidaka Sr.]

Very well put, John.

Marois

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-

Windows itself does not provide colour management - it provides a
colour management *facility*. Basically, the OS allows the
association of colour profiles with input, output and display devices
and a colour management 'engine'. However, it's up to individual
applications to invoke/implement the colour management functions
themselves.

Most serious image editors have their own implementations (e.g.
Adobe) and work independently from ICM, but may make use of some of
the facilities provided, e.g. profile association or CM engine.
Photoshop, for example, makes use of the display profile association
but output profiles do not need to be associated with the device in
ICM - it can access them so long as they are in the proper directory,
(which is the same as that for ICM as it happens).

Applications which do use ICM directly (e.g. Microsoft Publisher)
sometimes have a Mickey Mouse approach. Publisher has a checkbox
labeled along the lines of 'Improve matching between printer and
screen'. So we have a display profile and a destination profile, but
the question you are asking is 'Where do you specify the source
profile' The answer, to the best of my knowledge is 'You can't, it's
built in'.

 

[Hecate]

Color management is not a platform-dependent issue.

It is if you compare it with Apple which has included system colour
management for year.

The OP specifically asked about *Windows* not about colour management
within Adobe apps, for example.

--

Hecate - The Real One
(e-mail address removed)
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

 

[Hecate]

Why do people post idiot statements like "windows color management is a
joke"?

Because it is. And if you don't understand that you're in serious
trouble. Apple OS does have system wide colour management, Windows
doesn't do anything so sophisticated. And the OP specifically asked
about Windows. The only proper colour management available *within*
Windows is that provided by software such as Adobe, and profiling
software such as that provided by Gretag Macbeth.

If you are serious about printing your own photos and want a predictable
relationship between what you see on the monitor and what comes out of your
printer you need to learn about color management, invest in at least a
monitor calibrating device, and learn how to use a color managed photo
program like Adobe Elements or Photoshop.
The effort is worth it.
Once implemented in Windows color management is every bit as accurate as
under Macs.

That isn't *Windows* colour management. Nothing in that system is
managed by *Windows*. If you think it is, you're in for a big shock.

Oh, and just yin case you think I'm an Apple fan, I'm not. I've used
Windows systems for years. And none of them have come with colour
management.

--

Hecate - The Real One
(e-mail address removed)
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

 

[Peter D]

Because it is. And if you don't understand that you're in serious
trouble.

Such arrogance! Really. You have provided nothing useful to the discussion.
But you have managed to sidetrack it into a "my OS is better than yours"
pissing contest. Pity.

How about we all agree that you have the bigger penis and get back to a
fruitful and educational discussion?

 

[Neil Gould]

It is if you compare it with Apple which has included system colour
management for year.

The OP specifically asked about *Windows* not about colour management
within Adobe apps, for example.

In this regard, the primary difference between Windows and Mac is that
under Windows, color management is an application-level implementation
(just as for SGI and others, btw) while under pre-OS-X Mac, it was
system-level. There is no advantage one way or the other to either
approach, as in either case the input and output devices are not
integrated, and only specific applications require CM (spreadsheets,
database apps, and word processors don't benefit from CM). So, the only
relevance would be for CM "within Adobe apps, for example" and other
CM-savvy graphics applications, such as scanner and printer drivers.

Neil

 

[Neil Gould]

Because it is. And if you don't understand that you're in serious
trouble.

It's pretty clear that you are the one that doesn't understand CM, Hecate.

Apple OS does have system wide colour management, Windows
doesn't do anything so sophisticated. And the OP specifically asked
about Windows. The only proper colour management available *within*
Windows is that provided by software such as Adobe, and profiling
software such as that provided by Gretag Macbeth.

I have news for you; not only does "proper colour management" require more
than comes with either PCs *or* Macs, but the tools are equally supported
for both platforms (and more). There is no specific benefit to
system-level implementation of CM, unless that "system" is integrated with
I/O devices, such as one gets with million-dollar Heidelberg setups. And,
at that level, CM is platform-independent.
If you're serious about printing your own photos, you're going to spend a
good deal of money, time and effort, regardless of what computer platform
you choose. And, either one (or others) can get you the results you are
after once you learn the issues at hand. Perhaps it would be a good idea
to start with decent peripherals, such as Aztek scanners (Platform
Requirements: PC with: Windows 98, ME. 2000 or XP 512MB 80GB or greater
disc drive, SCSI, 500MHZ or greater Intel or Apple Power Macintosh G-3,
G-4 with OS9 or OSX 400MHZ or greater, 512MB Ram, 80GB disc and SCSI) and
a Lightjet or Lambda (also supported on both platforms)?

Your low-level thinking about CM is the real joke, here.

Neil

 

[Hecate]

Such arrogance! Really. You have provided nothing useful to the discussion.
But you have managed to sidetrack it into a "my OS is better than yours"
pissing contest. Pity.

And you missed out everything I said showing why. Of course that's
because it's inconvenient for you. And you also missed the bit in one
of my posts where I stated I was a PC user, so what I said had nothing
to do with favouring one system over another.

How about we all agree that you have the bigger penis and get back to a
fruitful and educational discussion?

That would be difficult, but I'm sure the 10" one I have with the
strap-on belt is probably bigger than yours...

--

Hecate - The Real One
(e-mail address removed)
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

 

[Hecate]

It's pretty clear that you are the one that doesn't understand CM, Hecate.

Oh, I do and have been using it for years, ever since my first copy of
Photoshop 4.

I have news for you; not only does "proper colour management" require more
than comes with either PCs *or* Macs, but the tools are equally supported
for both platforms (and more). There is no specific benefit to
system-level implementation of CM, unless that "system" is integrated with
I/O devices, such as one gets with million-dollar Heidelberg setups. And,
at that level, CM is platform-independent.

I never said that there was a particular benefit. I said that the
Apple OS managed colour and the Windows OS doesn't. Doesn't anyone
here read the OP? He specifically asked about WINDOWS colour
management.

If you're serious about printing your own photos, you're going to spend a
good deal of money, time and effort, regardless of what computer platform
you choose. And, either one (or others) can get you the results you are
after once you learn the issues at hand. Perhaps it would be a good idea
to start with decent peripherals, such as Aztek scanners (Platform
Requirements: PC with: Windows 98, ME. 2000 or XP 512MB 80GB or greater
disc drive, SCSI, 500MHZ or greater Intel or Apple Power Macintosh G-3,
G-4 with OS9 or OSX 400MHZ or greater, 512MB Ram, 80GB disc and SCSI) and
a Lightjet or Lambda (also supported on both platforms)?

Your low-level thinking about CM is the real joke, here.

Your lack of understanding is the problem. I,unlike you addressed the
question the OP put, which was:

Windows XP Color Management - Opinions Please.

I'll give you a clue - it's the subject line.

As for proper colour management, I use Gretag Macbeth EyeOne Photo,
alongside Adobe's internal set up, printing proofs to an Epson 7600,
which go along to the printer with the required files (EPS, or more
normally nowadays, preflighted and certified PDFs).

As for your choice of decent peripherals, how you have the nerve to
suggest you know what you're doing and still include Windows 98 and ME
as a requirement is completely ridiculous.

--

Hecate - The Real One
(e-mail address removed)
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

 

[Neil Gould]

Oh, I do and have been using it for years, ever since my first copy of
Photoshop 4.

Just as I thought... a newbie. ;-)

[...]

There is no
specific benefit to system-level implementation of CM, unless that
"system" is integrated with I/O devices, such as one gets with
million-dollar Heidelberg setups. And, at that level, CM is
platform-independent.

I never said that there was a particular benefit.

Your implication, above, is that there is some relevance to OS-level CM.
There is not.

Your lack of understanding is the problem. I,unlike you addressed the
question the OP put, which was:

Windows XP Color Management - Opinions Please.

I'll give you a clue - it's the subject line.

If you wanted to address the OP's question factually and honestly, you'd
have written that there is no relevance to OS-level CM. At least he could
get on with his decision about how CM might or might not fit into his
workflow. So, not only did you NOT address the OP's question, your comment
created a tangent full of misinformation.

My contribution was to explain why CM is platform independent. That
addresses the OP's question, and does so with facts about CM rather than
irrelevant opinions about OS.

As for proper colour management, I use Gretag Macbeth EyeOne Photo,
alongside Adobe's internal set up, printing proofs to an Epson 7600,
which go along to the printer with the required files (EPS, or more
normally nowadays, preflighted and certified PDFs).

Yes, well, if you understand CM as well as you claim, you'd realize that
your only valid output would to that 7600, *if* you maintain it and your
environment, paper stock, etc. properly. "Proper colour management"
involves a lot more than the hardware, but, even so, the hardware is
equally supported on either Macs or PCs.

As for your choice of decent peripherals, how you have the nerve to
suggest you know what you're doing and still include Windows 98 and ME
as a requirement is completely ridiculous.

I didn't write those specs, Hecate, I merely reproduced them for your
convenience. You can find them for yourself at the appropriate web sites,
and pursue your misconceptions with Aztek, Océ, Heidelberg, Kodak, et al.
Of course, those that know what they're doing would certainly not argue
with those manufacturers about the capabilities of their products or the
suitability of the systems they choose to support. I only hope that those
seeking knowledge about CM and reading your posts are not mislead by your
misinformation.

Having criticized your contribution on this particular topic, I do want to
say that on other topics, your comments have appeared to be helpful and
accurate. So, I really am not trying to attack you personally, but on this
topic you are pretty far off-base.

Neil

 

[Hecate]

So, you think that the profile for your printer or for a press, etc. is a
constant? I have news for you; it's not. Every day, every ink change,
every change of paper and, except for the high-end automated presses,
EVERY PRESS OPERATOR will result in output with a different profile.
Managing that color profile is what CM is all about.

Of course it changes. As does your ink jet. Proofing, however, is the
nearest you're likely to get and that's why you use profiles. So your
comment that an inkjet is as near as you're going to get is still,
well, let's not say rubbish as that's emotive, let's just say
inaccurate..

You presume much. My first job in pre-press was in the early '60s, and
I've worked in shops and with professional printers since that time. Since
the mid '80s, I've owned a publishing company that deals with
technically-oriented products, and have jobs at print shops all over the
country every week. In short, my living depends on my ability to
understand and use CM.

Understandably from the comments you made, and following on your
example in making assumptions about me.

Now, just where do you fit in the scheme of things?

I followed two careers in parallel - one was my day job , which was
database design and computer support which involved supporting
computers from several departments including graphics and photography
in a military organisation (though I was a civilian). At the same time
- my evenings and weekends, I was a photographer/ graphic designer.
Having been medically retired from the former, I concentrated on the
latter. That period covers about 30 years for the dual career and 5
for the single. I'm sorry I can't be more exact about the former, but
the latter (simple maths) covers 35 years. Oh, and the second career
was as my own company (smaller than your business of course).

So now I've shown you mine and you've shown me yours perhaps we can
stop pissing about making assumptions about each other?

--

Hecate - The Real One
(e-mail address removed)
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

 

[Peter D]

The "Ergo" is a false conclusion because you assume things about the
question that are not in evidence. I should know. I'm the OP. I knwo what I
asked. You assumed what I asked. Neil 9and others) got it. No biggie.

Here is the original question:
"Is this worth installing/setting up, or can you recommend a better
product to coordinate the colour input/output of all devices?"

Peter asked about a PRODUCT, and whether it is the best choice for CM
coordination. The PRODUCT is referred to in the title of his post, as one
that runs under Windows XP. He did not ask anything about an OS-level CM.
You did not provide an answer regarding the PRODUCT that Peter asked
about. And, you are once again implying that there is some relevance to an
OS-level CM in your above statement that "Ergo, Windows CM is a joke",
which it is not; it's application-level and every bit as effective (or
not) as any other CM.

Thank you, Neil. That -- and that alone -- is what I was asking.

 

[Neil Gould]

Of course it changes. As does your ink jet. Proofing, however, is the
nearest you're likely to get and that's why you use profiles.

An inkjet printer -- even an IRIS print from the same plant that will
print the job -- is a low-quality ball-park-level target for a pressman to
go by. Profiles are even less useful if your proofing device lacks
calibration; your paper different for both proof and print; the ink is the
same for both, etc. Unfortunately, that's never the case where inkjet
prints are involved.

So your
comment that an inkjet is as near as you're going to get is still,
well, let's not say rubbish as that's emotive, let's just say
inaccurate..

Not only is my comment NOT about getting "near as you're going to get"
from an inkjet, you've apparently not understood any of the implications
of what my comment IS about. To make it a little more clear; Epson
printers lack a facility for calibration, ergo, it is only a reasonable
"proofer" if one's CM requirements are quite low. Any decent print shop
could give results as close whether or not you hand them an inkjet "proof"
of the job. If you ever wind up with a client that wants you to match the
color of paint chips on everything from their business cards to their
billboards, you'll know *exactly* what I mean by this. ;-)

So now I've shown you mine and you've shown me yours perhaps we can
stop pissing about making assumptions about each other?

What assumptions might those be?

My comments in this thread have to do with your assertions re: CM in
general, and specifically CM under Windows OS. I notice that your career
path doesn't include work in prepress, so it's understandably that your
knowledge of CM will be limited. But your notions of CM under Windows are
so misleading as to be quite unhelpful to those asking the kind of
question that Peter asked. That, in a nutshell, is all I've been trying to
get across to you.

Regards,

Neil