Windows VISTA WCS anybody?

[tcadwall]

Color Management in Windows Vista is driving me crazy.

Has anyone else struggled with this?

My last laptop running XP was fine, I could take my files to the developer and have some very close results colorewise.

Not the case anymore. I have Vista Ultimate - 64 on my new laptop, and I think I might have managed to get it corrected... I couldn't figure it out in Windows, even after reading a ton online. PaintShopPro has a tool built in for calibrating by eye, and that really seems to have worked. But I am going to have to take some shots in for prints before I know for sure. Even if it worked, I am not sure yet if it will also be corrected for Bibble (which I use more than PSP)

I guess I am searching for a shortcut.... Any one else go through this yet?

[jcon]

Here is my tip...

Vista blows, royally.. go buy another copy of XP.:D

Sorry, I know this doesnt answer your question, just felt like pointing that out:p

I wish you luck though and hope you can get it situated!

[tcadwall]

Actually, thanks - not! :D

I like Vista, but I probably wouldn't like it if I didn't have a decent graphics card and 2GB ram. I didn't care for the fact that the 64-bit environment meant a lot of driver downloads, and a special install order to get SQL server to work right...

Anyway - with all of that behind me, and a screaming laptop in front of me, the pictures print with a much darker and green tinted hue than what I see on my screen. Ok, I still haven't had a chance to get some prints made since I calibrated PSP, but I think PSP images will now be better - since images that I have printed and now re-opened in PSP match now (the screen looks darker and green tinted for those shots I edited before)

[Stoller]

Have you made sure your printer, display and PSP are all using the same color space? I recommend sRGB. This is easy to check/change with Vista in your control panel. I have had no problems with Vista once I set everything the same. Vista has been great for me. Quad Duo, 4GB ram. PSP 34 seconds to load on old pentium 4, 4 seconds to load on new machine.

[erichlund]

Actually, thanks - not! :D

I like Vista, but I probably wouldn't like it if I didn't have a decent graphics card and 2GB ram. I didn't care for the fact that the 64-bit environment meant a lot of driver downloads, and a special install order to get SQL server to work right...

Anyway - with all of that behind me, and a screaming laptop in front of me, the pictures print with a much darker and green tinted hue than what I see on my screen. Ok, I still haven't had a chance to get some prints made since I calibrated PSP, but I think PSP images will now be better - since images that I have printed and now re-opened in PSP match now (the screen looks darker and green tinted for those shots I edited before)

I finally got my desk cleaned off, got my printer unclogged (Epson R1800), and printed a photo that looked great on screen. It didn't go green, it went cyan, seriously. I'm throwing money at the problem. I've preordered the Colorvision Spyder 3 Studio, which has colorimeters for both monitor and printer profiling. They're about $300 cheaper than the roughly equivalent solution from X-rite (old Greytag MacBeth). Pantone has solutions also, but they also get expensive, fast, and frankly, their product line is confusing. So, around mid-November, I'll be completely color controlled. Until then, I'll do some manual calibration using PSP.

I had an X-Rite product, but it's getting long in the tooth, needs a draconian workaround to operate on Vista, and doesn't do printer profiling. Colorvision upgraded their Spyder 2 products to work on Vista, and that gives me more confidence going into the future than what X-Rite seems to be doing.

[r3g]

Here is my tip...

Vista blows, royally.. go buy another copy of XP.:D


People keep saying that but I and everyone else I know with it are very happy. No problems what so ever. I have Home Premium btw. Runs a hell of a lot better then XP pro did.

[fionndruinne]

Runs a hell of a lot better then XP pro did.

Hmm. I never understand that comment, as I've never had problems running XP. What sort of things would you run into?

[jcon]

People keep saying that but I and everyone else I know with it are very happy. No problems what so ever. I have Home Premium btw. Runs a hell of a lot better then XP pro did.


We will disagree on this then. I used Vista, it sucked. Unless youre willing to throw loads of money on a new system so Vista will run properly, Vista isnt the answer.

XP is the best OS on the market..in my opinion anyway. All of my photo apps run very smoothly and fastly.

My apologies to T for detracting from the main subject... color management. I stated my opinion, and dont see the need to discuss my own personal feelings on Vista anymore. Back to the original topic, Color management on Vista.....

Eric, let us know how the Spyder program works, I have thought about purchasing it myself.

[r3g]

We will disagree on this then. I used Vista, it sucked. Unless youre willing to throw loads of money on a new system so Vista will run properly, Vista isnt the answer.

XP is the best OS on the market..in my opinion anyway. All of my photo apps run very smoothly and fastly.

My apologies to T for detracting from the main subject... color management. I stated my opinion, and dont see the need to discuss my own personal feelings on Vista anymore. Back to the original topic, Color management on Vista.....

Eric, let us know how the Spyder program works, I have thought about purchasing it myself.



Theres no denying Vista sucked in the beginning but its improved A LOT since then. XP is awesome still but there are some things I like about Vista that XP cant do. And I only upgraded to Vista when I build my new comp ;)

[e_dawg]

Not sure what I'm doing that you're not, but I use Vista HP and have had no problems with colour management. For me, the OS handles the monitor ICC profile, but the application usually handles everything else. Everything in my Colour Management settings is set to Default. The only thing custom is my monitor profile.

Come to think of it, when I used Bibble for a month with XP, its colour management and RAW decoding gave me fits. Everything from RAW was underexposed and the colour were off. Maybe it didn't know how to decode D40 NEFs properly? In any event, since switching to Capture NX, all those problems went away.

Regardless, you "should" be able to use sRGB with a decent monitor profile and you can just leave everything as default and everything will match sRGB since it is the default colour space for most cameras, software, monitors, and printers. Doesn't always happen though.

[erichlund]

Actually, the camera RAW data does not have a color space. The camera will attach one of it's color spaces to the EXIF data, but that does not actually impact the RAW capture. Color space is applied to jpg, and tiff if you have it.

The best practice recommendation is to work in the largest color space you can until you are packaging for destination medium, then set the color space for that medium. This, of course, only applies to RAW. Of course, in order to do things like this, you have to establish a disciplined work flow.

For example, in CaptureNX, I can create versions, so the first version I create is the basic edit version. Here, I do everything that is common to all subsequent versions. Then, if I'm going to publish to web and print, I'll create a version called web and a version called print.

The web version will be converted to sRGB and the print version will get the color space that best supports the printer. Currently, I'm happiest with AdobeRGB, but that's because I'm rather marginally color managed at the moment. Once I get my Spyder package, I'll be creating a specific ICC profile for the printer.

[Rooz]

We will disagree on this then. I used Vista, it sucked. Unless youre willing to throw loads of money on a new system so Vista will run properly, Vista isnt the answer.

couldn;t agree more. what a crap experience that was. it was so bad i reformatted my laptop to reinstall XP. that was a half days solid work to get it all done and i wouldn;t have done it if vista was even remotely close to XP in stability and speed.

why does vista suck ? i had colour management issues, NEF issues, it was God-awful slow and if i saw that "cancel/ allow" pop up come up one more time for even the most trivial of things i would have thrown the laptop off the balcony.

[erichlund]

couldn;t agree more. what a crap experience that was. it was so bad i reformatted my laptop to reinstall XP. that was a half days solid work to get it all done and i wouldn;t have done it if vista was even remotely close to XP in stability and speed.

why does vista suck ? i had colour management issues, NEF issues, it was God-awful slow and if i saw that "cancel/ allow" pop up come up one more time for even the most trivial of things i would have thrown the laptop off the balcony.

Wow, I just turned it off. You know...you can. The only color management issue I had is that X-Rite can't get their act together on a Vista driver for the Monaco Optix XR. I suppose they would rather sell you the I1 Display 2. So I see that Colorvision has updated their Spyder 2 Drivers, so I'm buying the Spyder 3.

As far as performance, I'm not having any problems there, but I have pretty decent hardware, so that may make a difference. I know the same issue applies to XP on my old Toshiba laptop. Doesn't run worth crap, but Win98 runs fine. So now I have an HP laptop that runs Vista just fine (In addition to my desktop, and my wife's desktop).

I'm also much more pleased with Vista's networking. It's basically automatic. XP was so finicky to get machines to talk properly. I suppose that's just me, though I've heard the same from others.

[tcadwall]

ok... I am back on the thread again... Been working too hard...

---edit---

oops forgot to resize... be right back

---/edit---

Thanks all for your input. And NO, I don't consider a slight amount of OS war off topic. THIS IS A PROBLEM WITH VISTA

eDawg... WHERE DID YOU GET A MONITOR PROFILE?!?!@?!?!

It seems that Vista will NOT use the ICC profile that I create in PSP. But I know that icc is not native to vista.

Ok... Sorry guys. I am just not at a good spot to have to spend a few hundred on software/hardware if I don't have to. My last laptop with XP Pro ALWAYS looked very good after edits - on screen AND prints. I am going to post a few shots here, and I suspect you guys that have calibrated monitors will see some of what I am talking about!

Pic 0 - this is without a profile adjustment. The shot should look very similar to the PIC 3 shot below... If these are working to show the differences, then I will post a couple other profiles that I manually created.

http://www.inventorypeople.com/img/HeadShotDoOverProfile0.jpg

Hope that wasn't too big... Pic3 (from 3rd profile I made)

http://www.inventorypeople.com/img/HeadShotDoOverProfile3.jpg

[tcadwall]

Alright, now I am not only confused, but really frekn frustrated.

The first shot, I expected to look greenish, and also contrasty and overly warm. The second shot should look warmer than it does, but not greenish. Both shots look kewl and washed out on my reference desktop... What do you guys see?

To me they almost look the same....

[Stoller]

Look the same to me...

[Stoller]

What video card do you have? My NVIDIA card has a setting called "Digital Vibrance" by default it was set to 50%. Colors looked to saturated and contrast was increased. Great if your a gamer I guess. I put it to zero and everything looked normal, like my old XP machine. It's not Vista. I have my Monitor, printer and PSP all set to use sRGB and have no problems.

[fionndruinne]

All the talk of color calibration (especially calibration hardware/software, and its freakin' expense) has me completely confused. Guys, you know your video card software has extensive color calibration tools, or should if you've updated your drivers. In fact, driver updates may address color issues running Vista.

May I recommend downloading and running GameShadow? Yeah, geared for gamers, but it tests your video card driver and tells you if an update is available (and driver updates come out every month or so for most cards), downloads it for you, too. By far the easiest way to keep your video card updated, and free.

[e_dawg]

eDawg... WHERE DID YOU GET A MONITOR PROFILE?!?!@?!?!

Sorry, was not clear enough. I used eyeOne Display 2 to calibrate my LCD and generate an ICC profile, which is set as the default Display Device profile in Vista. There is also a BenQ FP241W ICM file that came with my monitor, but I use my own profile because it's noticeably more accurate.


It seems that Vista will NOT use the ICC profile that I create in PSP. But I know that icc is not native to vista.

I would recommend using a real calibration and profiling setup like the eyeOne Display 2 (now called i1 after being taken over by xRite) or the ColorVision Spyder 2 Pro. Avoid the Pantone Huey because it's not as good.

The two pics look extremely similar to me.

[e_dawg]

All the talk of color calibration (especially calibration hardware/software, and its freakin' expense) has me completely confused. Guys, you know your video card software has extensive color calibration tools, or should if you've updated your drivers. In fact, driver updates may address color issues running Vista.

I find custom monitor calibration / profiling much better than the video driver adjustments. To be perfectly honest, I will always calibrate from now on, and I wished everyone else would calibrate their monitors too!

[fionndruinne]

Mine has never stood in need of calibration.

But when what's needed to calibrate a monitor costs so much, it's impractical for most people.

Incidentally, LCD monitors in time need replaced. My family has a 4-1/2-year-old Compaq LCD which is just incapable of correct color display now.

[e_dawg]

Certainly, it is a bit expensive for most except for your dedicated photo enthusiasts out there, but I consider it as one of those essentials when you're starting out. As in, I'd probably recommend monitor calibration after buying one's first dSLR but before upgrading one's glass.

The ColorVision Spyder 2 Express is not too expensive at ~$70 at Amazon, i think.

An option like the ColorVision Sypder 2 Pro is not too expensive when it's on sale and/or when there's a rebate on. There were $50-100 rebates in the summer on ColorVision products that would have brought down the cost to $100-130 depending on which model, which is reasonable. At the current full list price, though, I would agree it's a little too expensive for the Pro version.

There's always sharing with those who have calibration tools in your area or those who have profiled the same laptops / monitor + video card combinations as you. I had two friends in my area who offered to lend me their monitor calibration/profiling kits before I decided to get my own. Once you create the profile, you don't need the equipment anymore...

[tcadwall]

Thanks everyone.

Regarding calibration software... It just isn't an option right now.

However, Stoller, I think you hit it right on the head. the nVidia card. The card is awesome, which is why my laptop is fast with Vista, but I had changed the color settings to be much less aggressive before I had pumped out these images. I think that was it. Basically, my Paint Shop Pro calibration was working, but the real problem was that nVidia was messed up. I was calibrating for the drastic effect of the card settings. I didn't calibrate again after changing the nVidia settings the last time, which is probably why the shots came out a bit cool.

I couldn't figure out why these images weren't totally jacked up... now I know. I am going to tweak that a little more and get it close.

Don't get me wrong calibration has its place, but if I can get the colors close enough for my satisfaction(and I am pretty picky), I can't warrant the full boat. In my experience, I am never happy with a "basic" software package, so it definitely wouldn't be worth my money to buy the low end stuff if I was buying.

When I get a chance, I will redo the whole process with the nvidia settings totally subdued. And then I will post the image again - hopefully the colors will look right.

Thanks again everyone for your input!

--- added --
oh, I had already installed - re-installed nVidia drivers a couple of times, seems the download from nVidia was not the same as the HP download, and the HP download apparently has some laptop specific settings for power saving customizations. BTW - the card - and it screams pretty well for a stock laptop card - is a GeForce 8600M GS with 256MB dedicated, configurable up to 1GB shared.

[erichlund]

In case there is still some confusion, there are different methods of calibration possible.

1. None: Actually, this works for a lot of people, especially if you have new equipment and don't mess much with the controls. However, it does not account for drift over time and is not repeatable.

2. Using premade profiles: This may be better, or worse, than none. If you equipment is working to specification and set to normal settings, then you may find this a slight improvement until your equipment starts to slide down the slippery slope of degradation.

3. Manual, Using software only: Basically, there are applications that provide calibration capability, but the sensor is your eye. The eye is good for ballpark, and may be acceptable for many. However, technically, it is not repeatable. The eye cannot get the exact same settings every time. However, if you are not concerned with exact, but just reasonably good, this is the cheapest solution that works reasonably well even as your equipment degrades.

4. Hardware Calibration: In this case you use a calibration tool to replace your eye. Because the tool will return the same results time after time, hardware calibration is repeatable. Therefore, the is the most accurate, and most expensive form of calibration.

If you only calibrate your monitor, then you should not be surprised if your prints look different then what comes out on the monitor. Once your monitor is calibrated, you have to calibrate your printer so that it matches the monitor. The same rules apply as above, except that printers are generally more reliable over time, so many people just used a single printer profile that's precreated by the manufacturer or a third party source.

However, there are other variables at work here as well. You need a different profile for each paper that you use, because different papers respond differently to the ink.

Just as there are hardware calibrators for the monitor, so are there hardware calibrators for your printer. However, they tend to be much more expensive than monitor calibrators, so most will choose to use printer profiles.

I might just add: If you are doing this post processing stuff professionally, you should be using hardware calibration across your entire output. If you outsource your printing, then you should discuss with your lab how they want your work profiled. This will ensure that your customer gets what you intend for them to get.

[tcadwall]

erich all good,

One thing to add since it is becoming a reference... is that some photo developers also will give you a profile for the printing process / papers / etc. that they use (if they are calibrating THEIR equipment).

I have had great luck with my local shop regarding very close prints (regarding color) when I give them good files.

If I want a great print, I take it to them. If I need something right now, I print it myself - but since that is more expensive, and not as good of quality I prefer the chemical prints most of the time.

FWI:
Here is my latest, and hopefully it will more resemble the color that I am shooting for....
Ok, I feel like a NOOB... Even a 400x600 images is taking up a full screen... Probably have the jpg dpi wrong... so here is a link instead
http://www.inventorypeople.com/img/HeadShotDoOverProfile4.jpg

[fionndruinne]

tcadwall, that is a nice graphics card. However, since it is a laptop card, I'd think the driver updates nVidia puts out should be tailored specifically for laptops... HP updates in my experience have been seriously out-of-date compared to the updates video card manufacturers put out regularly.

To be honest, I never use HP update. Windows Update handles all my hardware but the card, and GameShadow handles the video card.

[e_dawg]

Just tried the free program QuickGamma to calibrate my monitor at work. Not bad! It works by letting you adjust the gamma curves for each colour to match the scales on the calibration screen.

http://quickgamma.de/indexen.html

The saturation and gamut could be better on my monitor at work, but at least now the gamma and colour balance across most levels of brightness are decent.

[tcadwall]

The nVidia driver from their site causes a flicker whenever you resume, startup, get the security questions from vista, etc.

The HP driver is dated about the same and does not do all of that...

The weird thing is that now I can't find it, but the nVidia site advised that I should get the HP drivers rather than theirs.

I'll have to check out the quickgamma software.

The good news guys (n gals of course), is that I was able to get exact results from my photo lab. Now I am much happier. I owe most of my thanks to Stoller - for the advice on the nVidia defaulting to a 'punchy' high vibrance.

I also noticed one other thing that may help others. In Paint Shop Pro, the reliability seems to be BETTER for me if I choose NOT to embed icc data in the jpg.

At some point, I will hopefully be able to get a calibration package to make this all easier... But I'll wait for Vista bugs to be fixed first anyway... I do still have to check the contrast and brightness settings before tweaking images. Vista seems to reset them after certain actions.

[Stoller]

Glad to hear everything is working for you. Windows/Vista update handles the driver for my video card, it updated about a week ago. What version of PSP are you using? I have no bugs. Actually the only issues with software and Vista I have had is with Microsoft Frontpage which was said to be Vista ok. Microsoft came out with a fix/update but Office and Vista said everything was updated. I had to manually find the update/fix on Microsofts website and manually install it. Microsoft said Office update should do it but it did not. Also I found a interesting site last night at home regarding Vista and color management, if I get a chance tonight I'll post the link.

[tcadwall]

I am using PSP XI, I know X2 just came out, but I haven't checked it out yet. I am very happy with PSP.

The bug I am really concerned with is the documented problem with Vista killing the LUT (rewriting it or whatever) when a security warning pops up and the screen dims. I need to probably disable that "security feature" but I haven't yet. I may have found a workaround, but I am not certain enough with it to post on it yet.

The very time-consuming task of getting my software development environment working correctly has been the biggest pain, with this color management coming in second.

The problematic piece with that was with the way that SQL Server needed a very specific installation order. Parts of the install were 64 bit, parts were 32 bit, and patches that I thought were suppossed to correct the 32 bit parts would throw an error due to parts being 32-bit. I can't even remember exactly how I got it working - but it has been working great for the last month or so - after over a week of trial and error!

I am using office 2k7 but don't use frontpage. I am using VS2005 for web stuff.

Sorry this got off topic guys. Thanks again for all the input!