[nycdunz]

For those of you with apple cinema displays, can we use the adobe 1998 rgb profile for our monitors? because mine is currently set to Cinema HD DIsplay profile... Since I use photoshop for a lot of photography and web work, and that my PS color settings are set to Adobe RGB 1998 as well, shouldnt I use the same for my monitor profile? I notice that when i switch from Cinema HD Display to Adobe 1998 the colors have more contrast, and looks a lot nicer.

Cause when i work under PS and before I save my images out for web, I convert it to sRGB 1.3, and even then so I notice it looks a lil flat compared to the Adobe 1998 RGB colorspace. Was wondering what you guys use for a monitor profile on a cinema display? Is the default Cinema HD Display RGB profile any good?

And I also heard a lot of ppl say to switch to 2.2gamma like on a PC, it makes the colors more contrasty and saturated and that the default 1.8gamma isnt that good, true or not?

[himself]

I'd create a custom profile for your display if I were you, either using Apple's color calibration app in the Displays system prefs (under the color tab), or SuperCal. That way, you can compensate for any color bias inherent in the display, or for the lighting conditions. If you can afford it, a hardware calibrator is definitely the path you should take (if you are really serious about color accuracy).

For gamma, I recommend sticking to the mac standard because it reveals more shadow detail and it just seems better suited for graphics creation. In the end, you'll have to choose what is most comfortable for you on that one.

It may also help to use a standard colorsync workflow across the board, since it does a really good job of managing colors across color spaces.

Adobe RGB (1988) has a significantly larger color gamut than sRGB, which is why the color shifts when you convert an image; the colors that can't be replicated in sRGB either get cropped off or re-assigned (depending on the conversion method that is set) to a color that does exist in that space. In this case, I'd suggest sticking to one color space, and getting the best result you can get from that. With the color profile embedded in the image, most systems will have some idea of how to present it... for the systems that can't, there's not much you can do for them anyway.

[nycdunz]

just dl'd supercal and calibrated my 17" albook, seems to do a pretty good job, now when i switch back to the default Color LCD profile that I previously used, I can tell that it had a pretty strong blue cast.

This new profile I made seem to be a lot more neutral, but one thing I noticed is a kinda pinkish cast on the background of this website. Not sure if its suppose to look like that?

Also now that I made a custom profile for my display. When I use photoshop, Do i select my newly created profile for my RGB working Space? or Do i continue to use Adobe 1998? I do a lot of photography and print work. But still not sure on this.

Thanks himself.

[Thorzdad]

Definitely, if you can't pop for an EyeOne or other such calibrator, SuperCal is your best bet. I've found that it does a pretty respectable job.
One thing to make sure is that you do your calibration under subdued light. A dark room is even better.
As for this site...I think the background is supposed to be a neutral gray. It's possible you will need to try another calibration to neutralize the pink.

Your monitor profile should not be used as your RGB working space. It's used by the system to make sure the working space you select displays correctly. I usually work in AdobeRGB and then convert my finished work to sRGB (if it's intended for the web).

Color management is a bit of a black art.

[nycdunz]

ok i got it, so leave my working space as adobe 1998 in PS and use the custom monitor profile that supercal created for my entire system?

[Thorzdad]

Correct.

[Thorzdad]

Built into OSX, is a color management system called ColorSync. In a nutshell, what it does is monitors what color profiles are being used for the various devices (monitor, printer) you have on your Mac. The profiles describe the different color spaces the different devices are capable of reproducing/displaying.

When you print from Photoshop, ColorSync sees that the image, for instance, contains color information in the AdobeRGB color space. It then does some voo-doo that tells the printer how to accurately reproduce the colors, using the printer's own unique color space.

Ditto for what you see on screen.

When it all works right, the colors you see on screen will match the colors you get from your printer.

For whatever reason, ColorSync was easier to work with under OS9. The whole process has gotten pretty cumbersome under OSX.

[himself]

Originally Posted by Thorzdad

Definitely, if you can't pop for an EyeOne or other such calibrator, SuperCal is your best bet. I've found that it does a pretty respectable job.
One thing to make sure is that you do your calibration under subdued light. A dark room is even better.
As for this site...I think the background is supposed to be a neutral gray. It's possible you will need to try another calibration to neutralize the pink.

Also, it would help a lot to change your background image/color to a solid neutral gray, or even black when calibrating your display.

[Thorzdad]

Originally Posted by himself

Also, it would help a lot to change your background image/color to a solid neutral gray, or even black when calibrating your display.

Well, Most calibration software (including SuperCal) switches your screen to black anyway.
That said, a nice neutral gray background is very useful to have for everyday work, too.

[himself]

Originally Posted by Thorzdad

Well, Most calibration software (including SuperCal) switches your screen to black anyway.
That said, a nice neutral gray background is very useful to have for everyday work, too.

oops, you're right about that... I was probably thinking about Apple's screen calibrator, because it doesn't obscure the desktop like SuperCal does.

[Thorzdad]

I forgot all about the Apple calibrator. That and the Adobe calibrator are the two you don't want to use, if you can help it. Not terribly accurate.