[jfdavis58]

There are some interesting automatic features in Vista; as well as some filled in holes. this would be especially true with anything Microsoft branded; for instance Word and derivatives are now fully color managed (this might be a bit over-stated: well tagged images that have and can find profiles buried in the user's system will be well managed).

Color management is a press/pre-press thing; very high level/pro. And that puts it almost exclusively in Adobe's domain---it's what they do/and what a Photoshop users pays so much to use! Every photo capable Adobe App will be well managed!

As to your card being quirky-that's possible. It wouldn't, necessarily be bad, just dated or under-powered. And it could still be some sort of software problem. Ultimately anyone serious about photography should and must stay very much on the PC/Mac cutting edge: latest hardware, most recent Apps and drivers-expensive!

John, thanks again. I just about gave up on my PC and stepped over to my laptop and check out the results:

Laptop is a quality dell xps, color calibrated with spyder2pro as well, profile is set automatically on each start-up by the spyder2pro software and adobe gamma is Disabled. I should say that i'm using adobe CS2 (color management enabled) and Windows Vista on the laptop.

I recreated the same situation that I have on the PC and guess what... ALL PROGRAMS DISPLAY THE PHOTO EXACTLY THE SAME. There is none or virtually no difference between a photo rendering in Office Manager, Picasa, or PHOTOSHOP.


I'm starting to think the problem lies somewhere with the PC video card or other setting?


-Peter

[jfdavis58]

Relating to Norm Koran is very much a person to person thing. He's a diehard, old-fashioned engineer with extensive teaching experience---his way or the highway.

His math has some similarities to various maths from several engineering disciplines. It does require, as is typical acroos the boards, some sort of mathematical 'leap-of-faith'. One should find it hard to believe that a simple white/black line on a slant has utility in calculating resolution. It really only becomes plausible to those who know stuff like statistical thermodynamics or statistical gas laws or some notion of quantum theory. All of those have a very simlar 'leap-of-faith'. Once you make the leap, everyting gets considerably clearer; you find yourself saying "how could it be any other way?"


Constant tweaking in the home is really just a supply and demand problem. Home use requires only small amounts of raw materials-heck, only a few people keep more than a month of food on hand--too hard to store. But if you had room for a bigger printer (something from the Epson or HP professional line) and space to store a gallon (each) of 6,9 or 12 different inks, and 100 reams of photo paper, then one wouldn't need to 'tweak' at all. If you could afford a Eizo monitor and actually drive it the same would also hold true But those costs and quantities are out of reach or life-time supplies for most homes!


Anybody other than Adobe will need to develop their own color management module/engine. Considering how hard the material is for the average user to learn and comprehend I seriously doubt all that any experts actually exist. Adobe may have most of them and is probably the only software company (except Microsoft) that could actually afford to keep them working.

There are several good CMYK experts; and they love to argue! As end users the best we can expect is that something usefull will drop out for us to scavenge--like doing skin correction---very easy in CMYK. It really is sad that much of the open-source color management has fallen on hard times. If a few small companies organized to keep it active, to finish it, all would be better for the end user!

Yep way beyond me but a fun read.....

That's cool. Some don't trust his "results" but as with all things it's more in the understanding
and if you can relate it to the real world. Good to see someone keeping an eye on him.

The main problem w/ all "at home" color management. Constant tweaking.


Actually I was referring to Corel Photopaint not PSP... an interface I never warmed to. And lack of 16bit support at the time.
As to Milisock, he "just appearred", somewhere around ver 12 of CorelDraw. and some real "lively" CM discussions ensued.. NOT for the weak of heart.... apparently as a consultant on CM and to fix the busted parts. Mostly CMYK and pre-press related I believe and therefore not totally relevent to us.... ????
COREL DRAW SUITE has been my poor mans Adobe CS for ages but Photopaint has seen hard times. Kind of like Pentax no?