Problem viewing Photoshopped Nikon edits

Its not simply that you are looking via some proof set up is it?
(view>proof)

Calibrated monitors?

I'm comparing the very same file (2Mb JPeg)from the editing screen in CS2 and the filmstrip and slideshow view in XP service pack 2 on the same PC/monitor which is calirated

Run some more comparision tests today and all files edited on my office PC have the same colour balance in CS2 and XP but all those done on the home PC are much less saturated (washed out) in XP than on the CS2 edit screen

Very puzzling

Hi, I use Nikon NEFs imported into Photoshop CS2.

When you load the files into Photoshop at home, do they look washed out there, or just in the XP slide show?

If they look washed out a soon as they are loaded into Photoshop, then it is likely to be an import setting that is not converting the NEF files into what you want.

I have the Nikon NEF converter plug-in in Photoshop CS2. When it loads a file it comes through the plug-in screen which converts the file to one Photoshop can work with. In this converter there are tolerances set, black and white points, etc.

Do you import the NEFs through such an plug-in? It might be that the plug-in has different default setups on the two versions you are using.

If the version of Photoshop you are using does not have the import plug-in, but imports the NEFs automatically, there might be an option to set the contrast/black and white points/saturation on import.

Another thing could be that if a plug-in is used during the import, then check they are the same version. Also check to see if a NEF plug-in on Photoshop is set to automatically load the files without giving the option to view the levels during the import.

I also have to use a Nikon NEF to DNG converter before the files can be loaded into Photoshop, but it doesn't sound like you do that.

If all files look different in Photoshop to XP on the same computer, then one of the programmes is probably running a software calibration, or look up table.

If it is only the photos you have taken that look different between XP and Photoshop, then one of the two programmes is setting a look up table for that type of file.

Have you compared how a JPEG file downloaded from the internet looks on both programmes and both computers, then you will know if it is a general setup, or a problem specific to the files your camera has created.

Hope that is of some help, and I hope it isn't just stating things you have already tried.

Jamie

I find converting the NEF to a TIFF in Capture NX and then open in Photoshop works best.

Hi Jamie

Thanks for this. The files are just washed out in XP, OK in CS2. I use the Adobe CS2 file format converter plug in and differences in CS2 Raw conversions (ie From camera, raw default, etc) are minimal compared to CS2/XP differences

Both PCs have the same version Plug-in. Adobe didnt do a plug in for CS so I had to upgrade to CS2. Where did you get the NEF to DNG converter from? Which format do you convert to?

Will try a downloaded JPeg later. Where would XP place the lookup file?


Hi Count D.

Thanks, I still use your Photoshop workflow you posted a few years ago to great effect.I had read that NX does a better conversion than CS2, the problem I found using TIFFs is they are usually much larger than the NEFs and each editing step in CS2 takes over 10 seconds. Have I been using the wrong TIFF settings or do I need a faster PC?

Which NX version are you using and do you do all the editing in NX or in Photoshop?

Bosh

Hi Bosh,

I use Capture NX 1.3.3, although NX2 has just been announced.

For the ultimate image, I'll shoot uncompressed RAW Adobe 1998. Open it in Capture and adjust any exposure or colour balance. Then I'll saved it as TIFF 16 bit and do all the rest in Photoshop (as much as Photoshop allows in 16 bit). If it's a particularly important image, in Capture I'll make 3 images with different exposures (correct and plus/minus 1/2 - 2 stops) and save them as tiffs. I then combine all three layers in Photoshop. It's then a case of using the eraser tool at different opacities to bring back lost highlights and shadow detail which would otherwise be lost. I find this method brings much more tonal range than film could ever offer (on D2x and even better with D3). This method is less effective when working with images from lower spec cameras.

Yes, the TIFFs are huge and they are a pain to work with, but if you are looking for the best! 10 secs per edit sounds pretty slow, so perhaps a new computer.

What I would say is try to minimise the amount of adjustments, ie; don't adjust levels, adjust the saturation and then go back and make further changes to the levels. Try and get it right in one go.

Hi Bosh

I am pretty sure the NEF to DNG converter is from Nikon's website.

The Photoshop import plug-in was from there too.

I have a copy of 3_6_beta.exe which I can post for you on my website if it helps. Not sure if that contains both bits.

As to where you would set lookup tables in the XP viewer I am not sure, and Microsoft are not the kind of people to make anything easy to edit.

You might wish to check your monitor gamma settings (and I don't know where to do that on XP either), and also have a look in your video card settings. If things look fine in Photoshop and not in the XP viewer it can not be calibration of the monitor, as both would be affected the same.

One thing I would check is what bit depth you are saving and editing the files in. A PC monitor has an 8-bit colour depth, but if you are working in a higher bit depth Photoshop will apply a lookup table to allow you to see a realistic image on that 8-bit monitor. The XP viewer is very unlikely to understand anything over 8-bits, and could that could very well be the cause of it not accepting the images. Just a thought.

The fact that your work viewer accepts the same images OK is puzzling, unless they are using a custom viewer (Gimp or similar) that can handle higher bit depth images.

The washed out colour does certainly sound like my experience form viewing 10-bit log Cineon files without the correct lookup tables on an 8-bit monitor.

This is one of the reasons I am old school and still use SGI (Silicon Graphics) IRIX/UNIX machines for my film and TV work, they can be set up exactly as you want, and no Microsoft stupid service packs to f*** them up.

Very puzzling, but unfortunately very familiar.

Jamie

Thanks for all your replies, now solved it with a bit of Pink Fish input too

I installed the office CS" "Camera raw" plug in on the home PC, re-converted and edited ensuring I saved the filed in "adobe 1998" and "standard format" on the JPeg save screen and all was OK

Not sure which solved it as the Camera raw plug ins had the unzip dates and no version no., dont know whether I was saving in "adobe 1998" but di notice I was saving in "progressive" rather than standard format

Count D - Thanks for the advice. Will look out for NX2 as I read it is a lot quicker than NX

Glad you found a solution, it might be worth playing with the bits of the process you now have to find out which was causing the problem, but you might just be happy to have got around the problem and leave it at that too.

Just a note that 'Progressive' rather than standard JPEGs do not have any difference in colour, it is just that the resolution resolves itself through the number of levels you select.

This is so that a progressive JPEGs, level 3 will start to display the whole image on a HTML webpage as soon as 1/3 is downloaded, but at 1/3 resolution (blocky) and then resolves into higher rez as the following layers download.

It is useful for web images, especially in case people have their browser set to only show the image once it has downloaded fully, it will show the 1/3 rez block version, but full size, or it stops the gradual filling in of an image if the browser is set that way.

Jamie