Skip to main content

⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived. The information contained here may no longer be accurate or up-to-date. ⚠️

Mac processed files look terrible on the pc

whistlerdan
HI ,

I am new to capture one pro - and also new to Mac. My problem is that all the files i have just processed from a job using capture one look TERRIBLE when viewed on a pc. They all look extremely dark. I tried processing the same files using the camera bundled digital photo pro on the mac and these files look fine when viewed on a pc. What am i doing wrong. Its extremly frustrating as i processed raws in capture one and sent the jpegs onto a website only to find that they look awful.

Please help ☹️
0

Comments

10 comments

Date Votes
  • jjlphoto
    Need to know more information. How are the files processed, into what colorspace? Are you running a colormanaged set-up, IE calibrated moniters, thorough knowledge of opening files with embedded profiles, etc.
    0
  • whistlerdan
    ok ive been busy trying different things so here is more info:

    The files were originally processed in capture one pro from a RAW file of a canon 1dMKIIN. They were processed into both 8 bit tiff and also jpeg high. The result was the same in both cases. I left them embedded with the native canon1dmkIIN coloour space but later tried embedding it with sRGB and it made no difference. Now i am aware that mac preview uses embedded profiling and windows does not.........

    So the first test i did was pick one raw file and convert to jpeg high in capture one
    then take the sme raw file and convert in digital photo pro ( the software bundled with the camera) RESULT: Both looked good on the mac. But when viewed on the pc the file processed in capture one looked terrible!! but the one from DPP looked fine

    A demonstration: This gallery contains the files processed from capture one http://www.dancarrphotography.com/torontochampcar2

    this gallery contains the files but processed in DPP http://www.dancarrphotography.com/torontochampcar

    Now I know that different programs process things differently and often its a matter of taste as to which one you prefer but im sure you can see if you compare both of these side-by-side the the ones processed in capture one look dark and the colours look awful. Not something i would expect from such a reccommended piece of software! Its not a matter of taste in this case, they are simply unacceptable.

    As a side note i also noted that when processing the files in capture one pro it lost all of the exif data (shutter speed, aperture etcetc) is this normal? Id like to keep that in there.
    0
  • Dillon
    They do look a little darker. I am viewing on Mac and have been doing this battle for some time.

    You should embed an Adobe (1998) on your processed C1 files. Keep your Mac gamma around 2.0 because PCs are 2.2 by default. If I keep my files on the light side and supply my clients a guide print, they're on the right track.

    Your digital photo pro software is punching up the saturation and contrast. Many folks that I speak with, prefer to have a more subtle image going into Photoshop, and then add the punch at that stage. If you need to avoid Photoshop altogether, then add about 5 or 10 saturation and increase the contrast in C1. It will take on the appearance of your supplied software.
    0
  • paul schefz
    simple reason: standard gamma on mac 1.8, standard gamma on PC 2.2, color synch built into mac since..os8? 10+years ago...
    things get a little more complicated: although 90+% of all computer users are PC, almost nobody seems to have a calibrated system...most of my clients have their standard dells in their offices and i have to look at my files on their cheap screens, or even worse, thier cheap laptop screens, because they want to see what i just delivered before they send it off for retouching and printing....very frustrating to pull something up and it looks horrible....then they send it to their printer and voila...it is perfect again...this is not about mac vs pc and i honestly don't know enough about pc to give any advice (plus i am sure that a calibrated system is just that regardless of the operating system), but it does not seem to have made it to the masses of pc users that what you see on your screen might have nothing to do with what you actually have in 0s and 1s... one thing though: the reason mac prices have always been at a certain level is that apple refuses to use some of the crappy screens that i have seen on pcs...i have never seen a pics pop up on a mac that did not look something like it should, even if the system is not calibrated...
    i apologize for the rant, but i just went through this with a client who just does not get it and refuses to calibrate their screens (which would be useless anyway because they are such poor quality...at least they don't do their own retouching anymore....)
    0
  • whistlerdan
    Thanks for that , with a lot of research I found out that in fact it is the Canon 1DMKIIN profile that is the problem. I happened upon another thread in the windows section that addressed this issue with 1dMKII N files looking like they had lost a lot of colour.
    0
  • Nick 1
    Pshefz,

    Standard gamma on a Mac is also 2.2, 1.8 is a concept that dates back into the 80s and has no current basis in fact. Apple staff will strongly confirm this. Always calibarate Mac monitors to 2.2 or 'Native' for LCDs.

    PCs have excellent colour management within applications, but desktop, MS Office etc is poor. Moving graphics files from Mac to PC presents no obstacles and a profile embedded image should view identically on Mac or PC (with calibrated display and colour management correctly configured).

    Nick
    0
  • Simon_full
    [quote="NickWB" wrote:
    Pshefz,

    Standard gamma on a Mac is also 2.2, 1.8 is a concept that dates back into the 80s and has no current basis in fact. Apple staff will strongly confirm this. Always calibarate Mac monitors to 2.2 or 'Native' for LCDs.

    Nick


    Then why does every new mac shipped have the 1.8 gamma as default?
    0
  • Mattzda3
    Look out it's a gamma war, everyone run for cover! 😂
    0
  • Simon_full
    My gamma is actually set to 2.0, but i am intrigued why macs ship with the 1.8 as default....

    anyone?
    0
  • pmirror
    I use gamma 2.2 for all my macs. Also calibrated the monitors with gretagmacbeth eye1
    0

Post is closed for comments.