Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
How/where do I put color profiles?

Thanks.

Drag it to:

Macintosh HD > Library > ColorSync > Profiles > Displays

then select it in System Preferences > Displays > Color
 

Attachments

  • display profile.png
    display profile.png
    177.7 KB · Views: 269
  • sys prefs.png
    sys prefs.png
    74.3 KB · Views: 194
EDIT:
Wait! One more question! Where can I find my calibrated profiles so I can share them?



Well I finally took the time to "expertly" calibrate the MBP 13" 40860 (9F9C) (9C9F) screen.

If anyone is interested it's below. I think it looks quite nice and the colors are very accurate. I spent a fair amount of time doing this.
 
I tried the various profiles posted by other people.

The MBA ones all had a green tint. However, trying the various profiles also made me realize that my own SuperCal profile had a slight blueish tint.

I just did another calibration, this time with the Apple app because I found the SuperCal white balance adjustment fiddly.

I like this one best so far.

It happens to look very much like Maven1975's 9CBD profile on my 9C9F, just with a different gamma for a more contrasty look.

This one looks beautiful on my 9C9F, thank you so much for posting this! The grays now look gray instead of yellow-gray. Man, switching between this and the default profile that the computer shipped with is like looking at a POS TN panel and a nice S-IPS. The difference between them I mean... I realize the MBP isn't an S-IPS :).

Here's mine, based on Spyder. Gamma 2.1

Enjoy...

This one is great too. It has a little bit less "contrast" than the one I replied to at the top of this post, however the colors seem to be the same. Looks good!

EDIT:
Wait! One more question! Where can I find my calibrated profiles so I can share them?



Well I finally took the time to "expertly" calibrate the MBP 13" 40860 (9F9C) (9C9F) screen.

If anyone is interested it's below. I think it looks quite nice and the colors are very accurate. I spent a fair amount of time doing this.

I think you forgot to attach it :).
 
Just picked up my first Mac 2 days ago. 13" MacBook Pro, 9BCD panel. The colors looked washed out quite a bit next to my Dell 2007fpw. After using NCX5's color profile it looks soo much better, HUGE difference. I will also try calibrating myself. Also just got an iPhone 3G S. Loving Mac so far.
 
I tried the various profiles posted by other people.

The MBA ones all had a green tint. However, trying the various profiles also made me realize that my own SuperCal profile had a slight blueish tint.

I just did another calibration, this time with the Apple app because I found the SuperCal white balance adjustment fiddly.

I like this one best so far.

It happens to look very much like Maven1975's 9CBD profile on my 9C9F, just with a different gamma for a more contrasty look.

Just tried this on my 9C9F display and it looks great, thanks for posting it.
 
Try this one, close to the Spyder profile with the green tinge removed.
This is the first one I've tried that I think improves my 9C9E (which I think looks good without calibration, but that's another matter). The "washed out" default calibration that some here are complaining about is fixed by this profile
 
Macbook Pro 13" Profiles

Here are 3 profiles which look cool / neutral / warm on my screen so have a look to see which one improves your screen.

Tips:

1. Set the desktop to 'Solid Medium Gray' (Preferences > Desktop & Screen Saver > Solid Colors)

2. Choose a picture something like this & then use the arrow keys to select the different profiles:

PBase Love my Viola II


Various Black/White/Grey tests:

Black_White_Grey test

Black Sensitivity Test
 

Attachments

  • MBP13_Profiles.zip
    9.3 KB · Views: 478
I tried the various profiles posted by other people.

The MBA ones all had a green tint. However, trying the various profiles also made me realize that my own SuperCal profile had a slight blueish tint.

I just did another calibration, this time with the Apple app because I found the SuperCal white balance adjustment fiddly.

I like this one best so far.

It happens to look very much like Maven1975's 9CBD profile on my 9C9F, just with a different gamma for a more contrasty look.

This one looks very good on my 9CBD, thanks :)
 
I got a 9CBD LCD. I this is my replacement from my first one, which I didn't get the model of (and was fantastic). This one was default orange out of the box.. and still looks like it has a warm hue to it.

Anyways, I attached a color profile I use that's soft on my eyes. Tell me what you think.
 

Attachments

  • 9CBD JediVulcan Custom.icc.zip
    3.2 KB · Views: 456
Hi there,

I have the 9CBD LG/Philips screen. After complaining quite a lot here on the forums about the color issues I had :cool: I decided to start all over with Supercal (which I already had abandoned a few days ago).

I went very straight forward through the settings, not altering the black level response, calibrating all 6 levels for each color, chosing the native whitepoint and setting the gamma to 2.2. And what should I say: This screen finally shows neutral and beautiful colors for me. No more color shifts in video and DVD!! Desktop UI and web surfing looks great!

Would be interested what you 9CBD folks think of it.

cheers, kybernaut
 

Attachments

  • Supercal_9CBD_2.2.zip
    1.6 KB · Views: 646
Hi there,

I have the 9CBD LG/Philips screen. After complaining quite a lot here on the forums about the color issues I had :cool: I decided to start all over with Supercal (which I already had abandoned a few days ago).

I went very straight forward through the settings, not altering the black level response, chosing the native whitepoint and setting the gamma to 2.2. And what should I say: This screen finally shows neutral and beautiful colors for me. No more color shifts in video!! Desktop UI and web surfing looks great!

Would be interested what you 9CBD folks think of it.

cheers, kybernaut
Not bad, but a little blue for my liking. It looks very similar to the one I made and am using, just mine's a little less blue. Nice job.

Unfortunately, I didn't select to allow others to use mine, and don't know how to access it because of that, so I can't share.
 
Unfortunately, I didn't select to allow others to use mine, and don't know how to access it because of that, so I can't share.
Isn't it in <your_homedir>/library/colorsync/profiles ?

I feel the 9CBD looks only neutral at 2.2 and with cool whitepoint... :confused:
 
Isn't it in <your_homedir>/library/colorsync/profiles ?

I feel the 9CBD looks only neutral at 2.2 and with cool whitepoint... :confused:

It is not, the one that I did that I set to "Allow Others to Use This Calibration" or whatever, is, but my good one isn't.

And you're absoulutely right, it doesn't look good unless it's cool, I just personally prefer mine to be a little less cool than yours, that's all.
 
2. Choose a picture something like this & then use the arrow keys to select the different profiles:

PBase Love my Viola II

Be very, very careful using that PBase link. ONLY look at the ORIGINAL sized photo instead. PBase preserves embedded color profiles on original sized photos only. The small/medium/large thumbnails automatically generated by PBase do not have embedded color profiles, and Safari treats untagged pictures as monitorRGB, which makes things look wrong. Try it for yourself: Click on the "large" version, then the "original". Flip back and forth between the two. See the big difference? The only one that displays "correctly" is the original sized one. On my (hardware) calibrated IPS panel and MBP13" the large sized one looks way green. The original sized one looks correct.

I think Firefox 3 interprets untagged photos as sRGB which usually works as sRGB is the "web standard", however, you're still in trouble with this photo because it is tagged with AdobeRGB in its original size, meaning if you look at it in Firefox at S/M/L size, it will look way undersaturated because FF is assuming it to be sRGB when really it's AdobeRGB.

Making profile decisions based on untagged photos is completely wrong and will not lead to good results. Don't forget that your eyes adjust to color shifts so when you change profiles the difference seems very obvious. But after time your eyes will adjust to the new profile, and you will think it looks okay. In fact your eyes are very good at this- ever notice why you can walk from fluorescent lighting indoors to the sunlight outdoors, and then to tungsten lighting elsewhere and you never really notice big shifts in color perception? But try taking pictures in all 3 conditions with your digital camera (which measures color in absolutes) without adjusting the white balance and everything looks widly yellow or blue. It's your eyes (really your brain actually) adjusting to the different lighting conditions and making the perception of color very consistent. Since your eyes cannot measure in absolutes, you may be looking at a very messed up profile thinking it is okay- until you put it next to a properly calibrated screen, or worse, get back a printed picture that looks nothing like what you made it to be on the screen.

Here is a good demonstrator page with some info regarding color management in Safari. Safari 4 seems to behave the same as 3 did, the decision to treat untagged images as monitorRGB is deliberate on Apple's part, and is not really any more correct or incorrect than Firefox (or windows') decision to treat untagged images as sRGB.

http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html

Ruahrc
 
9c9e

Here is my calibration profile for my 9c9e screen, made with supercal. There are two versions -- one at 1.8 gamma, the other at 2.2.

I'd like to reiterate what others said though that screens vary on an individual basis, and these profiles may not be correct for other 13" mbp screens out there and calibrating yourself is best. But I do hope they help somebody out there :)
 

Attachments

  • 9c9e.zip
    3 KB · Views: 748
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.