Huge MacOS problem with Photoshop and color profiles. Quite urgent!

This was a bit hard to follow as you're only somewhat detailed on your steps. Such as, you bought three different screens. Okay, what make and model? And you bought three different calibration tools. Again, what make and model? What did you use for the calibration settings?

On a separate note before going on, a few years back, I tried a BenQ monitor as a possible alternative to getting another EIZO monitor. Looked great out of the box, but only if I used the presets. As soon as I tried to calibrate and profile it myself (both with BenQ's own software and with i1Profiler), the result always ended with a screen that looked like a washed out watercolor painting. Blue here, pink here, green over there. Apply a preset, and it went back to a perfectly even gray.

Since you absolutely must be able to profile a monitor every few months (there's no such thing as a monitor that can permanently hold it's color response), I sent it back, figuring a got a bad one. The replacement did exactly the same thing. Sent that back and got another EIZO. Problem solved.

Can you explain this statement better?

left: Photoshop. right: Adobe Camera Raw (I am viewing this on an calibrated 100% AdobeRGB monitor…

"Photoshop" what? That is, what are you using as your working RGB color space in Photoshop? "Adobe Camera Raw" what? Such as when you have a camera RAW image open, what color space is being assigned to the image?

I always let them open and assign a huge color space to make sure color off the camera doesn't get clipped. It's an overkill space, but that doesn't matter. When I click the Open button, then I let the image convert down to the working RGB space.

The 100% AdobeRGB part doesn't mean anything. It's only an indication the monitor's colorants are capable of displaying the full range of the generic AdobeRGB color space. But that space is not in any way a monitor profile and should not be considered being used as one for even a moment.

But, after playing around, I think I've discovered the problem. You appear to have an incorrect profile applied somewhere in your color management chain. I went to Settings and just started picking different profiles for display, as you did in your YouTube video. Not the least bit surprising, the color, gamma and contrast changed when selecting different profiles. Especially ones that are either a very wide, or very small space.

Then the "aha" moment. When I selected sRGB, the comparison, as displayed in the forum, matched. I took a screen of that then set the monitor profile back to my normal setting. Next, I opened that screen shot in Photoshop where it came up with no profile assigned. Since sRGB was the match, I chose the option to apply sRGB and opened the image. It doesn't look like a match below because there's such a large area of near black in the center. But you can prove it matches the same way I did. I put a marque around the portion on the right and pressed Command+J to jump the selection to a new layer. Then I dragged that new upper layer over to the left and lined it up to the background layer. Lastly, turning the top layer on and off shows there is no difference at all between the left and right examples.

This is going to be wordy (again). 🙂

There were some very good points in the topic on Adobe's site. Some not so good.

Starting with your YouTube video of the deep blacks changing: This is all completely normal. Different color spaces have different black points, gamma settings, color ranges and gamuts, etc. This means the LUT (calibration) is going to be different in each of them. So it's no surprise at all the image shifts a bit (or a lot) between them).

As for your gear, nothing really stands out. Yes, it was a good idea to ditch the LG monitors. Neither of them could even cover 100% of sRGB. That's pathetic. Your current BenQ Sw240 is fairly close in output to my EIZO CG279x. They both cover 99% AdobeRGB.

But, the EIZO has a brightness of 350 nits, compared to the 250 nits of the BenQ. Don't get hung up on that. No one in their right mind cranks the brightness on a monitor to maximum.

Here's your monitor (at its current calibration/profile) compared to AdobeRGB.

Those skinny gray areas are the ranges the BenQ exceeds AdobeRGB by. Not much, but it does. If rotate the 3D view over, AdobeRGB is slightly larger in the dark blues and greens. Hence the 99% coverage.

For my EIZO, it's 99% AdobeRGB coverage only because a very small area of it exceeds the monitor. Also in the dark blues.

Everything else gets crushed by the monitor. Especially the red and magenta ranges.

Needless to say, I use my monitor profile as my working space in Photoshop. If I were to use AdobeRGB, I'd be clipping off a lot of color I could be using.

This is another point though of not worrying about the BenQ's specs. When you get up into colors as saturated as AdobeRGB, there aren't many substrates you can print color that vibrant on. In other words, most of the time, it's already overkill.

As far as the calibrators, even the least expensive one can easily handle the monitor without clipping. The X-Rite Display SL (no longer made) can handle 1,000 nits. The DataColor SpyderPro, 2,000 nits, and the Spyder, 750 nits.

All of the above is mostly to help understand the nitty gritty in the next post (I know I'm going to run out of character space for one post, so I'm not even going to try).

D Fosse has very good points.

You're overthinking this. Calibrate to gamma 2.2, done.

Personally, I always use a 1.8 gamma, but that's because almost my entire working career was in the printing industry, where everything is based on what is considered natural daylight color - D50. The use of 1.8 is to better simulate the density of ink you can ever hope to apply to paper without getting it so wet it ripples. Attempting to achieve a 2.2 reading on a printed piece with a densitometer can be done, as long as you don't mind a ruined mess.

Just for background, the 2.2 thing is based on our eyesight. It was determined by scientists that 2.2 is the darkest black we can see and still be able to distinguish between full black and the next slightly lighter shade. If you were using a 2.3 gamma, all blacks would between 2.2 and 2.3 would look the same to us, even though a measurement device would tell you a step scale had different values.

Again, the monitor does not need to match any standard color space.

Without question, a correct statement. It's a different way of saying what I mentioned earlier. Canned profiles are not, and never can be monitor profiles.

Per your concern if your issues have something to do with an M1 or M2 Mac, I can tell you that's not it. I was using an M2 Pro mini for almost a year, and color was never an issue. No different than any Mac I've had before it. And now on an M4 Pro mini, still no issues.

LUT or matrix for the calibration curve, as mentioned on Adobe's site? That's another one where I've used both and have found no notable difference. And that's all the way from OS 9 through now. And with the EIZO monitors, you don't have that choice anyway. It always creates and uses a 3D, 16 bit LUT. I can choose Gamma (EOTF) value, or Parametric curve, but I've never had a reason to try them as I get excellent results with the LUT default. That is largely because it's a 3D, 16 bit LUT stored in the monitor itself, and not a typical 8 bit LUT that gets loaded to the graphics hardware on the computer. Matrix may be a better choice for you.

They also refer to Adobe (ACE) and Adobe CMM. I always use the default, (ACE). Again, no issues. But I do make sure to use Relative Colorimetric. And equally important, Use Black Point Compensation is on.

Too detailed to go into why. Just trust me on those.

Couple of comments at the end on Adobe's forum by riccknl:

It's crazy that Apple is f****g up this bad.

Well, I can't say I know what s/he's talking about. I've done digital retouching and color for about 45 years. First on Scitex workstations, and later on Macs in Photoshop, which is about 38 years of that time. That and who knows how many Mac models and numerous versions of Photoshop. I've never seen anything that was all that different between any computer/software combination.

Also, the amount of photographers/designers that do not calibrate their screens is insane! I asked around A LOT and 99% replied 'I just use it the way it came out of the box' 🙂

That comment is spot on. It is nuts!

(continued, again)

My suggestion? Use D50. A 1.8 or 2.2 gamma is up to you. The default of monitors out of the box is a very unrealistic 6500K. The real world does not look that way. At least, not most of the time. Look outside on any sunny day at midday. Then look at a 6500K monitor. The monitor will appear screaming blue in comparison. How, in any way, can that be considered "natural". Does the real world ever look that blue? Yes, in the winter, on a cloudy day, before the sun comes up. The choice does exist for a reason (more like because there is a natural color like that), but it's an extremely poor choice as a default.

Why? If your monitor is set to 6500K, there is literally no way for you to display neutral gray, or anything resembling natural color. It is locked to a garish blue. You cannot make whites or grays appear neutral. Not without using Curves in Photoshop to pull blue way back, and green way forward from the white point end to force a visual gray. You should never have to do that. Start with neutral and you can then push the color in any direction you want.

Unless they've changed it, the DataColor software does not give you a choice for D50. Only 5000K, which is not the same thing. You will sometimes see 5200K listed as a "Photographer's setting". This also wrong because they're mixing settings to get there.

Here's a way to visualize it. Let's say a flat line is 5000K (first image below). The black and white points have been calibrated to that color. (I prefer my Curve box to use white at the lower left and black at the top right. I also don't normally use the light setting in PS, but it's otherwise nearly impossible to see the blue curve line for these examples).

In the above setup, everything is balanced to a linear 5000K. This will appear yellowish.

For D50, the midpoint of the gray ramp is actually pushed to something a bit closer to 5200K, while the white and black points remain at 5000K. Why is this correct? It's because people who know more than me about these kinds of measurements determined this is the closest way we can represent natural gray on a computer. It's why D50 is the default in printing.

The 5200K Photographers setting makes the mistake of moving the entire gray ramp to that color. It's a linear 5200K color from white to black. The result is you're just pushing natural color back in the direction of 6500K, and it will be noticeably blue.

And, "D'oh!", something I should have tested the first time.

I simply dragged your image out to my desktop and opened it in Photoshop. Whether I told PS to maintain your embedded BenQ profile, or convert to my monitor profile, the left and right sides are a perfect match to one another.

Are you saying one view is noticeably different from the other as you see them?

You can file a bug report from the feedback page.

Feedback - macOS - Apple