Dan Margulis Applied Color Theory

Dan's Year-End Look

   Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 14:19:31 EST
   From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Dan's Year-End Look

I've just finished my classes for the year, winding up with a couple of advanced courses consisting only of people who have already taken the first Applied Color Theory course and who are therefore fairly sophisticated both about color correction and about the state of affairs in the industry.

For these reasons, I always ask the advanced classes about their practices and about trends as they see them. This year, I got some surprises that I thought I would share with the group, as I think they have ramifications about our business.

There were 13 students in the advanced class, 8 from the U.S., five from Canada. Here's what they do (there is some overlap so the numbers sometimes add to more than 13).
     *Two are professional photographers.
     *One other is technically an amateur but clearly is serious enough about his photography to be ranked as a professional.
     *Two work in facilities that accept work from the general public (one printer, one service bureau).
     *Three work in advertising agencies.
     *Two are one-person operations.
     *Three work in in-house operations preparing promotional material.
     *Two others are supervisors of such in-house departments.
     *One is a professional color scientist.
     *Six output almost exclusively in CMYK, two in RGB, five often output in both.
     *Three usually work with first-class images; five generally do but also have to work with some mediocre ones, chiefly royalty-free stock photography; five often have to try to correct garbage shot by amateurs.
     *Ten use Adobe RGB as their prime workspace, two sRGB, one a custom RGB that falls roughly between the two.

THE DEMISE OF THE INDEPENDENT PHOTOGRAPHER
As nearly as I can tell, the independent photography business is in a state of near-collapse. There is still wedding shooting and portrait work, of course, but corporate assignments are few and far between, as almost any company can now afford to open its own studio or whatever they choose to call it.

In fairness, the photography business has been poor for some time, but this year seems to be something special. Many people are leaving the business or seriously scaling down the operation. It used to be that there was an elite group of photographers who could write their own ticket. No more. I have been astonished to hear that some of the very biggest names in the field have no more clients--"no" as in "none" as in "zero". They are moving into teaching, or full-time employment, because there's nothing else left.

I've noted in my own courses that independent photographers, who used to make up about a third of my students, have almost vanished. In my advanced classes, there were, as noted, two professional photographers, but one supervises a photography department in an international corporation, and the other is heavily involved in retouching and other non-photographic services. The photographers who used to take my courses have been replaced by hobbyists who have the desire to get better images and the means to take serious training.

BETTER, WORSE, THE SAME
I always ask the advanced classes about quality issues and whether they perceive that things have gotten better, worse, or stayed the same in the last 2-3 years. As to the question of whether printers and other output are more knowledgeable than they used to be, recent years have seen the groups say that they are less knowledgeable. This year the result was much more mixed, with votes for all three responses.

As to image quality, there was again a shift. Recent years have consistently voted that images from PROFESSIONAL sources are getting better, but that images from other sources are either the same or getting worse. This year the group was more pessimistic. They said that professional sources were delivering about the same quality as two years ago, but that other sources were delivering worse.

As for the professionals, this makes sense to me. The industry naturally had a long learning curve with respect to digital photography, which accounts for the continual improvement in quality up until recently. Now, although equipment continues to get cheaper and better, we've learned most of what we're going to about how to use it.

THE RISE OF THE BAD ORIGINAL
As for the amateurs handing in stuff that's worse than it was two years ago, eventually the ready availability of quality digicams ought to make amateurs more sophisticated. For now, amateurs are discovering how much time and money they save by submitting their own shots for publication--even in otherwise high-quality scenarios.

There has always been a small market for correcting really bad images. Photo restoration is an important application, one that will become more demanding as more and more "old" pictures are in color rather than B/W. And certainly, every photographer who shoots animals, children, sports, or news events has the experience of working with an inferior shot that nevertheless has to be used because there's no way to shoot it again. And newspapers have always gotten all kinds of garbage from their advertisers, who of course expect it to print well.

Up until recently, however, it wasn't worth the effort for most businesses to try to get good quality out of bad images. While my classes work on a lot of bad images because they offer a lot of hints on how to work on good images, historically only about 1 in 10 students actually often have to work on really poor images in real life.

As you can see from the composition of my advanced classes, that number is increasing rapidly. Throughout 2005, I think at least 25% of my classes had to work on such images. Often these students would say that they were actively discouraging their clients from submitting them. To that, my reply is that you can discourage it all you like, but that's how it's going to be.

THE RISE OF ADOBE RGB
I noted a couple of months ago that at Photoshop World, surveys indicated that almost everyone was using either Adobe RGB or sRGB in spite of perceived problems with both. At one Photoshop World it was a 50-50 split; at the other it was not quite 60-40 in favor of Adobe RGB. Yet in my advanced classes the vote was 10-2. I find this surprising, especially among those who are only concerned with CMYK output.

I'd regard this as proof of the power of negative publicity. If you are good at color correction (and these people are) AND if you never have to output to anything but CMYK, then on the assumption that sRGB and Adobe RGB are the only choices in the world, then sRGB is superior. But there's been so much anti-sRGB rhetoric that people seem to be ashamed to used it.

Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 15:30:15 -0500
   From: David Barr
Subject: Re: Dan's Year-End Look

Dan Margulis wrote:

THE DEMISE OF THE INDEPENDENT PHOTOGRAPHER
As nearly as I can tell, the independent photography business is in a state
of near-collapse. There is still wedding shooting and portrait work, of course,
but corporate assignments are few and far between, as almost any company can
now afford to open its own studio or whatever they choose to call it.

Glad to say that I disagree with this assessment Dan.  I've been in the business for twenty five years and while I appreciate that many businesses adopt the attitude that their in house "photo person" can get pictures that are good enough, the fact is that often these pictures are not "good enough"  although they may end up being used.

The advantage with digital is that anyone with a digital camera can see the results and keep on trying until they get a "good enough" picture and this does take away some assignment work.  In reality companies have always been able to out-perform photographers in terms of buying more and better equipment.  The problem is that this doesn't necessarily mean they will end up with the pictures they need.  Several times in my career I've had clients buy cameras and direct their staff to take the pictures they need and they all end up coming back for professional pictures.

The business has changed but I'm enjoying the business more now than at any time in the past.  Change has closed some doors but it has also opened others.

David Barr
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 16:18:21 -0600
   From: David Riecks
Subject: Re: Dan's Year-End Look

At 01:19 PM 12/6/2005, Dan Margulis wrote:
As to image quality, there was again a shift. Recent years have consistently
voted that images from PROFESSIONAL sources are getting better, but that
images from other sources are either the same or getting worse. This year the group
was more pessimistic. They said that professional sources were delivering
about the same quality as two years ago, but that other sources were delivering
worse.

Dan:

For the most part I would agree, and much of this has to do with the cost of entry coming down enough that professional photographers only used to shooting film have had to transition to digital as the pro labs they used to use are closing.

This influx of less savvy photographers has, IMHO, dragged down the quality in the professional arena.

As for the other sources, there is significant confusion, and the vast majority don't appear to know what they are doing.

That's why two years ago, a group of representatives from the major photographic trade organizations got together and attempted to do something about this state of affairs, and in October released version 1 of the "Universal Photographic Digital Imaging Guidelines" (available from http://www.updig.org/).

We would welcome input from this group on this document. You are encouraged to share the URL with others that might find it of value.

David

--
David Riecks  (that's "i" before "e", but the "e" is silent)
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 22:54:13 -0500
   From: "jc castronovo"
Subject: Re: Dan's Year-End Look

I am in total agreement with your report. The downward spiral is out of control. Witness that there is now a consumer level flat bed scanner with a push button solution to photo restoration. While this may not satisfy the need for any of us here, such devices do reduce the respect for what we do to a minimum level. Computer imaging has certainly reduced respect for the photographer's art.

The average buyer of our work (who is after all usually an amateur/consumer level person and just happens to work in the field) figures that all we do is push a button and charge very high prices for it. Of course they want to do it all in-house and then anything that happens is "good enough". When it isn't, they give us the problem jobs. But then they certainly don't want to pay a lot for them since experience has taught them that it's a push button field. It's an easy and convenient lie to believe in - one that fattens their bottom line and not ours.

john castronovo
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 20:40:02 -0800
   From: J Walton
Subject: Re: Dan's Year-End Look

On 12/6/05, Dan Margulis wrote:

If you are good
at color correction (and these people are) AND if you never have to output
to anything but CMYK, then on the assumption that sRGB and Adobe RGB are the
only choices in the world, then sRGB is superior.

I'm not trying to dredge up bad memories, but I had to smile when I read this.  I seem to remember asking about the best RGB space for CMYK output a few years ago, and you had a different response.

Something about using the best socks to drive a car upside down with your feet...

Anyway, thanks for the review - the advanced students in your class are a better indication of where the quality work is going than an average Photoshop conference, IMO.

-----
J Walton
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 20:55:19 -0800
   From: Marco Ugolini
Subject: Re: Dan's Year-End Look

I'm usually the realist in a discussion, the one to tell others to keep in mind the downsides of an issue, besides the advantages or positive aspects.

But I find this discussion a bit excessively gloomy even for my taste. I have no data to back up my off-the-cuff views, but I do think that there are still many out there (possibly no less of them than in the past) who have a very fine visual sensibility, and who don't go for the low end.

Possibly, you find them more often in the field of fine arts, whereas the more corporate side of things keeps sliding downwards in an insatiable search for cost-cutting. Cheaper is better for these bottom-liners, even if it's crap. That is indeed a problem, and it has gotten worse lately. I've seen that first-hand in my experience in the corporate world over the last 15 years or so.

But there has been an explosion of interest and activity in fine printing done with digital means. Countless people have discovered the power of the digital darkroom, and are committed to very high levels of excellence.

And, to make one example among many, my impression is that the quality of book printing has gotten remarkably better lately. There are many photo books out there that are very well put together, not in small part thanks to the same digital technologies that, as it happens, also have a role in the deterioration of those very same standards that they so capably help improve at the same time.

It's a complex picture, with many facets, and moaning about the lost treasures of the past, while partially true and comforting to some of us, is not nearly enough. There is still a lot of hope left in the future.

Regards.

--------------
Marco Ugolini
Mill Valley, CA
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 07:55:00 -0500
   From:John Castronovo
Subject: Re: Dan's Year-End Look

-From: "Mike Russell"

To paraphrase T.H. O'Sullivan: With the advent of the new technology, my
livelihood, and that of all photographers has vanished.  People will prefer
an image of a scene if it includes an image of themselves, and their loved
ones, to that of a professional photographer such as myself.

This was in the late 1800's, and he was bemoaning the invention of the
Kodak, which of course caused an explosion of amateur photography.  The
professional photographer's job was just beginning.  The same technology
that O'Sullivan saw as a final blow to his profession, actually expanded it
into areas that he could not imagine.  So it will be with digital.

May we all live long enough to enjoy it. I'm not so sure that O'Sullivan did.

john castronovo
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 08:34:35 -0600
   From: "jimbean"
Subject: Re: Dan's Year-End Look

I am backlogged with a min of 5months of work..past 6 years worked almost everyday.. and I often wonder how several 'pros' on this list find the time to research and write so many responses... there is plenty of market share for qualified 'professional' photographers.. my solution is divesified skill set.. we do the 'photography', graphics, etc for commercial customers.. I have a nice following of what I advertise as: 'old photos reproduced'..and I refer to that aspect of my business as having 'a license to print money'.. happy repeat customers, excellent referals.  I don't compete with school photographers, proms, weddings (although I do my 'fair" share of nice wedding/bridal projects)..  the real issue is customer service and recognizing that you are a 'vendor' and when you finally realize that providing excellent service, problem solving, and learning to say thank you.. many things come your way..Including learning to work with and for people that you admire/respect..I am a second generation photographer.. by the time I met dan.. I had achieved many goals that most others would appreciate..my photographer skill set was and is as complete as most (better than most is not such a big deal today) other professionals.. the 'color theory' approach rekindled my enthusiasm to 'reinvent' myself ... although I work too much and as many in my profession 'give too much away'.. I have a great time, make enough $$$ to pay my taxes and enjoy life..I am well respected in my market area, enjoy reading, re-reading 'canyons/etc'.. and see no end for the demand..

I do not, however, recommend professiona photography as a career.. small business is tough.. out of time.. we are direct mailing one of two 'judge campaign' direct mail projects thursday... regards and have a safe holiday season, jim bean
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 10:05:01 -0500
   From: david tighe
Subject: Re: Dan's Year-End Look

A couple quick comments growing on what Marco Ugolini said:

a very fine visual sensibility, and who don't go for the low end.
Possibly, you find them more often in the field of fine arts

"Working" in fine art, I would report that in my opinion fine art reproduction is at a zenith.

However, many of the digital-employing artists whom I see, hanging on walls in varied galleries, are getting away with heinous crimes of "anti-craft." If their sculpting or painting technique/craft was as poor as their digital skills they wouldn't get in the front door. I believe the "gatekeepers" are often blinded to these digital messes by the "wow" factor that clicking on Photoshop filters can render.

Moreover, with digital, the process has spun around and is backwards or at least sideways to what I believe is the proper process balance of concept and craft . I never knew him, but I'm sure that Michelangelo "saw" David in that rock. I do know many digital art photographers who open an image, pull up a second image and plop it on another layer, perhaps add a few more image layers, sprinkle some adjust layers in, have a beer, and then start applying filters until they fall in love. So often these images all look alike. I really don't believe they will stand the test of time. In a decade we will look back at an image and say, " ahhh, remember how Photoshop used to do difference clouds and motion blur."

more corporate side of things keeps sliding downwards in an insatiable
search for cost-cutting.

Absolutely. Fifteen years ago I noted that "church bulletins" were going to get very good (graphically and relative to what they had been) and that retail circulars and advertising materials were heading the other direction. That said, the HIGH END of corporate annual reports and the like is awesome in what digital allows the designer to do and how the top designers/photographers respect the craft and image.

David Tighe

___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 13:25:14 EST
   From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Re: Dan's Year-End Look

J writes,

I'm not trying to dredge up bad memories, but I had to smile when I read
this.  I seem to remember asking about the best RGB space for CMYK output a few
years ago, and you had a different response. Something about using the best
socks to drive a car upside down with your feet...

No, the response was the same. You had stated that in spite of your company outputting *only* in CMYK, the management had decided in its wisdom that all work should be done in RGB, and you wanted to know what was the best choice of RGB under those lamentable circumstances. Hence, the crack about the socks.

This was early 2003. The message is probably good enough to excerpt, which I do below. As you can see, I was consistent against using Adobe RGB for CMYK-only output.

The whole thread, and it's a  long one, is archived at
http: //www.ledet.com/margulis/ACT_postings/DailyLife/ACT-Best-Practice-RGB.htm

Dan Margulis

*********************
Posted Wed., 12 Feb. 2003:

J writes,

I'm not sure I understand why I need to choose my working RGB space based on
my scanner's space.  The final CMYK output is the ONLY thing I sell my
clients, so it's the ONLY thing that matters to me.  Shouldn't I choose a
working space based on the final output??

Yes, which is why this thread is so mystifying. It strikes me as like saying that your company has decided that you should drive while upside down and you need our advice as to what brand of socks will give your toes the best hold of the steering wheel.

If you own a printer that wants RGB input, you want to work in RGB unless there's some image-specific reason to go elsewhere. The same applies here. Why on earth would you want to make *any* RGB your primary workspace, if you are *only* concerned with output in CMYK?

The first choice, therefore, is to work mostly in CMYK, reserving the option of RGB and/or LAB where appropriate. The second choice would be some RGB that bears some relation to the CMYK gamut: sRGB, Apple RGB, or ColorMatch RGB. The third choice would be something wider gamut like Adobe RGB, which introduces a lot of gamut problems but makes it somewhat easier to get "acceptable" color. The fourth choice is LAB, which is even harder to work with but offers certain unique advantages.
___________________________________________________________________________
start here

   Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 03:45:52 -0200
   From: Cicero Rodrigues
Subject: Re: Dan's Year-End Look

Two years ago I used AdobeRGB as the default color space. Each time I converted a batch of files to CMYK, I had to do so much rework in order correct colors that didn't converted well, that I gave up AdobeRGB.

Now I adopt satanicRGB and life is easier. After the conversion the colors are closer of what can be expected of the final CMYK. If it is necessary to make some small adjustments, like say, increase the general contrast, usually I can do it with actions in pretty automatic manner. That is especially useful in jobs with dozens of images.

But I confess I still feel guilty of using sRGB and don't tell it anybody. I guess I am sort of a sinner color puritan.

Cícero Rodrigues
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 22:49:13 -0800
   From: Marco Ugolini
Subject: Re: Dan's Year-End Look

In a message dated 12/8/05 9:45 PM, Cicero Rodrigues wrote:

Two years ago I used AdobeRGB as the default color space. Each time I
converted a batch of files to CMYK, I had to do so much rework in
order correct colors that didn't converted well, that I gave up
AdobeRGB.

Hi Cicero.

How did you convert to CMYK? Did you use Mode -CMYK, or Convert To Profile? The first restricts you to the CMYK conversion parameters specified in the color settings of your copy of Photoshop; the latter allows you the freedom to select any target profile you wish, as well as your choice of rendering intent and black point compensation.

It may have very simply been the case that your conversion method was not optimal.

Regards.

--------------
Marco Ugolini
Mill Valley, CA
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 19:26:44 -0200
   From: Cicero Rodrigues
Subject: Re: Dan's Year-End Look

Hi Marco,

The problem is not the path but where I came from and where I am going to.

OK, I am not that Zen. What I mean is that no matter what is the rendering intent I can't choose the CMYK that fits better. I am constrained to the printer CMYK.

Nowadays a typical job starts with digital captures and ends with lots of CMYK files. I don't have the time (or the budget) to study individual approaches for each image. All the time I am balancing the efforts versus the benefits. Considering this aspect that nasty sRGB color space is more forgiving.

---------------------------------

Cícero Rodrigues