Dan Margulis Applied Color Theory

Asking Adobe to Improve Custom CMYK

   Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 01:18:20 -0400
   From: Ric Cohn
Subject: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK

I posted the following as a feature request on the Adobe Photoshop User to User Forum:

"Custom CMYK is old and creaky and badly in need of reworking to reflect an ICC profile workflow, yet Adobe hasn't given us a substitute. There really should be the ability to modify profiles within photoshop. At the very least the Web and Sheetfed ICC profiles should be provided as a family with various black generations, etc."

It has at least been responded to by someone from Adobe asking what we want. I encourage anyone with an opinion and/or more knowledge than me to go there and post there comments. It can't hurt and it might help.

https: //www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?13@251.isc2egs3zuI.10@.3bbb1520/1

Ric Cohn
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:10:47 -0000
   From: "kuhammer2004"
Subject: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK

Good morning, Mr. Cohn

        I remember when I was in Catholic school, each pupil had to write a letter to some elected official (forget who this was) concerning a letter that another politician wrote about the positions he/she took on an issue.

        We had mailed out that politicians letter(photocopies made of original)with a hand-written note attached from each pupil(some short massage that was on the blackboard...)to this elected official, saying that we acknowledge and agree about the concerns in his/her enclosed letter from that politician. Each letter sent out had a return address/name from that students' family, if verification had to be needed.

           So! If one wanted too, and one who does not like to type, explaining the problem, or does not want to use the "user" forum. Give a link to the following message below, better to copy and paste the message, (some just don't have the time to follow links) leaving e-mail addresses' and last names out (their left out anyway), just attach a very short note, saying: "acknowledging the message and agreeing with it" or whatever statements you want to add. This shows you're serious about this, and not just agreeing with others because it's stylish or to agree to someone's urine and defecation (hope I'm spelling this word right) about it. I guess it might have more impact. This is the post I'm talking about:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/colortheory/message/6545

E-mail this to "The Company" concerned.

http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/contact.html

With that very short note with it.

          There are 2,445 members' on this list. I remember when their was just 8 hundred and something. Some may or may not want this. Or just don't care. One thing though, the more replies… The more "The Company" will be thinking. Time to get that pool upgraded for the backyard. Just don't give a bogus e-mail address and don't use some name like "Vito, with the bent nose"

   John Opitz
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:18:21 -0700
   From: Marco Ugolini
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK

Pardon my naïveté, but my personal take on faulty profiles is that one ought not to fiddle with them, unless you are a color scientist and know exactly what the consequences are of your moves, intended and unintended.

If a profile is faulty, make a better one. Use better settings, more patches, better profile-making software, better instrumentation, etc.

My 2 cents.

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

   Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:19:54 -0400
   From: Ric Cohn
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK

My point was that I started a discussion and those with more knowledge or differing opinions could voice them there. I take it that you are basically happy with the tools you have and don't see the need for any changes? If so, go ahead and let them know, if you want to. If not, go ahead and tell them what you think they should do, if you want to.

Ric Cohn
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:30:30 -0600
   From: Chris Murphy
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK

On Jun 28, 2005, at 3:18 PM, Marco Ugolini wrote:

Pardon my naïveté, but my personal take on faulty profiles is that one ought
not to fiddle with them, unless you are a color scientist and know exactly
what the consequences are of your moves, intended and unintended.

If a profile is faulty, make a better one. Use better settings, more
patches, better profile-making software, better instrumentation, etc.

I agree with this 100%. Profile editing is optional, but beneficial if done by someone who is already a skilled at both color correction and making good compromises (afterall, profile editing is an event in one size fits all color correction). It's best done in small doses. Significant edits usually lead to complete disaster as profiles are quite fragile.

Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (TM)
www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 08:15:17 -0400
   From: Ric Cohn
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK

I'm disappointed that more people haven't voiced their opinions to Adobe. After all the complaints on this forum I was hoping that a few knowledgeable people would make their requests known at a time where someone is listening. So far only Andrew has posted. I know when I prepare images for repro I wish I had better tools, but I'm not in any way knowledgeable compared to many on this list.

Here's a response from one of Dan's favorites, Chris Cox--but I suspect change will come from his end or not at all:

"I think I'd need both hands and a foot to count the people who've used measured data and the custom CMYK dialog.

Some people would like to see a full profile building feature in Photoshop. But I'm not sure it's worth the hassle. I think 98% of users can get by with changeable black generation and TAC (ok, and maybe a "special" profile for Mike). I just need evidence to back that up before management will commit to changing things."

I think if we want this much we'll have to ask for it. If more is needed we'll have to ask real hard.  I know I'd like to see some print centric changes in PS for a change.

Ric Cohn
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:35:35 -0000
   From: Stephen Marsh
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK

I am not a member of the forums, but this does sound like a worthy thing to sign up for, as I feel the same.

Since v5, print and prepress have pretty much been forgotten by Photoshop (OK, v6 had softproofing).

Like Apple, Adobe suffer regular sales/updates for offering a great product. Just as an older Mac unit or OS may be around to drive a scanner or to do less intensive work, so too are older versions of software such Photoshop 4/5/6 to various degrees. When things simply just work well and limits and expectations are not being pushed these older systems stay around a lot longer than vendors would like.

Stephen Marsh.
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:56:35 EDT
   From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK

Chris Murphy writes,

Profile editing is optional, but beneficial if done by someone who is
already a skilled at both color correction and making good compromises (afterall,
profile editing is an event in one size fits all color correction). It's best
done in small doses. Significant edits usually lead to complete disaster as
profiles are quite fragile.

Depends on how complex the profile is. Some of these 10-million-measurement babies would indeed be fragile. Custom CMYK profiles, OTOH, are so simple that you can edit them as much as you want.

Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 13:30:45 -0400
   From: Henry
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK

With regard to profile editing, I would be very interested to hear some thoughts about the following:

The assumption is that the profile is fairly well-made to begin with, and not a complete wreck.

1.  Doesn't editing a profile involve favoring particular colors which can result in the shifting of other colors?

2.  Is editing the profile more or less difficult than making adjustments on the converted image?

3.  Does the "editing the profile route" unglue any intuitive thinking about the resulting cmyk values, and rely heavily on the display?

When one adjust the cmyk values in an image, it seems to me to be more intuitive and direct.  Editing a fairly good profile seems to be taking the round about way.  Granted, if a particular profile is always deficient with respect to "blues" for instance, editing it might be the best answer.  But then this approach could result in a need for custom adjusted profiles that favor particular hues.  I can imagine a whole crayon box full of profiles not only suitable for particular presses, inksets and substrates but for hue preferences as well.

Henry Davis
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 13:51:14 EDT
   From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK

Ric writes,

I'm disappointed that more people haven't voiced their opinions to  
Adobe. After all the complaints on this forum I was hoping that a few  
knowledgeable people would make their requests known at a time where  
someone is listening.

I think people understand that it's a waste of keystrokes. As Stephen has pointed out, Adobe abandoned any pretext of catering to the CMYK community some years ago. There hasn't been a significant CMYK-related advance since Convert to Profile in Photoshop 6, five years ago.

The basics, however, haven't changed since 1998. Certain members of the Photoshop team decided at that time that they were in a position to dictate workflows to the market. They presented us with uneditable profiles and announced that Custom CMYK was dead. Everyone who knows anything about CMYK told them right from the get-go that this was a non-starter--that the ability to edit profiles was an absolute prerequisite for serious CMYK work, and that unless and until it was provided, users would have no choice but to stick with the old way. And so they have, for seven years, with no sign that they're about to change.

In terms of improving Custom CMYK the biggest issue is that in previewing files the image always assumes that black ink is absolutely black, which can be quite misleading. That could be fixed, and perhaps a couple of extra reading points could be added for those interested in extra complexity. But doing that still leaves us unable to accept profiles done by third parties using profiling packages unless we're willing to forego ever tweaking them, which high-end users can't accept.

Adobe keeps believing that if only they wait long enough people will see the light, and that since most RGB users don't need editing capability, CMYK users don't either. And, of course, serious users stick with Custom CMYK, because Photoshop provides no alternative. No matter how many times they declare that Custom CMYK is dead, nothing has happened in seven years, and nothing is going to happen until they give us something better. That is unlikely to occur with current personnel alignments at Adobe.

See, for example,
www.ledet.com/margulis/ACT_postings/SeparationIssues/ACT-Ancient-Custom-Color.htm

Here's a response from one of Dan's favorites, Chris Cox-- but I  
suspect change will come from his end or not at all:

Then it will be not at all. Chris is indeed a favorite, first, because he's the archetype of the person who knows virtually nothing about color or about professional workflows but berates the rest of the world for being fools and liars. Second, because he truly hates so many people, he serves as a lesson to the rest of us not to take our work so seriously.  The good news is that from a writer's POV, having somebody whose rhetoric is so bilious while taking positions that two years later look ridiculous is a great source of comic relief in one's books. The bad news is that he's in a position of power on the Photoshop team, where he's done more to retard the progress of ICC color management than anybody else in the industry.

But that really doesn't address the question of why it's a waste of energy to bring up the subject. You need to understand that our color world, which to us seems full of shadings, hues, and nuances, is to Chris entirely black and white. All those who are not his friends are his enemies. Also, in his world, the Photoshop team embodies perfection. All programming errors are the fault of other companies; all inadequate interface design is the fault of Photoshop users; any failure to accept the wisdom of an Adobe innovation is a conspiracy.

The principal conspirators, in his view, are printers and service bureaus, but he extends his hatred to almost anyone who uses CMYK, since he does not understand why everyone can't just use RGB.

Why such strong feelings? Chris was one of the driving forces behind the disastrous color architecture of Photoshop 5, in 1998. At the time, I called it "a major disservice to the industry" and said it would set color management back by at least five years. The conventional wisdom today goes well beyond that. A little over a year ago, I participated in a panel discussion at Photoshop World, along with two color management consultants. An audience member asked a question about what the impact of Photoshop 5 had been. I did not respond. I didn't take notes but I believe that the following are nearly exact quotations of what the other two said, remembering that these guys come from the group that you would expect to support Adobe on such points.

One said: "It could not possibly have been worse. Wait, I take that back. If it had been programmed so that the moment you opened a file it formatted your hard drive, that would have been worse. Other than that, it could not have been a worse product." The other called Photoshop 5 "the most incompetent interface design in the history of the graphic arts."

Knowing that the world at large feels this way about one's work is hard for anybody to take. However, we all do screw up from time to time. Those of us who are rational face the facts. If we think that our work is good but the rest of the world says that it's terrible; if we think that people should drop something like Custom CMYK because our way is better but nobody does it, we simply draw the conclusion that there was a problem with our work or with our logic and move on.

Chris can't do that. Since he can't accept that there was anything wrong with his product, he lashes out at the people who rejected it:

"[Users are] trying to achieve reliable, quality color while
dealing with brain-dead print shops who refuse to even consider using
color management.if I give them data that prints a good proof then they
can match it on press without having to worry about 'all that new-fangled
Calibrationist ColorSync Crap we don't need because we know the numbers
and my daddy didn't need it or his daddy before him blah blah blah...' "

Since he can't comprehend why people won't stop using Custom CMYK, he has a simple solution: force them not to use it by taking it out of the program. Besides, that will punish those brain-dead CMYK users!

The very fact that he even suggests getting rid of it indicates what you're up against. Even if Adobe finally wakes up and puts a general-purpose profile editor in the program, Custom CMYK would have to stay--you'd want to be able to edit stuff that had been done in the past, and it probably would still be the method of choice for generating a profile when no measurements are available, as often happens in the real world.

I hope this is a satisfactory explanation of why it is not productive use of time to try to argue the point. Adobe has known for seven years that having a profile editor is a prerequisite for serious CMYK work. They are not going to do anything about it, and I don't think they're going to further update Custom CMYK.

Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:01:39 -0600
   From: Andrew Rodney
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK

On 6/30/05 11:30 AM, "Henry"  wrote:

1.  Doesn't editing a profile involve favoring particular colors which
can result in the shifting of other colors?

Thatxs always a possibility. Depends on the edit, the software and the profile. Profile editing should only be used for slight tweaks.

2.  Is editing the profile more or less difficult than making
adjustments on the converted image?

About the same again depending on the editor. My favorite profile editor (Custom Color from Kodak) actually runs inside of Photoshop. You edit an image as you normally would but the edits are built into a profile, not the image.

3.  Does the "editing the profile route" unglue any intuitive thinking
about the resulting cmyk values, and rely heavily on the display?

In theory yes but if the values where right to begin with, why edit the profile?

Colorimetrically correct color is often not the color the end user prefers or wants.

Andrew Rodney
www.digitaldog.net
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 13:01:10 -0600
   From: Chris Murphy
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK

On Jun 30, 2005, at 11:30 AM, Henry wrote:

1.  Doesn't editing a profile involve favoring particular colors which
can result in the shifting of other colors?

It can. If reds are being rendered with a little too much yellow, you can use a selective color tool to edit only reds, removing some yellow from them, without affecting gray balance, or yellows in other colors.

2.  Is editing the profile more or less difficult than making
adjustments on the converted image?

Editing a profile uses color correction techniques, but it is not to achieve the same result as color correction. Color correcting an image implies there is something wrong with the image. That always needs to be addressed manually (short of some kind of artificial intelligence that can do it, but that would not be color management at its current state).

Editing an image addresses specific issues in that image. Edits on that image could be very drastic, to achieve the desired result. Similar edits on a profile could completely hose it.

Editing a profile must involve a lot of compromises because the profile needs to apply to a wide assortment of images. So in this sense, profile editing can be rather tedious and not as rewarding compared to color correcting an image.

3.  Does the "editing the profile route" unglue any intuitive thinking
about the resulting cmyk values, and rely heavily on the display?

It relies on testing. After editing, you want to test the portion of the profile being edited. If that's the LAB->CMYK portion (usually you are editing CMYK values in that direction), you need to convert a test image through the edited profile to make sure the edits have had the desired affect, without detrimental ones.

When one adjust the cmyk values in an image, it seems to me to be more
intuitive and direct.  Editing a fairly good profile seems to be taking
the round about way.

Profile editing isn't about color correcting images. It's about refining the separation you get from the profile. That refinement can then apply to all subsequent separations. If your separations consistently print with too much magenta, profile editing is vastly more appropriate than always using curves to remove magenta in every single image.

Granted, if a particular profile is always
deficient with respect to "blues" for instance, editing it might be the
best answer.  But then this approach could result in a need for custom
adjusted profiles that favor particular hues.  I can imagine a whole
crayon box full of profiles not only suitable for particular presses,
inksets and substrates but for hue preferences as well.

Well, that's why you can't expect profiles to do a perfect job. You want separations that are well behaved, that leave room for any necessary manual edits. You don't want separations with consistent problems, image after image.

Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (TM)
www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 11:36:08 -0700
   From: Mike Russell
Subject: Requirements for a CMYK profile editor

What would the requirements be for a nicely integrated, streamlined CMYK profile editor, suitable for use with Photoshop?

What about an external editor, similar to Custom CMYK, that could create a new profile, and/or modify an existing one, specifying primaries, dot gain, and gray ramp generation?  

Is there a show stopper requirement that makes it impossible to usefully integrate such an external program with Photoshop?  If more integration with Photoshop were required, would it be possible to implement as an automation plugin, for example, that put up a dialog similar to Custom CMYK?

I suppose you would want this on Macintosh :-)

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:47:04 -0700
   From: Peter Figen
Subject: Re: Requirements for a CMYK profile editor

Gretag already offers that for profiles that contain the measurement data within the profile. It allows you to load any Gretag profile (I'm not sure if it works with other brands) and re-compute it with whatever parameters that are available in the ProfileMaker dialog box, which is similar to but more comprehensive than Custom CMYK. The big question is will it work for Adobe's profiles and is Adobe willing to put the data in the profile. Of course, it does require you to purchase ProfileMaker, in which case you might as well make your own.

Peter Figen
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:33:16 -0700
   From: Rick Gordon
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK

Dan,

Although I agree much of what you're saying, I think that it extremely useful to keep the dialog open and not just gripe about the way things are. If Chris Cox is taking in the conversation around this topic, I think the best thing to do is to let him hear what we need in a manner that is not insulting or off-putting. If he has the power to do something, it's better to influence that power to promote our goals rather than to refuse to "waste keystrokes". Allies are better than enemies.

FWIW, my comments to the thread:

I agree that it is essential for Photoshop to provide a solution that provides dynamic adjustment of black generation and TAC (TIL) -- ideally for all ICC profiles. I just don't think that the handful of Adobe-blessed profiles are sufficient for the range of industry conditions encountered. But I also think there needs to be control of maximum black on an image-type by image-type basis (particularly in the 80-95% range).

Working in book publishing, I find the very frequent need for Maximum black generation (for screen captures, etc) and black generation of None (for ghosting behind text).

Also, I would plead that -- unless the functionality can be duplicated by other currently unavailable means -- that you don't eliminate that Custom CMYK dialog for this additional reason: Many of us use custom-generated black channels (sometimes then tweaked with curves) for a variety of unobvious reasons (i.e., to get a strongly sharpenable black channel or to create a channel that will ultimately be blended into something else, possibly not even within a CMYK color space).

Perhaps a viable approach for deprecating the Custom CMYK dialog (to aid the printing industry in moving past it as a default) while continuing to make it available to those who choose -- would be to move its functionality to an optional plug-in.

But please do not remove its functionality without replacing it with comparable functionality.

Perhaps another viable approach might be for Adobe to buy or license Kodak's profile editing technology, which from what I have heard (mostly from Andrew's writings) is already very well-matched to Photoshop.

In the end, even though the Custom CMYK dialog is a blunt and annoying tool, sometimes it's the only one we have that can handle the job. Don't remove it without replacing ALL of its functionality.

Rick Gordon

___________________________________________________

RICK GORDON
EMERALD VALLEY GRAPHICS AND CONSULTING
___________________________________________________

WWW:   http://www.shelterpub.com
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:46:28 -0400
   From: Henry
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK

Andrew,

Picking up on the assumption that the profile is fairly well-made to begin with, and not a complete wreck, it would seem to me that any "minor" adjustments might just as easily be made on the image and not the profile.

Yep, I have had occasion to inquire about colorimetrically accurate color, but this time I was speaking of pictures.

I am wrestling with and am undecided about the prospect of a profile editor being available to Photoshop users.  Considering that it can be difficult enough to deal with image correction issues with Photoshop users (in general), tossing a profile editing tool into the mix could easily escalate such assistance into a never ending cycle of debate over whether a problem is with a profile or an image.  It has been my experience that most problem images are the result of poor correction and preparation - not profile issues.  This leads me to expect that there would be a potentially bigger, combined problem - poor image prep and mangled profiles.

That this thread has had mention of the relative delicateness of profiles, along with the above comments, I'm beginning to lean in the direction of a "For Experts Only" warning if an editing tool is made available with Photoshop.  Not that the program doesn't already have challenges enough - even for experts.

Henry Davis
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 13:47:14 -0600
   From: Andrew Rodney
Subject: Re: Requirements for a CMYK profile editor

On 6/30/05 12:36 PM, Mike Russell  wrote:

What would the requirements be for a nicely integrated, streamlined CMYK
profile editor, suitable for use with Photoshop?

Kodak has had one that works inside of Photoshop for years.

What about an external editor, similar to Custom CMYK, that could create a new
profile, and/or modify an existing one, specifying primaries, dot gain, and
gray ramp generation?

There are all kinds (from GMB, Monaco, Fuji etc). You just need to buy one

Is there a show stopper requirement that makes it impossible to usefully
integrate such an external program with Photoshop?

Nope, only the will.

 If more integration with Photoshop were required, would it be possible to
implement as an automation plugin, for example, that put up a dialog similar
to Custom CMYK?

Thatxs how Color Visionxs Doctor Pro works although itxs a far cry
functionality wise from the Kodak product (which is a Plug-In).

Andrew Rodney
http://digitaldog.net/
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:59:39 -0600
   From: Andrew Rodney
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK

On 6/30/05 2:46 PM, "Henry"  wrote:

Picking up on the assumption that the profile is fairly well-made to
begin with, and not a complete wreck, it would seem to me that any
"minor" adjustments might just as easily be made on the image and not
the profile.

Thatxs one way to work but itxs a lot of work. Another scenario (and where I find profile editing to be so useful). You want to cross render images on your Epson it simulates the press or contract proof. Youxve built a profile for each and sending images to each works just fine. However, when you send the image data for the contract proof through the Epson profile for this cross simulation, you find issues such as too much yellow in reds. If you tweak the file, you hose it for the contract proof. Better to tweak the proofer profile and send the original data through to both devices.

Considering that it can be
difficult enough to deal with image correction issues with Photoshop
users (in general), tossing a profile editing tool into the mix could
easily escalate such assistance into a never ending cycle of debate
over whether a problem is with a profile or an image.

Agreed. I find users who are provided with a profile editor rush to use it when in fact therexs no problem with the profile. I would advise that anyone with such an editor keep it tucked away until the suspect profile has been used on lots of representative images. Now you can build images that are very good at diagnostics to determine if the profile is the issue and not the image data. A synthetic 21 step gray ramp is one example. We know that in a well behaved RGB working space, when R=G=B, we have a neutral. Output that through the output profile and should you see a colorcast in one or more steps, well itxs time to edit the profile. But I would agree that the line between tweaking an image and a profile can be a fine one.

The other area where a tweaked profile can really speed things up is a situation where perhaps you have 5000 images all of widgets on a white bkgnd and every image needs a minor tweak. You could open each in Photoshop and fix them but that would take a lot of time. You could build the tweak into the output profile and use it only on that group of images. Youxd hit two birds with one stone!

Andrew Rodney
www.digitaldog.net
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:51:18 -0600
   From: Andrew Rodney
Subject: Re: Requirements for a CMYK profile editor

On 6/30/05 1:47 PM, "Peter Figen"  wrote:

Gretag already offers that for profiles that contain the measurement
data within the profile. It allows you to load any Gretag profile (I'm
not sure if it works with other brands) and re-compute it with whatever
parameters that are available in the ProfileMaker dialog box
 
Some but not all 3rd party profiles. And no, you canxt import the Adobe profiles.

And as you say, if you can afford ProfileMaker Pro, youxll be rolling your own profiles anyway.

Andrew Rodney
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:15:35 -0400
   From: Henry Davis
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK

Chris,

A concern is that the addition of a new, mysterious and powerful correction tool might compound the problems encountered with files supplied by print customers.  Color correction is a difficult enough issue, and so I guess that I am trying to pre-think the issues that might arise.  Discussions with print customers that combine image preparation AND profile editing, I suspect, might prove to be less than profitable.  My thinking for a good while has been that Photoshop should include a good profile editor, and now I'm not so sure.  It would be useful for some, but might cause unnecessary dilemmas for other.

I like that you said that we can't expect profiles to do a perfect job.   The old separation engine doesn't do a perfect job.  There probably isn't a perfect profile or perfect separation.  As a result, adjustments are made to the separations.  If the profile editing tool is made available in Photoshop, I think it should come with a warning, and thorough documentation.

There are some other comments added below.  Thanks for your response.

Henry Davis

On Jun 30, 2005, at 3:01 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:

 It can. If reds are being rendered with a little too much yellow, youÊ
 can use a selective color tool to edit only reds, removing someÊ
 yellow from them, without affecting gray balance, or yellows in otherÊ
 colors.

The profile is good to go - except for use with pictures having lots of red, for which this unedited profile puts more yellow into the reds. These too-yellow reds would show up in the display of the soft proof suggesting that some post-conversion editing might be needed, right, similar to blue sky magenta adjustments?  You either have a profile that has been edited to work best with the blue sky class of pictures or you edit the image post-conversion.  And, you need another profile that works best with red subjects, and so on.

Furthermore, each one of these color-customized profiles will need its own additional versions for total ink and black plates.  This makes for a lot of profiles to juggle, and while this might be nice, it's not necessarily a very efficient or clear way for content designers to approach their tasks.  I am not surprised to see excellent printing from files presented by experts; they can figure it out.  It is a bit much to figure out for a whole lot of people who present files for print work.

 Editing a profile must involve a lot of compromises because theÊ
 profile needs to apply to a wide assortment of images. So in thisÊ
 sense, profile editing can be rather tedious and not as rewardingÊ
 compared to color correcting an image.

Might one think of post-conversion image editing as a refined color correction, similar to refined corrections made on any separation?

 Profile editing isn't about color correcting images. It's aboutÊ
 refining the separation you get from the profile. That refinement canÊ
 then apply to all subsequent separations. If your separationsÊ
 consistently print with too much magenta, profile editing is vastlyÊ
 more appropriate than always using curves to remove magenta in everyÊ
 single image.

I understand the distinction, and I'm not trying to be difficult, but sometimes it seems like a distinction without a difference.  Editing the profile results in compromises that might need to be addressed by further post-conversion image editing.  Refining separations is refining separations, isn't it?  Oh no, I can already hear murmuring about histograms and lost tones, 8-bit/16-bit and how its better to adjust the profile than it is the file, etc.

 Well, that's why you can't expect profiles to do a perfect job. YouÊ
 want separations that are well behaved, that leave room for anyÊ
 necessary manual edits. You don't want separations with consistentÊ
 problems, image after image.

The assumption was that the profile is well-made to begin with - maybe not perfect, but not a wreck either.
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:29:06 -0400
   From: Henry
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK

Andrew,

You have pointed out a situation where profile editing is really worthwhile, and an editing tool should make this point very clearly, with examples and instructions in its documentation (might there even be room for considering some methods for limited colorimetric matching?).  Thanks.

Henry Davis
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 19:38:31 -0400
   From: todie
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK

On Jun 30, 2005, at 1:51 PM, Dan Margulis wrote:

Chris can't do that. Since he can't accept that there was anything
wrong with his product, he lashes out at the people who rejected it:

I found Chris responsive to a suggestion I made about an eventual stochastic EPS instruction that could help reduce rosette and moire patterns.

Laurentiu Todie
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 19:55:10 -0700
   From: Marco Ugolini
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK

In a message dated Thu, 30 Jun 2005 13:30:45, Henry Davis wrote:

The assumption is that the profile is fairly well-made to begin with,
and not a complete wreck.

I believe that when people complain about faulty profiles ("complete" or "partial wrecks" included) it's either (a) because they lack experience and are doing something unadvisedly, or (b) because they are very demanding high-end users who are acutely aware of imprecisions.

In either case, an accurate profile is the best starting point, since trying to fix a profile that may be already broken to begin with would only compound any existing trouble.

1. Doesn't editing a profile involve favoring particular colors which
can result in the shifting of other colors?

Yes. Any editing must be very carefully tested for unwanted results.

2. Is editing the profile more or less difficult than making
adjustments on the converted image?

If the changes are necessary because the profile is faulty, again, I would try to make a better profile. If the profile is the best that can be made with the given software, settings, test charts and instruments, there is always the option (budget permitting) of trying different software, settings, test charts and instruments.

In the real world, where things need to get done on time and on schedule, it may not always be possible or practical to produce profile after profile in a number of different ways until the right one comes along, but it should be given a fair shot when time and resources allow.

3. Does the "editing the profile route" unglue any intuitive thinking
about the resulting cmyk values, and rely heavily on the display?

I don't think I understand what that is supposed to mean.

When one adjust the cmyk values in an image, it seems to me to be more
intuitive and direct. Editing a fairly good profile seems to be taking the round about way.

If a good profile correctly used produces the desired results, that remains the most efficient way to achieve your results. Besides, a good profile will continue producing good results, which is a time-saver.

Also, one should also make sure to try different rendering intents during image conversion (Perceptual, RelCol, even Saturation! and Black Point Compensation, of course), and to inspect the different results closely.

Additionally, a good profile that produces "accurate color" (color that is colorimetrically accurate for a given illuminant) may not necessarily produce "pleasing color." And color that is numerically correct may also appear incorrect due to other colors, or areas of lightness or darkness surrounding it, and other distortions involved in color appearance.

And last but not least, let's not forget that even the best possible profile CANNOT produce colors THAT DO NOT EXIST IN THE DESTINATION. People can lose themselves pursuing a color chimera, forgetting that no profile editing can fix that fundamental limitation in the color space.

Granted, if a particular profile is always deficient with respect to "blues"
for instance, editing it might be the best answer. But then this approach
could result in a need for custom adjusted profiles that favor particular
hues. I can imagine a whole crayon box full of profiles not only suitable for
particular presses, inksets and substrates but for hue preferences as well.

To me, that's confusing and inelegant. Besides, what if an image has trouble in TWO, or THREE hues? Which profile to use then?

Best regards.

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

   Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 19:57:27 -0700
   From: Marco Ugolini
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:29:06, Henry Davis wrote:

You have pointed out a situation where profile editing is really
worthwhile, and an editing tool should make this point very clearly,
with examples and instructions in its documentation (might there even
be room for considering some methods for limited colorimetric
matching?). Thanks.

The same tweak could be applied without any need for profile editing if one creates a Photoshop action that includes the desired adjustments (curve or selective color, etc), then runs the group of widget images through a batch that uses that action.

The result would be just as good, without the added risk of keeping yet one more profile around to add to the confusion.

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

   Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 23:12:58 EDT
   From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK

Henry writes,

1.  Doesn't editing a profile involve favoring particular colors which
can result in the shifting of other colors?

Not usually, because there are several kinds of "editing a profile". The people who have responded so far are referring only to the most uncommon kind.

A. The most common edit by far is to change black generation, or the way shadows are constructed by manipulating either the total or black ink limit. This won't change colors very much if at all.

B. The second most common use is when the user concludes that the profile is producing results that are either always too light or always too dark. In that case, he adjusts (usually) the midtone of the reproduction curves. This changes color a small amount.

C. The least common use is when the user decides that there is a consistent color problem that needs to be corrected. That definitely changes colors in a lot of places.

2.  Is editing the profile more or less difficult than making adjustments
on the converted image?

In cases A and B, less difficult, case C considerably more difficult because you're presumably less familiar with the profile editor's interface than with that of Photoshop; you have to know the structure of the profile to see whether it can take the correction you're going to make without falling apart; and worst of all, you have to make the right decision of what you're trying to achieve.

For example, last nite I had to redo a profile because, based on around 50 images, everything looked reasonable, however wherever there were skies they were often too purple. With that number of images to examine, I could determine in about five minutes that the cause of this was that the printer's dot gain was lower than predicted in magenta and cyan but that the magenta colorant was more red than anticipated. And so it was a 30-second edit. The problem is that most people can't identify a specific printing issue just by looking at images and the digital files that produced them. A lot of different factors can cause purple skies, and if you don't identify the actual culprit you won't find the right solution.

3.  Does the "editing the profile route" unglue any intuitive thinking
about the resulting cmyk values, and rely heavily on the display?

In Case A, no; In Case B, maybe; in Case C, yes.

Throughout this discussion there is an underlying current of confusion between profile editing and color correction. It's somewhat understandable, because Case A, the most common one, *could* be a part of the color correction process. You're making a change that could be specific to a single image or to a group of them. If one image only needs an aberrant black, you edit the profile.

Cases B and C are never used for color correction. If there's something you want to do with one specific image, it's much easier to do it in Photoshop. Cases B and C come into play only when you are confronted with a relatively large number of images that would all have the same defect given the existing profile. Then it makes perfect sense to edit the profile so that you don't have to repeat the same color correction a million times later on.

Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 00:01:37 -0400
   From: "Thomas Maugham"
Subject: RE: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK

Is there somewhere that one can go to find a good tutorial or more infomation on editing profiles? How well can profiles be edited with Colorvision DoctorPro?
 
Tom
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 23:11:43 -0700
   From: Marco Ugolini
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK

In a message dated Fri, 01 Jul 2005 00:01:37, Thomas Maugham wrote:

Is there somewhere that one can go to find a good tutorial or more
infomation on editing profiles?

Try Chapter 9 of "Real World Color Management," by Bruce Fraser, Chris Murphy and Fred Bunting, Peachpit Press, 2nd edition.

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

   Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 22:08:21 -0600
   From: Chris Murphy
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK

On Jun 30, 2005, at 9:12 PM, Dan Margulis wrote:

A. The most common edit by far is to change black generation, or the way
shadows are constructed by manipulating either the total or black ink limit. This
won't change colors very much if at all.

I don't really consider this an edit because you don't edit the profile to achieve this. In all cases, you change a setting in the profile building application and the profile is rebuilt. In the cases of editing I was referring to, you start with the post-built profile itself, edit, and save a profile. Black generation, total ink limit, black ink limit, are preferences that affect the building of the profile.

Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (TM)
www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 06:42:30 -0600
   From: Andrew Rodney
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK

On 6/30/05 8:57 PM, "Marco Ugolini"  wrote:

The same tweak could be applied without any need for profile editing if one
creates a Photoshop action that includes the desired adjustments (curve or
selective color, etc), then runs the group of widget images through a batch
that uses that action.

Yes but every image has to be opened, edited and saved inside of Photoshop which takes vastly longer to do than conducting the tweak at the same time as making a conversion. That conversion has to happen anyway and can happen outside of Photoshop (in a RIP).

Andrew Rodney
www.digitaldog.net
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 06:46:19 -0600
   From: Andrew Rodney
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK

On 6/30/05 9:12 PM, "Dan Margulis"  wrote:

A. The most common edit by far is to change black generation, or the way
shadows are constructed by manipulating either the total or black ink limit.
This won't change colors very much if at all.

I don1t know of a profile editor that can do this. At least if we1re on the same page with regard to actual products that take an ICC profile and allow you to edit it. IF you have a profile generating package (ProfileMaker, PROFILER etc), you simply open the measured data file and REGENERATE a new profile with new TAC and black generation. This is not profile editing; it1s profile generation. This is how profiles should be built when you want to alter black generation. Profile editing is color and tone tweaking, alteration of the tables inside an existing profile to affect paper simulation and so forth (media black and media white).

Andrew Rodney
www.digitaldog.net
___________________________________________________________________________
 
   Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 13:26:40 -0000
   From: Stephen Marsh
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK

Andrew Rodney wrote:

IF you have a profile generating package (ProfileMaker,
PROFILER etc), you simply open the measured data file and REGENERATE a new
profile with new TAC and black generation. This is not profile editing; it1s
profile generation. This is how profiles should be built when you want to
alter black generation.

Agreed, which is what 99.9% of the users who make use of custom CMYK to alter black and K generation do, they do not mess with the inkset and stock and only play with dot gain/ucr or gcr amount/K limit etc. When the talk of editing profiles came up, it was perhaps not the best way to describe what most users would like to do. Those few who do need to alter the colour of the profile can use the right tool - most CMYK users simply need to control the K plate and the CMY in relation to the K and neutrals. We are often happy enough to edit colour, but it is great if one does not have to edit the grey balance and the K plate and the shadows too.

I would like a flexible UCR option - that allowed for any range of mix of CMY or K in the neutrals and shadows but did not introduce unwanted black into the colours (like we have choices in GCR). There is need for more K in neutrals but not in colours - but the legacy UCR only has one flavour.

Stephen Marsh.
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 09:53:51 -0400
   From: "Greg Welch"
Subject: Re: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK

  I would like a flexible UCR option - that allowed for any range of mix
  of CMY or K in the neutrals and shadows but did not introduce unwanted
  black into the colours (like we have choices in GCR). There is need for
  more K in neutrals but not in colours - but the legacy UCR only has one
  flavour.

I agree this would add alot!

Greg Welch
oaktreeart.com
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 09:38:46 -0400
   From: Ric Cohn
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK

On Jun 30, 2005, at 11:12 PM, Dan Margulis wrote:

there are several kinds of "editing a profile". The
people who have responded so far are referring only to the most
uncommon kind.

I was suspecting this, thanks for stating it so clearly. I'm not sure there is general agreement on what we're even talking about, I'm sure I don't understand all the ramifications. No wonder Adobe won't touch it! I didn't realize this before.

When I make my own profiles (only for my own inkjets) I will remake or tweak them as I see fit. When I have no profile from a large printer I rarely have the luxury of getting them to run test sheets and create profiles myself, so I'm not looking to make the kinds of changes that many seem to be assuming. However, If I start with a profile made in Custom CMYK I can easily change things like black generation and TIL. For me personally, It is this kind of adjustment to profiles that I feel is most lacking. For example, I am preparing some images for a well printed book and have been told that the printer asked that people use the US Coated Sheetfed V2 profile. From seeing their past reproduction I don't have any reason to doubt this. Great as long as there are no images that I feel would benefit from any of the kinds of changes I can make in Custom CMYK. Suppose there are drop shadows and I'd like to substitute a high GCR sep for these? Going in and tweeking all the channels seems (to me) much more likely to result in problems than if I have access to the black generation to adjust the same profile.

I still feel it would be worth deciding what functionality a professional image editing program should have and ask for it. Even if Adobe doesn't implement it, maybe someone else will give us the functionality that's needed at a reasonable price. As it is now, to get even limited functionality outside of Photoshop seems to require programs that are either not available to most (Kodak) or provide more than the basic features I'm talking about and so are very expensive.

Ric Cohn
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 10:15:19 -0400
   From: Ric Cohn
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK

On Jun 30, 2005, at 1:51 PM, Dan Margulis wrote:

But that really doesn't address the question of why it's a waste of energy to
bring up the subject. You need to understand that our color world, which to
us seems full of shadings, hues, and nuances, is to Chris entirely black and
white. All those who are not his friends are his enemies. Also, in his world,
the Photoshop team embodies perfection. All programming errors are the fault of
other companies; all inadequate interface design is the fault of Photoshop
users; any failure to accept the wisdom of an Adobe innovation is a conspiracy.

Yes, I've seen this and I've seen Chris go after doubters on the Users list like a rabid dog, but there is always the possibility  that the dog will learn a new trick or get so old that a younger one comes along with a better disposition. I was recently sent a questionaire from Adobe where they were asking the kinds of questions that suggest they have felt some of the criticism leveled at them lately and at least someone higher up is asking questions. Maybe this sudden interest in Chris's part is a reflection of new pressures.

Call me a wide eyed optimist, but I have to believe there is some hope! As painful as it might be to try yet again to get Adobe's attention, I'd hate to see people like Dan and Chris Murphy not tell them what they want (which they may already be doing in their own more direct ways). Andrew has posted extensively, but I'm sure there is more to said and there is definitely power in numbers.

Ric Cohn
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 14:11:11 -0400
   From: Lee Clawson
Subject: Re: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK

on 7/1/05 9:26 AM, Stephen Marsh wrote:

I would like a flexible UCR option - that allowed for any range of mix of CMY
or K in the neutrals and shadows but did not introduce unwanted black into the
colours (like we have choices in GCR). There is need for more K in neutrals
but not in colours - but the legacy UCR only has one flavour.
Stephen,

Me too-!!!  Your post reminded me how easy this was with the software on our drum scanner. Most of what I really want is, as you wrote, edit (or try to) dot gain/ucr or gcr amount/K limit etc.

Thinking of asking the Adobe of today to give attention to CMYK printing, makes me feel like I'm a 3rd world problem.

Lee
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 16:11:10 -0400
   From: Terry Wyse
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK

I guess I'll jump in here and throw in two coins.

I think we're getting a bit off track here when we're talking about "profile editing" in Photoshop vs. just wanting variations of total ink/K generation. I think Mr. Cohn's first post was PRIMARILY the latter.

I don't think altering total ink/K gen even comes under the heading of profile editing because, as far as I know, this is virtually impossible to do in a profile editor (you can do neither in GMB Profile Editor or within Monaco's Profile Editor AFAIK). If you want to change either of these, this necessitates re-builiding the profile from the raw measurement data.

What seems reasonable to me is for Photoshop to embed the raw measurement data in their canned profiles which would then be accessible in their "Custom CMYK" dialog. You'd then be free to re-build the profile using whatever total ink/K gen/UCR/GCR/whatever you want. Editing the actual COLOR in the profile should be off-limits in my opinion. If you're doing that, you've got the wrong set of measurement data in the first place.

Terry
___________________________________________________________________________  

Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 00:57:23 -0000
   From: Stephen Marsh
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK

Terry Wyse wrote:

I think we're getting a bit off track here when we're talking about
"profile editing" in Photoshop vs. just wanting variations of total
ink/K generation. I think Mr. Cohn's first post was PRIMARILY the
latter.

Agreed, it was even mentioned that if a way to regenerate or edit the GCR, K limits etc was not going to be offered, then to at least offer a family of profiles.

As many of us know, Chromix did do this with TR001, offering a family of GCR and UCR with different K plate generation and total ink limits.

If you want to change either of
these, this necessitates re-builiding the profile from the raw
measurement data.

So we need to come up with the right term so that we do not muddy the waters and put up obstacles that are irrelevant to our needs.

What seems reasonable to me is for Photoshop to embed the raw
measurement data in their canned profiles which would then be
accessible in their "Custom CMYK" dialog. You'd then be free to
re-build the profile using whatever total ink/K gen/UCR/GCR/whatever
you want.

That is a very good suggestion Terry, I like it. Or perhaps this would need to throw away legacy custom CMYK and Chris could put his own code into Photoshop that would allow it to regenerate the Adobe profiles to different dot gain (if possible) through a similar but familar interface, GCR and UCR with choice over the entire tonal range for neutral ink mix, total ink limts and black limits.

Editing the actual COLOR in the profile should be off-limits
in my opinion. If you're doing that, you've got the wrong set of
measurement data in the first place.

That is not what most of us are asking for and most users do not mess with the LAB measurements in custom CMYK so it would appear that what we are asking for is reasonable.

The way I see things is that Adobe created and set expectations for it's print users when they introduced Custom CMYK all those years ago (before it was combined into custom CMYK it was in two separate parts). For good or bad, right or wrong - users expect so much of Adobe and Photoshop in particular.

Even more so now, with Tiger from Apple and Adobe's Creative Suite 2 there is a great chance to recapture the print market as it slowly shrugs off the past and heads into the future.

As I have mentioned before when this issue has come up, Binuscan PhotoRetouchPro does have a profile editor/generator of some description built-in (I have never used this product and have not heard much about it in the last few years). Sure nobody tries to compete with Photoshop anymore and they just have "companion" applications - but it does show that it is possible and was thought needed by at least one high end image editing vendor.

Stephen Marsh.
___________________________________________________________________________
 
   Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 18:22:25 -0700
   From: Mike Russell
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK

From: "Terry Wyse"
...
I don't think altering total ink/K gen even comes under the heading of
profile editing because, as far as I know, this is virtually impossible
to do in a profile editor (you can do neither in GMB Profile Editor or
within Monaco's Profile Editor AFAIK). If you want to change either of
these, this necessitates re-builiding the profile from the raw
measurement data.

Existing programs aside, I think it would be possible to write a program to modify the separation table and dot gain of a profile without requiring the original measurement data.  For example, as a first cut for total ink, convert Lab(0,0,0) using the profile, and add the resulting CMYK values.

Deriving dot gain from a profile is a bit more problematical.  What is certainly possible to is change the dot gain by a given amount, without knowing what the original values were.

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 20:28:52 -0600
   From: Andrew Rodney
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK

On 7/1/05 7:22 PM, "Mike Russell"  wrote:

Existing programs aside, I think it would be possible to write a program to
modify the separation table and dot gain of a profile without requiring the
original measurement data.  For example, as a first cut for total ink,
convert Lab(0,0,0) using the profile, and add the resulting CMYK values.

And you build this back into an ICC profile how?

Andrew Rodney
www.digitaldog.net
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 22:17:04 -0500
   From: Bob Smith
Subject: Re: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK

What's needed is an add on to Photoshop that works just like a simple little software product I have from almost ten years ago.... Separation Lab from Radius (of Pressview monitor fame).  It worked reasonably well for a software product that I don't think ever got past version 1.0  It was essentially like a typical profile building application except that the measurement data for several common printing or proofing conditions was built into the program.  All you had to do was pick a set of common measurement data and plug in parameters on how you wanted the profile built.  In addition to black generation and total ink issues, you could control some aspects of how perceptual rendering tables were built.  It provided an interactive preview with some typical sample images... low key, high key, flesh tones, bright colors, computer generated gradients etc... so you could get a rough idea what the type of profile you were defining would do to these subjects.  Refine and modernize a few features.  Add more controls for dot gain. You'd have a very nice replacement for the Classic CMYK engine that Photoshop has now.  Not exactly a replacement for a full blown profile building application but it would give many more options than the small set of supplied ICC profiles currently do.

Bob Smith
Accurate Image • Bob Smith Photographer • Waco Texas USA
http://www.accurateimage.org
___________________________________________________________________________

   Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 20:11:17 EDT
   From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK

Terry writes,

I think we're getting a bit off track here when we're talking about
"profile editing" in Photoshop vs. just wanting variations of total
ink/K generation. I think Mr. Cohn's first post was PRIMARILY the
latter.

I believe that this is correct as to what Ric wanted. Whether that is "profile editing" is a matter of semantics.

I don't think altering total ink/K gen even comes under the heading of
profile editing because, as far as I know, this is virtually impossible
to do in a profile editor (you can do neither in GMB Profile Editor or
within Monaco's Profile Editor AFAIK).