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, 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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. 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.
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).
Then you should consider upgrading to Custom CMYK,
which does do those things. ;-)
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.
Good grief. What is this, a
protect-the-color-management-consultants act? If you want to replace Custom
CMYK, then why replace it with something crippled? Is it really too much to
ask that Photoshop retain an important capability that it's had since 1992?
Don't get me wrong. I quite agree that the majority of
people who are interested in this topic are concerned mainly with black
generation. However, some of us use Custom CMYK for more than that. I can
easily imagine a package that would leave Custom CMYK in the dust. However,
the idea that we should move away from Custom CMYK to something not as good
does not attract.
There has to be something in the air this year. Between
this and Photoshop CS2, the new mantra seems to be, you should buy this,
because it might have been worse. How about making something *better* once
in a while?
Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 20:38:44 -0400
From :Dan Remaley
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK
Hey guys, besides all this - the 'base' dot gain is
wrong in Photoshop. The default settings are 24C/20M/20Y/20K (I don't know
anyone who prints with 20% Black dot gain) SWOP says 20C/20M/18Y/22K. When
converting 50C/39M/39Y to Max GCR- I was amazed to get 46K AND 4%Cyan -
Huh? Now add that Pantone has changed their book AGAIN - Quark, Illus. and
Photoshop all use different "look ups" for PMS/CMYK conversions -
It's a miracle we get anything even close !!!
Dan Remaley
Original Message:
-----------------
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 19:12:21 -0600
From: Andrew Rodney
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK
On 7/2/05 6:11 PM, "Dan Margulis" wrote:
Then you should consider upgrading to Custom CMYK,
which does do those
things. ;-)
No it doesn1t. It does not take ANY existing ICC
profile and later TAC or black generation. You are misrepresenting what
custom CMYK can do and what profile editing is all about.
Andrew Rodney
www.digitaldog.net
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 21:23:08 -0600
From: Chris Murphy
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK
On Jul 2, 2005, at 6:11 PM, Dan Margulis wrote:
Then you should consider upgrading to Custom CMYK,
which does do those
things. ;-)
It builds a new profile each time you make any change
in Custom CMYK.
Good grief. What is this, a
protect-the-color-management- consultants act? If
you want to replace Custom CMYK, then why replace it
with something crippled?
Is it really too much to ask that Photoshop retain an
important capability
that it's had since 1992?
I think Terry means color-in-color edits, such as the
ability to affect magenta only in reds but not other colors, or affecting
gray balance.
There has to be something in the air this year.
Between this and Photoshop
CS2, the new mantra seems to be, you should buy this,
because it might have been
worse. How about making something *better* once in a
while?
It's clear to me that this isn't a priority for
anybody. The ICC architecture itself is the limiting factor at this point.
Tone response edits would be absolutely simple to achieve, because ICC
profiles contain curves in front and after each table. For the LAB to CMYK
direction, each intent (three of them) has a LAB curve and a CMYK curve.
The ability to directly access this in an elegant way would be GREAT.
However, to change ink limits or black generation is
another matter because the effect of such preferences are strewn throughout
the table data in each intent.
What we need today is the old Imation CMM
functionality, but with the quality/consistency we are used to with ACE.
Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (TM)
www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 21:29:52 -0600
From: Chris Murphy
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK
On Jul 2, 2005, at 6:38 PM, Dan Remaley wrote:
Now add that Pantone has changed their book AGAIN -
Quark, Illus. and
Photoshop all use different "look ups" for
PMS/CMYK conversions - It's a
miracle we get anything even close !!!
A few thoughts in no particular order:
1. The application process libraries haven't changed.
2. The Solid to Process Guide is gone.
3. The RGB guide (can't remember what it's called) is
gone.
4. The Bridge is the replacement for the Solid to
Process and RGB guides.
5. The CMYK equivalents are different than in previous
guides, in some cases a lot different. I think I saw some yellow values
different by 12 points.
6. You can download new process libraries from Pantone,
to reflect the values in Bridge.
7. CS2 applications now have LAB based spot libraries,
which is appropriate because the idea that CMYK makes a specific color is a
big fat lie. (Which is why I find the notion of rigid CMYK equivalents in a
book or a library useless.)
8. IDCS2 and AICS2 still use the Pantone (post May
2000) CMYK callouts for spot colors when you aren't printing spots on their
own plate, by default. You have to change them on a per document basis to
use LAB instead.
Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (TM)
www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 21:15:23 -0700
From: Mike Russell
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK
Acknowledging comments from others to the contrary, I
think it would be fairly easy to write a separate utility, outside of
Photoshop, that uses an existing CMYK profile to create a new profile, or
family of profiles.
At the moment, this is just an interesting possible
project, but I would appreciate any comments, here or offline, on what such
a utility would need to do, if anything, above and beyond dot gain and TIL.
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 12:50:44 -0400
From: Terry Wyse
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK
On Jul 2, 2005, at 8:11 PM, Dan Margulis wrote:
Then you should consider upgrading to Custom CMYK,
which does do those
things. ;-)
DOES NOT! (does to) DOES NOT! (does to)
:-)
And UPgrading to Custom CMYK? I get it, that's SARCASM!
You're SUCH a kidder Dan!
Terry
_____________________________
WyseConsul
Color Management Consulting
704.843.0858
http://www.colormanagementgroup.com
http://www.wyseconsul.com (coming soon)
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 11:13:44 -0600
From: Andrew Rodney
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK
On 7/2/05 9:23 PM, "Chris Murphy" wrote:
What we need today is the old Imation CMM
functionality, but with the
quality/consistency we are used to with ACE.
Exactly! Now can Chris and company put that into ACE
even if it would only work with Adobe produced profiles? That would work
for me (once they produce a decent UI for altering the conversions).
Andrew Rodney
www.digitaldog.net
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 12:48:30 -0400
From: Terry Wyse
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK
I've been doing something similar using LOGO ColorLab
and either ProfileMaker or MonacoPROFILER. The concept is straightforward:
* Open a profiling testchart (CMYK Tiff) of your choice
(IT8.7/3 or /4 or ECI2002)
* Assign a profile to the testchart image.
* Convert from CMYK to Lab and export the Lab data as a
text file.
Now, what've you got is, in theory, the original Lab
measurment data which you are now free to use to build a new profile using
the TAC/K gen settings of your choice. I say "in theory" because
you do get rounding errors that are in the .5-1.0 delta e area. I've done
this successfully with USWebCoatedSWOP and USSheetfedCoated to build
variations of these profiles to suit different TAC requirements.
Terry
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 17:13:45 EDT
From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK
Dan Remaley writes,
Hey guys, besides all this - the 'base' dot gain is
wrong in Photoshop. The
default settings are 24C/20M/20Y/20K (I don't know
anyone who prints with
20% Black dot gain) SWOP says 20C/20M/18Y/22K. When
converting 50C/39M/39Y to Max GCR- I was amazed to get 46K AND 4%Cyan -
Huh?
The default RGB working space in Photoshop is sRGB. The
default desired highlight for its automated adjustments is 0c0m0y. The
default mode in the Apply Image command is Multiply.
There is no end of silly defaults to be found in
Photoshop and other programs. If the user is sophisticated enough to change
them he does so.
The problem is when the vendor gives you a bad default
that you can't change. Adobe's sheetfed profile assumes that sheetfed
presses have more dot gain than web presses. Adobe's web coated
profile assumes that a color that's purple on almost any press is actually
blue. If we were able to treat these problems as defaults and just change
them, a lot more people would use these profiles.
Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 17:13:49 EDT
From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK
Mike Russell writes,
Acknowledging comments from others to the contrary, I
think it would be
fairly easy to write a separate utility, outside of
Photoshop, that uses an
existing CMYK profile to create a new profile, or
family of profiles.
Yes, it would. You'd just read the profile in and spit
out a simplified version. 32 anchor points plus a white point will be more
than sufficient for virtually every need.
The problem would be to integrate it so closely with
Photoshop that we could do a one-shot conversion of an unusual image
quickly, the way we can with Custom CMYK. Also, notwithstanding the
measurements in the midtones, we'd want a way to override them with a dot
gain adjustment.
If you did that, it would keep everybody happy. It
would be compatible with instrument measurements, with just typing in
numbers to modify the measurements, and with using curves to modify them,
which most people are more comfortable
with.
Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 14:59:04 -0700
From: Rick Gordon
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK
Dan,
Then if this is your preference. why don't you please
exert your considerable influence and enter the discussion on the forum,
whereby you might be able to directly influence Adobe's choices on this
matter.
rick Gordon
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 09:49:58 EDT
From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK
Rick Gordon writes,
Dan, Then if this is your preference. why don't you
please exert your
considerable influence and enter the discussion on the
forum, whereby you might be
able to directly influence Adobe's choices on this
matter.
I would refer you to my comments in message #11128
concerning why participating in that thread is IMHO a waste of time, and to
my April message #10654 right here to Peter Constable of Adobe, pointing
out that I have been making my views on this issue clear to Adobe since
before Photoshop 5 was even released in 1998.
I told the Photoshop team then, and Chris Cox
personally. that serious CMYK users require the ability to edit profiles on
the fly, and that without that ability, what they were proposing had no
chance of going anywhere in the CMYK community. After the release, I wrote
the same thing in my 1998 review of Photoshop 5.
Profiles that can't be altered quickly in Photoshop are
as much of a nonstarter now for high-end CMYK users as they were in 1998.
Chris's response has consisted of considerable public verbal abuse of those
who have said so and a bullheaded insistence that Custom CMYK is obsolete
and you should just get with the program. What there hasn't been is any
suggestion for what you should do if you have to separate a screen grab, or
a 4/c B/W, or an image in which holding neutrality is critical, or if you
have hundreds of different CMYK output conditions that vary from one
another slightly, or if your printer hits you with a new ink limit, or if
you have a good CMYK setup but your output device has drifted from the time
you profiled it.
The need for these capabilities is so obvious that the
requests in the thread are coming from photographers--people whom you
wouldn't necessarily expect to know much about CMYK at all. And what you
have gotten back is vintage Chris Cox, in the following respects:
1) He appears to be astonished at the thought that you
might need to edit your separation parameters for a screen grab or
something else in which fine black lines appear, as if nobody else had ever
explained this point to him over the years. Now, I do think we should cut
Adobe personnel a fairly large break. We can't expect them to be color
experts any more than they can expect us to be expert coders. For a
programmer not to get why CMYK users need channel-by-channel editable dot
gain seems understandable. But the point about screen grabs or ink limits
is very, very simple. Chris has been the Photoshop team's point person on
color for seven years. If he hasn't figured out the need for alternate
black generation yet, when will he get Clue Two?
2) Anyone who knows anything about software development
knows that you can't just pull features out of the product when significant
numbers are using them. The principle of not killing someone's workflow,
even if you don't approve of it and think you have something better, isn't
foreign to any programmer I know, except for Chris. His UIs for Photoshop
5.0 and 7.0 were such workflow-busters that immediate corrective updates
were needed--the only graphic arts programs I know of that have needed such
updates because of bad interface design, as opposed to bugs. Undaunted by
failures, he has suggested that future versions of Photoshop might be made
incompatible with layers created in previous versions (this idea was the
justification for the bogus alert in Photoshop 7 that showed up everytime
one saved a new layered file, correctly dropped in Photoshop CS after Chris
called a lot of people a lot of names for opposing it.) What he is talking
about doing here is just more of the same. Even if, for the sake of
argument, Photoshop CS3 has a dynamite new profile generator that causes
everybody to switch over immediately, Custom CMYK still can't responsibly
be dropped--it's been in the program for fourteen years, and people need to
be able to support the work that was done in that time.
3) As I pointed out, Chris believes that it was the
resistance to change of the "brain-dead" CMYK people that killed
any chance for general acceptance of the type of workflow that he
advocates, as opposed to incompetent interface design. Fair enough--it's a
free country. The problem is that Chris's priority is to use Photoshop
development as a means of punishing his enemies. Here, he advocates
out-and-out malicious coding--deliberate sabotage of the workflows of those
who need to be taught a lesson, by deleting critical parts of the program
and not replacing them with anything viable. We've seen precedents for that
behavior, too.
In sum, you are proposing a reasoned discussion with an
individual who
1) Has learned almost nothing about either color or
workflow issues in his time with the company and shows no sign that he is
willing to spend any time learning anything about the subjects.
2) Has an record that is unparalleled now in the
industry, and historically unparalleled with the possible exception of Fred
Ibrahimi, of insulting, abusing and berating everyone whose workflow or
ideas he doesn't understand or doesn't approve of--including a large number
of Adobe clients and business partners.
3) Has a proven record of incompetent UI design.
4) Is driven by a desire to use future Photoshop
versions to punish his enemies, rather than to benefit a broad community of
users.
5) Has demonstrated that he does not learn from his
mistakes.
The idea that Adobe can dictate workflow to the
marketplace died in 1998 for everyone except Chris. Photoshop 5 attempted
to coerce people into converting each file as it was opened into the user's
own RGB. That made the program unusable for many people, and so a
corrective update came out within a few weeks. Chris wanted to teach those
brain-dead enemies of his a lesson, and he got his chance with Photoshop 7,
which forced us to honor all incoming profiles, even those known to be
incorrect. That made the program unusable for many people and so a
corrective update came out within a few weeks. Now, he suggests, he'll
*really* teach those people a lesson by deleting Custom CMYK. That'll show
'em!
He says in effect, "I know it's possible to create
a modern version with all its features in the time it would take to delete
Custom CMYK, but I'm going to delete it anyway, just to let you know how
powerful I am. Maybe, however, if I can spare the time, and if you are
very, very good, I will give you a crippled version of what you
need."
Personally, I think it simply encourages such behavior
to say, "Oh, please, Mr. Cox, sir, don't take my Custom CMYK away!
I'll never bother you again, honest! I'll take the crippled version--I know
it must be very, very hard for a man as busy as you are to introduce
software that's as good as what it was in 1992! Just don't make it *too*
much worse, and I'll be a good boy from now on!"
Custom CMYK was a most impressive feat of software
implementation by 1992 standards. You can still make really nice profiles
with it if you know what you're doing. But it is not user-friendly, and it
is not compatible with the modern sorts of profiles being generated by
people like Terry or Chris or Jim Rich. Introducing a new version that has
all the capabilities of Custom CMYK but *is* compatible with such
technology would be a service to the entire industry.
It would be easy enough, but for seven years, Adobe has
adamantly refused to do it. It's unfortunate, but it's livable. If they
won't give us any realistic alternative to Custom CMYK, then we'll have to
continue to use Custom CMYK, just as we have for the past seven years.
As far as I'm concerned, if Chris says that he is going to delete it,
or replace it with a crippled version, I think the reply should be, fine,
we'll wait for the corrective update.
Dan Margulis
P.S. With respect to my "considerable
influence" with Adobe, you may wish to peruse the following small
selection of Chris Cox's public comments:
"I can't believe someone with Dan Margulis's
reputation would lie like that."
"[He's] stuck in the stone age of
printing...Dan's views on color management are going to sink him and his
followers just about the way computer typesetting sunk all the die-hard hot
lead typesetting houses. I just don't want to see too many innocent
users sunk with him."
"It sounds like you listened to Dan Margulises
piss and vinegar before getting any real facts."
"Dan's little rant should not be treated as a
review--just a list of things that Dan doesn't like, and things that don't
fit with Dan's narrow world view."
"Of course, I also can't believe the things that
he publishes without checking the facts. This might explain why
professionals have stopped listening to Mr. Margulis."
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 07:45:49 -0500
From: "Ripka, Herb"
Subject: RE: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK
Honestly, this whole profile topic sometimes makes MEGO
(My Eyes Glaze Over) since I have a hard time understanding it.
A proposed solution: In Dan's book, Professional
Photoshop, Fourth Edition, 2002, there is an *excellent* chapter 15 titled,
Resolving the Resolution Issue. Dan covers the many uses of the term DPI
and how often the term is used for wildly different topics in
photography/printing/correction. Dan even has a seven-acronym glossary, pg.
299 in my edition, of the way 'Dots and Spots' are used.
I believe the same thing needs to be done with the word
*profile*. It is used multiple times in a confusing manner: There are input
profiles for cameras and scanner setups, display profiles for your
monitor/display, and output profiles for proofers, printers, presses, etc.
All of these are 'display' profiles, yet there may/may not be a profile in
the file itself, defining the working space or flavor of the Color Mode,
which may/may not counteract the various display profiles that it shows
through.
Maybe I just need to go out and buy Chris's 600 (!)
page book. Everyone says its good, but I guess it needs to be that long to
be fully explained.
--Herbert Ripka
Greendale, WI
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 07:14:47 -0600
From: Andrew Rodney
Subject: Re: Asking Adobe to improve Custom CMYK
On 7/8/05 6:45 AM, "Ripka, Herb" wrote:
There are input profiles for cameras and scanner
setups, display profiles for
your monitor/display, and output profiles for
proofers, printers, presses,
etc.
Every device produces it1s own unique flavor of RGB or
CMYK. The color spaces are different. All a profile does is give the
numbers a scale and define the numbers.
All of these are 'display' profiles, yet there may/may
not be a profile in
the file itself, defining the working space or flavor
of the Color Mode, which
may/may not counteract the various display profiles
that it shows through.
No, a display profile is a display profile. A file is a
big pile of numbers. A profile defines the numbers.
Think of it this way: suppose I supply a recipe for
chocolate chip cookies but do not provide the unit for each ingredient in
the recipe. The recipe provides each ingredient followed by a number.
Without units you can1t make the cookies. The numbers alone are not enough
information to describe how the cookies that will be produced. Likewise,
R78/G103/B23 or C23/M98/M123/K6 is not enough information to
reproduce that color.
Going back to the chocolate chip cookie analogy,
suppose a color model is a cookie recipe with only three ingredients. I
give you this recipe, which simply calls for 1-flour, 8-butter and
2-chocolate chips. You don1t have enough information to make the cookies.
However if I provide you the recipe with a specific scale‹1 cup of
flour, 8 tablespoons of butter, and 2 cups of chocolate chips‹I1ve
provided the necessary information, the scale, to make a dozen chocolate
chip cookies. I can give you the cookie recipe in the metric scale such as
liters and grams and you can still makes the same cookies even though the
numbers are different. A color space is a color model that has a known
reference and scale, in this case primaries (the ingredients) and scale
(specific quantities of these ingredients).
Suppose I specify a color as R10/G130/B50 and specify a
color reference by saying the color space is Adobe RGB (1998), which
defines the scale of the RGB primaries; the color coordinates of this color
space. The R10/G130/B50 set of numbers can now reproduce a color by anyone
with the proper tools since the reference and scale have been defined.
Different RGB color spaces use a different scale of red, green, and blue
primaries. Adobe RGB (1998) and sRGB are different color spaces,
however both are based on the RGB color model using RGB primaries. Although
each color space uses the same three primary ingredients (R, G, and B), the
specific colorimetric scale of each color space is different. The maximum
of red, green, and blue are more saturated in the Adobe RGB (1998) color
space than the sRGB color space. Even though R0/G255/B0 is the greenest
green ingredient in both Adobe RGB (1998) and sRGB, knowing that the scale
is different in both color spaces explains why this green value is more
saturated in Adobe RGB (1998). This also illustrates how R0/G255/B0 alone
can1t tell us what green.
An ICC profile simply defines this scale and gives the
numbers a meaning allowing us to reproduce the color using something far
more concrete than using the English word "Green" or a set of
numbers which alone is far too ambiguous to produce a specific color
appearance.
Andrew Rodney
www.digitaldog.net
___________________________________________________________________________
and a month and a half later...
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 18:13:30 -0400
From: Ric Cohn
Subject: Possibility of changes in Photoshop (Dan right
again?)
I just had an exchange with Chris Cox on the Photoshop
users forum and I thought I'd add to my previous post about asking Adobe to
update the CMYK engine. I really don't want to believe Dan's negative
viewpoint, but after reading Chris's comments on PS5's color management I'm
convinced he's learned nothing.
I wrote: "IMHO PS5 set back color management
by many years. We're still suffering the fallout of the ill conceived and
heavy handed way that it was implemented. As I remember it, PS5.5 was
basically an interim fix for it's biggest mistakes. If we had started out
with the color management of PS6 I believe very few people would have
revolted the way they did when 5 came out. I believe even Dan Margulis has
stopped complaining about the current color management system, but there
are still many old timers who rejected PS5 and haven't been willing to look
again. OK, they're dinosaurs, but many of them also have power if you're
dealing with CMYK printing. "
Chris Cox's response: "No PS 5.0 was the logical
way to get started on color management (only one colorspace to think about,
similar to working with the display colorspace). What set it back many
years were certain industry pundits spreading misinformation. PS 5.5 didn't
change much from PS 5.0 in terms of color management. PS 6 was then the
next step, but much harder for people to understand if they hadn't taken
those first steps in PS 5.x. "
I went out of my way not to throw mud, but clearly
nothing I said could have made any difference.
Ric Cohn
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 14:03:19 -0600
From: Chris Murphy
Subject: Re: Possibility of changes in Photoshop (Dan
right again?)
On Aug 19, 2005, at 6:46 AM, Andrew Rodney wrote:
I’d agree. 5.0 had warts but it was a huge
change and move forward to using
device profiles, losing that silly “Monitor
preference” and assuming all RGB
was to be in you monitor color space. 6.0 got it.
Photoshop 5.0 was perhaps the necessary way to get
started on color management, in the way it might be necessary to build the
first boat on the water instead of a dry dock.
So 5.0 told us what we definitely did NOT want, and
from that mistake it served its purpose. Every person I've talked to who
did beta on that version, who were saying to Adobe "you don't want to
do this." How the one good idea of divorcing display spaces as the
edit space, to implementing it via color management fascism occurred I
don't understand. Nor do I really need or want to understand. The
application served its purpose and there's no use crying over spilled milk.
Likewise I don't see the rationale in defending spilled milk. We should all
be looking forward.
Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (TM)
www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 15:11:49 -0000
From:Dan Margulis
Subject: Re: Possibility of changes in Photoshop (Dan
right again?)
Ric writes, describing a thread on Adobe forums,
I wrote: "IMHO PS5 set back color
management by many years. We're
still suffering the fallout of the ill conceived and
heavy handed way
that it was implemented. As I remember it, PS5.5 was
basically an
interim fix for it's biggest mistakes. If we had
started out with the
color management of PS6 I believe very few people
would have revolted
the way they did when 5 came out. I believe even Dan
Margulis has
stopped complaining about the current color management
system...
This is not my view. Certainly the atrocious UI of
Photoshop 5 dealt a devastating blow to the concept of embedded profiling
as a universal exchange method. All that can be said about the current
(Photoshop 6 and up) interface, however, is that it might have made a
satisfactory beginning had Photoshop 5 never been released. If that had
happened, and if the interface had continued to improve, then the concept
might have had a chance.
I repeatedly have suggested in print, on line, and in
person, the simple changes that might have made the interface workable to a
larger segment of the professional community. Unfortunately, as you have
seen, Chris Cox has a completely closed mind on the issue and in any event
doesn't understand enough about color workflows to figure out why the
changes are needed. Therefore, I see no point in flogging the inadequacies
of the current interface, unless the topic comes up on this list.
I just had an exchange with Chris Cox on the Photoshop
users forum and
I thought I'd add to my previous post about asking
Adobe to update the
CMYK engine. I really don't want to believe Dan's
negative viewpoint,
but after reading Chris's comments on PS5's color
management I'm
convinced he's learned nothing.
I've read this thread and yes, Chris still blames the
"pundits" for his own lack of knowledge of the basic concepts of
interface design, declining to accept the universal judgment of all
reputable observers.
Your last five words are the key. Photoshop 5 was
written in 1998. At that time, it was very difficult to find skilled
programmers. It was common to find people even in large companies like
Adobe, in charge of projects for which they were unqualified. The
question is how much they grow from the experience. As you note, both with
his comments in response to your post and with his earlier responses to
your suggestions concerning profile, there has been in Chris's case no
growth, no learning from mistakes.
Speaking of failure to grow, the Adobe Forums thread is
also notable for yet another example of Chris calling a Photoshop user a
liar, a term that he uses freely to denote anyone who disagrees with him.
The thread involves a number of users complaining about various facets of
Photoshop CS2 performance. As Ric points out in the thread, CS2 is a
troubled release. I have not personally found performance issues with CS2
proper (Bridge, of course, is another story) but when there's this much
smoke, there's probably some fire.
The response to this is: 1) it is a conspiracy among
just a few users to discredit the program! The three or four of them are
signing up under pseudonyms in order to malign Photoshop. 2) One of the
principal complainers is a liar. 3) Adobe unleashes its chief shill to bash
everyone saying anything negative, until they all withdraw from the thread
in disgust.
That this type of user-bashing should be permitted to
go on year after year is as incredible as it is disgusting. In every
business that I've been associated with, there have been disagreements with
clients, and cases where the clients have said unreasonable things.
However, if one of *my* subordinates ever called a client a liar (let alone
a whole series of clients and business partners) it is exceedingly unlikely
that that person would ever get a chance to apply that term to any other
client on my company's behalf. Every supervisor I've ever worked for would
IMHO have the same attitude. Adobe supervisors, apparently, have different
ideas.
Dan Margulis
