Untitled Document

Dan Margulis Applied Color Theory

What Makes Adobe Tick?

Setting my CMYK

Posted by: "Paco Marquez"

Sun Jan 7, 2007 8:29 am (PST)

Hi to all!

All of the work I do starts out as RGB and ends up as CMYK, being repurposed for newsprint, magazines, bus shelters, billboards etc. I have, for years now, delivered CMYK files without having had any complaints from the agencies or, by default, from the print shops they work with.

If it ain't broke don't fix it. But if there is a way to improve what I am doing I will search for it as when studying Dan's book and all your posts.

Being at the mid point in Dan's PP 5th, and feeling there might be an improvement if I modify my CMYK Color Settings, I've decided to customize the CMYK as follows:

SWOP Coated, DOT GAIN=20% , GCR, BLACK GENERATION= Light, BLACK INK LIMIT=80%, TOTAL INK LIMIT=280% and UCA AMOUNT=0.

Taking advantage of this list, I would ask anyone who would be kind enough, to please let me know if these settings are in the ball park for my particular situation or if I will be in trouble.

Thanks in advance!

Paco Marquez

661 McKinley

San Juan, PR 00907

787-721-8554 Studio

787-587-7384 Cel.

http://www.pacomarquez.com

___________________________________________________________________________

Re: Setting my CMYK

Posted by: "J Walton"

Sun Jan 7, 2007 8:09 pm (PST)

I don't know that you'll be in TROUBLE, but those settings don't make any sense to me. Keep in mind that my only experience is with printers in the United States.

1. Your dot gain is at 20% and that indicates somewhere between sheetfed and SWOP conditions.

2. Your black ink limit is at 80% which, on its own, indicates Newsprint (SNAP) conditions.

3. Your total ink limit is 280% which is somewhere between SNAP and SWOP. It is typically used as a *very* conservative TIL for magazine work.

IMO, those settings don't mesh together. It's not that they won't work or can't create good quality press sheets, but they don't make sense to me for any standard condition and CERTAINLY not as a default for all of your work.

A lot of the outdoor vendors I work with actually prefer working with RGB files since that is their process. Why give them CMYK?

Most magazines these days ask for 300% TIL, so why kill contrast by making your default 280%?

Unless the printer requires it why would you EVER make your black limit 80%? The argument that printers run up the black only takes you so far with your ink limits. You could easily add 10% to that number if the conditions are good-quality magazine. If it's outdoor (inkjet) setting the black limit at 80% is potentially damaging.

I'm not trying to dump on your setup. If it works, then great. This is just one working man's opinion:

Don't have one standard CMYK setup for many different print conditions - it makes no sense. If you insist on sending CMYK at least have different setups for newspaper, magazine, and sheetfed (or outdoor) work.

-----

J Walton

___________________________________________________________________________

Re: Setting my CMYK

Posted by: Stephen Marsh

Mon Jan 8, 2007 7:45 am (PST)

I don't know that you'll be in TROUBLE, but those settings don't make

any sense to me. Keep in mind that my only experience is with printers

in the United States.

J, do you have much experience with Dans books?

The settings make some sense to me, if one is going to edit every image after conversion, instead of prior to conversion in RGB using more 'aggressive' (or less conservative if you prefer) inking settings.

If one is simly doing push button conversions, then I would agree that this is a bit conservative for an 'every image compromise setting' in SWOP like conditions.

1. Your dot gain is at 20% and that indicates somewhere between

sheetfed and SWOP conditions.

As this is custom CMYK, I will take this as standard SWOP type TR001 approx dot gain (I am not going to calculate the difference between true TR001 and legacy custom CMYK now, that is not the point).

Not bad, not good. Middle of the road.

2. Your black ink limit is at 80% which, on its own, indicates

Newsprint (SNAP) conditions.

Unless one is curving the K plate or channel blending the K plate.

This can't be done in RGB, and it is amazing the differnce one can make by having a lighter K shadow on conversion than "ideal" and than making use of this headroom to darken things in the shadows and perhaps lighten in the midtones and peg or raise a bit in the quartertones.

3. Your total ink limit is 280% which is somewhere between SNAP and

SWOP. It is typically used as a *very* conservative TIL for magazine

work.

Again I see this as potential headroom, if one is going to tweak the shadow K, one will likely need some room in the total ink, otherwise it has to be reduced after separation. Both K and CMYK addition/reduction may be taking place after separation.

It is not what values the profile or the image has before conversion, but what values it has when the save/close command is selected that truly matters.

Dan has even demonstrated how to create separations from crafting RGB channels into CMY and a K, manually without ICC profiles or legacy custom CMYK or third party CLUTs...just to prove the point that it is what one does with the image that often counts more than how the image arrived in the first place. Nobody is arguing that a superior conversin method or "colorimetrically correct" or "human observer appealing" conversion is the best way to go, just that one can sometimes get lost in the science of colour conversion as the be all and end all, when one also has the option of working in final output space after conversion.

Most magazines these days ask for 300% TIL, so why kill contrast by

making your default 280%?

But does the magazine receive a 280til file, or a 300?

It is also about the numbers that make up the TIL, not all total inks are created equal.

Unless the printer requires it why would you EVER make your black

limit 80%?

I presume that post separation K channel edits are taking place, taking advantage of the light K generation, otherwise a higher setting would be in order for most images (it is understood that shadow detail critical images need to be handled differently than a 'standard image', whatever that is!).

Don't have one standard CMYK setup for many different print conditions

- it makes no sense. If you insist on sending CMYK at least have

different setups for newspaper, magazine, and sheetfed (or outdoor)

work.

I think that this was only in reference to one condition, SWOP type conditions or mystery meat CMYK the good old local standard etc. SWOP TR001 is often used as a target for separatoin for flatsheet, sure this not be technically correct - but it has been and is currently how things are done in many quarters and the world has not stopped turning or consumers complaining that the Pantone simulation is a shade off, even though the source was out of gamut. <g>

One can take this further, why have only one SWOP TR001 profile? Why no newsprint profile? Why not different K generation UCR (not like legacy Photoshop UCR, I want variable true UCR), why not different GCR ratios? Different dot gain? Different K limits? Different ink limits? Look at all the possible variable choices just for one image going to a TR001 type press condition!

When people only ever use one CMYK profile like SWOP TR001, then they only ever have the same built in settings that are in the profile. They too have settled on one standard for that press condition.

Regards,

Stephen Marsh.

___________________________________________________________________________

Re: Setting my CMYK

Posted by: "pacomarquezfoto"

Mon Jan 8, 2007 7:49 am (PST)

J.,

Thank you very much for taking the time to answer my post. You've made it clear that I am trying to take a middle of the road stance, hoping to cover all bases and that is not good and not bad. Just a tad stupid on my part (I said that, you didn't) ;-)

I'll take your advice and have different setups.

All the best!

Paco

___________________________________________________________________________

Re: Setting my CMYK

Posted by: "Dan Remaley"

Mon Jan 8, 2007 5:40 pm (PST)

I agree with the others, you have selected a 'safe' area for C-M-Y-K. There is a lot of discussion about the dot size in the black, and overall dot gain - for all colors. The sad fact is that most press operators don't know their midtone (50%) gain and generally "push" the black for type and / or solids, making it more difficult to prepare files.

It's not their fault, most European press have color bars of 20-40-60-80% patches - nothing to measure midtone! Gray balance is another issue, most presses don't have a 50C/40M/40Y to measure midtone gray balance. Got to <systembrunner.ch> for more information. . .

Dan Remaley

Technical Consultant Process Control

412.259.1814

___________________________________________________________________________

Re: Setting my CMYK

Posted by: "Andrew Rodney"

Mon Jan 8, 2007 5:41 pm (PST)

On 1/8/07 7:13 AM, "Stephen Marsh" wrote:

As this is custom CMYK, I will take this as standard SWOP type TR001

approx dot gain (I am not going to calculate the difference between

true TR001 and legacy custom CMYK now, that is not the point).

Conceptually a much bigger issue is the terribly old ink models the classic CMYK engine is based on. It©ˆs not the same as the U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2 profile which is based on TR001.

And now that CS3 is a public beta, now©ˆs the time to ask Thomas Knoll to build a family of SWOP TROO1 profiles with differing GCR as well as perhaps profiles based on Gracol 7 (assuming it©ˆs baked and ready). I did this on the private beta forum and others agreed it is necessary but doing so on the public beta might push Thomas to do this before the final release. I'll see him Wednesday for the Bruce Fraser Tribute where we©ˆll both be speaking and see if I can light a fire under him. We need more of his profiles based on standard press conditions.

Andrew Rodney

___________________________________________________________________________

Re: Setting my CMYK

Posted by: Dan Margulis

Tue Jan 9, 2007 8:38 am (PST)

Andrew Rodney writes,

And now that CS3 is a public beta, now1s the time to ask Thomas Knoll to

build a family of SWOP TROO1 profiles with differing GCR as well as

perhaps profiles based on Gracol 7 (assuming it1s baked and ready). I did this on

the private beta forum and others agreed it is necessary but doing so on the

public beta might push Thomas to do this before the final release.

A totally new profile would be welcome, but I would recommend against asking for new variants of an existing one as being ultimately counterproductive. What we should ask for is exactly what we have been asking for since 1998, the thing that is indispensable to professional CMYK work--the ability to edit the underlying profile.

Nobody that I know of wouldn't welcome a modernized version of Custom CMYK. Whatever its weaknesses, however, it allows a high degree of flexibility in black generation and total ink limit, plus the ability to edit dot gains by channel. These are prerequisites for serious CMYK work. Also, at the very top end, we require the ability to edit ink color.

The Photoshop team has been aware of this need for nearly a decade, and has adamantly refused to meet it--going so far as to threaten to eliminate Custom CMYK as a punitive measure, knowing that, without an adequate replacement, Custom CMYK is mission-critical for CMYK work. Asking, hat in hand, for a few extra versions of an existing profile is a great way to protect the interests of color management consultants, but it does not serve the people who need to use them.

The Photoshop team has been overtly hostile to the CMYK community for many years. Now, however, more photographers are preparing CMYK work themselves. They need the tools, too. Preparing a modernized version of Custom CMYK that could read anybody's profile and generate a new version thereof that could be edited sufficiently to meet these requirements would take less than two days of coding by a competent programmer.

If we get thrown this crumb, for sure we're going to be hearing about what a great effort it was to generate these extra versions and how we should all be grateful for it and not ask for something with all the functionality we need.

Of course, today we can generate all the extra versions we want, in seconds--with Custom CMYK, the basics of which now 15 years old, and which was last improved in 1998. A statement that it's too onerous to make a modern tool that matches its features insults our intelligence.

Dan Margulis

___________________________________________________________________________

What Makes Adobe Tick?

Posted by: "Murray DeJager"

Tue Jan 9, 2007 4:15 pm (PST)

Hi Everyone,

I'd like to ask, what may be a very simplistic question. Dan, I've read your complaints, in this and other writings, about things you'd like to be different or have added to Photoshop. And although I can't relate to the Custom CMYK issue talked about below, some, like why I can't control the White or Black artifacts in USM directly seem very justified.

What I don't understand is the reasons you give for Adobe not adding or changing features to their program(s).

Nobody that I know of wouldn't welcome a modernized version of

Custom CMYK.

If this is something the market demands why won't Adobe provide? Are they really a bunch of stuborn bastards who just love to make certain people sweat!

The Photoshop team has been aware of this need for nearly a decade,

and has adamantly refused to meet it--going so far as to threaten

to eliminate Custom CMYK as a punitive measure, knowing that,

without an adequate replacement, Custom CMYK is mission-critical

for CMYK work.

Again, threats to remove features that are needed by everyone in a certain community sounds like some sort of extortion attempt! What did the CMYK community do to spark such a hostile threat?

The Photoshop team has been overtly hostile to the CMYK community

for many years.

Would a company really try to alienate a group of loyal customers that buy it's products and help pay it's bills merely because they ask for an improved feature(s) of it's software?

Preparing a modernized version of Custom CMYK that could read

anybody's profile and generate a new version thereof that could be

edited sufficiently to meet these requirements would take less than

two days of coding by a competent programmer.

I don't know what it takes for a company like Adobe to provide and update a program like Photoshop so I can't comment myself. If, however, what you say is true then I have to agree with you... What's the problem Adobe?

To be fair, I've read other peoples reviews on Photoshop where the writer asks Adobe, "why not this?" or "when will this happen?" So somewhere along-the-line reality must enter into the picture for Adobe and, for whatever reasons, certain things are added to an update or things are changed or deleted. And I don't doubt that there's some sort of "office" politics involved in the whole process. But is there really an attempt, overall, to annoy the Pre-press industry in general while at the same time appeasing every whim of the RGB camp, I'd like to know?

A statement that it's too onerous to make a modern tool that

matches its features insults our intelligence.

I guess the market in general would rather have a pocketful of "artistic" filters rather than the ability to edit CMYK profiles!

So, what is involed in adding/changing/deleting features to a program like Photoshop?

Murray DeJager

___________________________________________________________________________

Re: Setting my CMYK

Posted by: "Andrew Rodney"

Tue Jan 9, 2007 4:17 pm (PST)

On 1/9/07 8:08 AM, "dmargulisnj" wrote:

A totally new profile would be welcome, but I would recommend against asking

for new variants of an existing one as being ultimately

counterproductive. What we should ask for is exactly what we have been

asking for since 1998, the thing that is indispensable to professional CMYK

work--the ability to edit the underlying profile.

Ain©ˆt going to happen unfortunately. The issue is (as I understand it), Adobe doesn©ˆt want to get into the profile editing business. Apparently they feel that should someone try to edit a profile using their tools and said profile isn©ˆt of sound quality, they get blamed.

Nobody that I know of wouldn't welcome a modernized version of Custom

CMYK. Whatever its weaknesses, however, it allows a high degree of

flexibility in black generation and total ink limit, plus the ability to edit

dot gains by channel. These are prerequisites for serious CMYK work. Also, at the very

top end, we require the ability to edit ink color.

I©ˆve asked this for the last number of years as both an Alpha and Beta tester.

The Photoshop team has been aware of this need for nearly a decade, and

has adamantly refused to meet it--going so far as to threaten to eliminate

Custom CMYK as a punitive measure, knowing that, without an adequate

replacement, Custom CMYK is mission-critical for CMYK work. Asking, hat in

hand, for a few extra versions of an existing profile is a great way to

protect the interests of color management consultants, but it does not serve the

people who need to use them.

No disagreement from me. I©ˆd like to see device link support too.

The Photoshop team has been overtly hostile to the CMYK community for

many years. Now, however, more photographers are preparing CMYK work

themselves. They need the tools, too.

I©ˆm not sure I©ˆd say they are hostile to this so called community. But they should either fix the current issues in the classic engine or yank it out. Photographers are finding the tools elsewhere which may be a relief for some of the Photoshop team. That©ˆs why I think at the very least, we need a bigger family of well built profiles that get installed by Photoshop.

Preparing a modernized version of Custom CMYK that could read anybody's

profile and generate a new version thereof that could be edited sufficiently

to meet these requirements would take less than two days of coding by a

competent programmer.

This isn©ˆt a technological issue, lets say that. My original point was, there©ˆs a public beta and I©ˆm pretty sure the replies on the public beta site is being looked over, so now©ˆs the time to at least have our voices heard.

Andrew Rodney

___________________________________________________________________________

Re: Setting my CMYK

Posted by: "Paco Marquez"

Wed Jan 10, 2007 4:03 am (PST)

Thanks to all for taking the time to post replies!

All the best!

Paco

___________________________________________________________________________

Re: Setting my CMYK

Posted by: "Rick Gordon"

Wed Jan 10, 2007 4:03 am (PST)

Then why won't (or can't) some enterprising plug-in developer supply a plug-in that could fulfill the need? Would a new CMM (on the order the defunct Imation one) be required for such a tool?

It sure seems as though somebody could develop quite a market with the right tool, if it's appropriately priced and offered the right functionality.

Rick Gordon

___________________________________________________

RICK GORDON

EMERALD VALLEY GRAPHICS AND CONSULTING

___________________________________________________

WWW: http://www.shelterpub.com

___________________________________________________________________________

Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?

Posted by: Dan Margulis

Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:56 am (PST)

Murray DeJager writes,

I'd like to ask, what may be a very simplistic question. Dan, I've

read your complaints, in this and other writings, about things you'd

like to be different or have added to Photoshop. And although I can't

relate to the Custom CMYK issue talked about below, some, like why I

can't control the White or Black artifacts in USM directly seem very

justified.

Independent control of lightening and darkening is critical to quality sharpening. It was standard on drum scanners even in the early 1980s. It's understandable that it wasn't added to Photoshop a dozen years ago--the computation would have been brought even the most powerful Macs to their knees. Today, though, it makes no sense that we should have to go through an extra layer and an extra Apply Image to get the needed effect. Independent lightening and darkening should ideally be added to *every* filter, it would be easy enough, but AFAIK it is most important for USM.

What I don't understand is the reasons you give for Adobe not adding or

changing features to their program(s)...Is this [editable CMYK profiles] is

something the market demands why won't Adobe provide? Are they really a bunch of stuborn bastards who just love to make certain people sweat!

"They" is too big of a term. Adobe is a large company, and lots of people have input into decisions. Yes, I would say that not putting profile editing in is mostly sheer cussedness. I haven't heard Thomas Knoll say what Andrew Rodney quotes him as saying, but if it is accurate it is almost too ridiculous for words.

If profile editing shouldn't be put in because of the possibility that a user's badly-written profile might reflect badly on Adobe, this is a much stronger argument for eliminating Camera Raw from the program. After all, specialized vendors provide raw converters that could be used instead, just as specialized vendors have profile-editing software. But there is a long history of Photoshop users editing profiles with Custom CMYK, and not so long a one of editing raw files. So, if a user were to acquire a file in a silly way in Camera Raw, this might reflect badly on Adobe! People might conclude that Camera Raw is inferior software!! If this is truly Thomas's view, I hope he will realize the urgency of eliminating Camera Raw from CS3, before such a disaster occurs.

Again, threats to remove features that are needed by everyone in a

certain community sounds like some sort of extortion attempt! What

did the CMYK community do to spark such a hostile threat?

There is a history of bad blood dating back to 1998. The issues are briefly summarized in my 1999 article "How Color Management Failed",

http://www.ledet.com/margulis/How_CM_Failed.pdf

There is no need to rehash those events; there were some ill-advised changes in color handling in Photoshop 5, and print firms refused to adopt them and publicly castigated Adobe. This was a scarring experience for some Adobe programmers, because outside of that, Photoshop 5 was a brilliant update that added a scad of important features and required a lot more work than usual on the part of the development team. Forget the color changes, and Photoshop 5 was the best upgrade in the program's history. But because of a couple of bad decisions, it has gone down in history as a disaster.

Everyone except the lunatic fringe now understands that Photoshop 5 dealt a devastating blow to ICC color management, one from which it never fully recovered. It is, however, ancient history--we need to understand what went wrong, but there's surely no need for personal animosity about it. Most Adobe employees and reputable color management types have moved on. A couple, however, still hold the grudge after all these years, and actually believe that there was a conspiracy on the part of the printers to derail a brilliant concept. Those CMYK users need to be taught a lesson!

This probably explains why there has not been a single CMYK-helpful feature added to Photoshop since 6.0, which saw Convert to Profile and vector/raster merge, both of which are particularly beneficial to CMYK users. For my last two books, in fact, I've used Photoshop 6 for all CMYK work--it saves more reliable TIFFs, and isn't missing any command that I need. That's a sad commentary on the pace of improvement.

It's one thing not to add features. Deliberately deleting a feature known to be critical to certain users without providing an adequate substitute is quite another. That is simply vengeful, malicious, a childish attempt to get back at perceived enemies--but that's what at least one Adobe programmer has advocated.

Even if the Photoshop team did the responsible thing and added full profile editing, Custom CMYK would have to stay in the program to preserve continuity with past jobs. That's a simple concept in software design, as illustrated by the CS3 update to the Brightness/Contrast command. It's now clearly better than before--but the "old" Brightness/Contrast is still available to those who for some reason need it. For example, many Photoshop writers, myself included, have some fairly complicated Actions that generate CMYK screen grabs. They use Custom CMYK perforce, because that's the only way to get an appropriate black for such graphics. If a better substitute for Custom CMYK comes along, I don't want to redo those actions. The only argument for doing so would be to improve color accuracy, and in the case of screen grabs, nobody cares whether the color is accurate or not.

Even now, the list is running a thread on the many uses of custom black channels, and it's merely scratching the surface of what can be done with them. And that a custom black is necessary for a screen grab is only one of the reasons why control of the black is critical for quality presswork.

So, yes, you've analyzed it correctly. The threat to remove it without a replacement is pure spite, a desire to punish perceived enemies.

I don't know what it takes for a company like Adobe to provide and

update a program like Photoshop so I can't comment myself. If,

however, what you say is true then I have to agree with you... What's

the problem Adobe?

Overall Adobe (not just the Photoshop division thereof) faces a series of decisions that are much more difficult than they were several years ago. The products now need to be more compatible with one another than they used to be. They want to release updates at around the same time, which causes problems. The programs are mature, so there are few obvious errors that need to be addressed, which means that some users won't need to update. Management wants updates to have significant new features, but it's easy to fall into the trap of redesigning just to justify an update's existence. And, the programs themselves are vastly more complex than a few years ago, requiring more debugging and a high standard of quality control.

Plus, Adobe now has to juggle the positioning of several products that are starting to compete with one another. If Elements gets much better, it will hurt Photoshop sales. Lightroom competes, in a way, with both Camera Raw and Bridge. Saying that a program shouldn't improve because it would compete with another company product is a dangerous road to start down. Controlling the interaction of different groups of programmers means a greater role for central management, but central management can't be as technically astute as the programming teams would like.

So, Adobe faces some challenging issues. If I were running the company, I'd be scratching my head over how best to proceed. But if I found out that one of my programmers was publicly advocating deleting features critical to a certain segment of Adobe clients in order to teach them a lesson, then assuredly *somebody* would shortly be learning a lesson. Only it wouldn't be those clients.

Dan Margulis

___________________________________________________________________________

Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?

Posted by: "Rick Gordon"

Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:31 pm (PST)

For what it's worth, I spoke to John Nack (the Photoshop CS3 coordinator) at MacWorld, and he said that, although it did not make it into CS3, they have been updating the code base for Custom CMYK, and that a modernization of it is "on the to-do" list.

Rick Gordon

___________________________________________________

RICK GORDON

EMERALD VALLEY GRAPHICS AND CONSULTING

___________________________________________________

WWW: http://www.shelterpub.com

___________________________________________________________________________

Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?

Posted by: "Murray DeJager"

Sun Jan 14, 2007 6:22 pm (PST)

Thanks Dan,

For the very enlightening response.

I haven't heard Thomas Knoll say what Andrew Rodney quotes him as

saying, but if it is accurate it is almost too ridiculous for

words.

I have to admit that I was stunned to read that quote by Andrew, and if I would have been anywhere near Mr. Knoll when that response was uttered, a very loud, and very disrespectful "Guffaw" would have been heard!

Then again maybe that wouldn't be wise... "they" might remove something from CS3 that I need!

There is a history of bad blood dating back to 1998. The issues are

briefly summarized in my 1999 article "How Color Management Failed",

http://www.ledet.com/margulis/How_CM_Failed.pdf

And I've read all those articles. I've just never really thought that a company like Adobe would respond in such a "vengeful" and "childish" manner to criticism.

So, yes, you've analyzed it correctly. The threat to remove it

without a replacement is pure spite, a desire to punish perceived

enemies.

It doesn't sound like your style Dan, but maybe every now-and-then some kind words and a little "ego stroking" might get the CMYK community some of the things they want! <g>

Murray DeJager

___________________________________________________________________________

Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?

Posted by: "Lee Clawson"

Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:53 am (PST)

on 1/13/07 3:59 PM, Rick Gordon wrote:

...[snip]..although it did not make it into CS3, they have been updating the

code base for Custom CMYK, and that a modernization of it is "on the to-do"

list.

Rick,

I would like this now. I'm also not surprised to see it languish.

Do you think Adobe hears a clamoring for development of CMYK features ???

Lee Clawson

2/\V/\7 Studio

___________________________________________________________________________

What Makes Adobe Tick?

Posted by: "Andrew Rodney"

Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:57 am (PST)

On 1/13/07 6:45 AM, Dam <argi;os wrote:

If profile editing shouldn't be put in because of the possibility that a

user's badly-written profile might reflect badly on Adobe, this is a much

stronger argument for eliminating Camera Raw from the program. After all,

specialized vendors provide raw converters that could be used instead, just as

specialized vendors have profile-editing software. But there is a long history

of Photoshop users editing profiles with Custom CMYK, and not so long a one of

editing raw files. So, if a user were to acquire a file in a silly way in

Camera Raw, this might reflect badly on Adobe!

I©ˆd agree with some of what you posted but not this. Photoshop isn©ˆt a profile editor just as its not a product that profiles your printer, or for that matter can balance your check book. ACR is a raw converter, its not trying to do anything else with respect to building or editing profiles. Same with Illustrator and Quark.

There©ˆs a superb 3rd party profile editor that runs inside of Photoshop that Kodak has sold for years (Custom Color ICC).That©ˆs taking advantage of the open architecture we call plug-in©ˆs which Photoshop has supported since version 1.0.

The editing inside of Photoshop©ˆs classic CMYK engine is based on 100% Adobe code although you can plug in your own values. Feel free to pick it apart since its©ˆ all theirs. But bring a profile someone else made on god knows what software and hardware, any editor is going to produce garbage if the original data stinks.

Lastly, those who believe that a company the size of Adobe (with stock at the level its at) makes decisions to piss-off users or writers or industry pundits is unbelievably naïve. Those that think Adobe is building software to punish some portion of the so-called industry need a serious reality check.

Andrew Rodney

___________________________________________________________________________

Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?

Posted by: "Rick Gordon"

Mon Jan 15, 2007 1:09 pm (PST)

I think Adobe, if not hearing a clamoring for the development of CMYK, is hearing an ongoing stream of requests. I was pleased to hear that something was in the tubes, and suspect that it would be good to continue to clarify the need to Adobe.

I wrote to John Nack, and his ears are open. It's probably good to get the dialogue (dare I say a positively oriented and respectful one?) opened up between several principals in Photoshop development, like Tom Knoll and Chris Cox.

If it's too late for CS3, at least we can push harder for CS4, if not an incremental addition.

Rick Gordon

___________________________________________________

RICK GORDON

EMERALD VALLEY GRAPHICS AND CONSULTING

___________________________________________________

WWW: http://www.shelterpub.com

___________________________________________________________________________

Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?

Posted by: "John Denniston"

Mon Jan 15, 2007 1:10 pm (PST)

At 08:30 AM 1/15/2007 -0700, Andrew wrote:

Lastly, those who believe that a company the size of Adobe (with stock at

the level its at) makes decisions to piss-off users or writers or industry

pundits is unbelievably naïve. Those that think Adobe is building software

to punish some portion of the so-called industry need a serious reality

check.

I would like to believe this to be true but my experiences with the company where I worked for almost 30 years allows me to doubt the wisdom of many decisions made by large organizations. The petty jealousies of staff and middle managers caused much damage to my company over the years. Some of these people were found out and removed but not before they created an extremely dysfunctional workplace that made it uncomfortable for good people to make sensible decisions. I always thought it was just part of the industry, newspapers do attract a strange group of people, but I recently finished reading the latest translation of War and Peace and Tolstoy's description of the Russian general's behavior as they retreated to Moscow and beyond while Napoleon advanced made me realize that even in war people will do damage to their own side if it makes them look good.

At risk of being terribly off topic I will include a quote:

"Pfuel (Ernst Heinrich Adolf von Pfuel, a Prussian general advising the Russian army at Austerlitz) was one of these theorists who love their theory so dearly they lose sight of the aim of all theory, which is to work out in practice. He was so much in love with theory that he hated all practice and didn't want to know about it. He positively rejoiced in failure, because failure was due to practical infringements of his theory, which went to show how right the theory was."

For those of you not familiar with Russian history, Austerlitz was a disaster for the Russians.

Regards,

John Denniston

www.johndenniston.ca

www.dirtbikephoto.com

___________________________________________________________________________

Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?

Posted by: "David Story"

Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:04 am (PST)

John,

I can assure you that Adobe, while far from perfect and certainly not perfectly wise, absolutely is not like Tolstoy or the petty jealousies you describe. Sure, folks are strong-minded but I can tell you that we are motivated by serving our customers first and foremost. Yes, we are human and far from perfect...heck, we're software engineers and product managers, probably some of the weirdest jobs on the planet. But we are also photographers, designers, illustrators, web developers, etc.. (So perhaps we're even weirder? :)

I can state for sure that we do not have an agenda to "punish" any part of an industry. What we do have is limited time and a lot on our plates, and no way to do everything everyone wants.

By way of example, this past year we faced an almost "Perfect Storm" of challenges. There was of course the much-discussed transition to Xcode on Macintosh Intel computers, which was not trivial for reasons including our heavy use of hand-optimization, Intel compiler for other bottlenecks, and STL (Standard Template Library) and "Generic Programming" in Photoshop.

We felt so strongly about providing a Universal version that we broke all our internal rules and posted our flagship product as a free, public beta to all CS2 owners. We waited until Photoshop would be stable enough to really get heavy use, because no matter what we said, folks would use it in production.

There was also the ongoing need to support Vista (and its various proposed ship dates), the need to integrate Macromedia (you can imagine we are working hard to provide best-ever workflows among all those creative products), and on top of that our desire to provide improved performance and user interface. We also have to support a fairly large ecosystem of developers, who are also having to provide Universal plug-ins and support for Vista, whether their business will improve because of that or not.

And after that we wanted to provide some new features ... including the much-requested live, non-destructive filters, which was pretty deep plumbing. And, and, and...you can see a bunch of new features in the Beta.

It's been a busy time. And the reinvention of Custom CMYK from 8+ years ago wasn't anywhere near the top of the list. Yes, we're listening. No, we can't do everything we want to do for you, and still provide the Quality that you and I expect.

Question: Are there any plug-in providers that can satisfy this need?

Dave Story

VP Engineering, Digital Imaging & Web

Adobe Systems, Inc.

___________________________________________________________________________

Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?

Posted by: "Andrew S. Webb"

Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:29 am (PST)

Here's my .02:

I know people at Adobe. The idea that they are purposely holding back features from a group of users is ridiculous. They serve many user- masters; if they tweaked every aspect of Photoshop to satisfy every group, it would never be released.

Explaining your needs and desires in a clear and rational manner is a much better way to get the program changed than making unfounded accusations. Circulate a brief and a petition; get it signed by the heavy hitters in the CMYK world; get it signed by everyday retouchers like me. Make it public and you will get action.

I am not saying that there aren't people at Adobe that would like to see some of the CMYK pundits humiliated. That's undoubtedly true. Hell, I'd like to see some of the more pompous ones deflated a bit. The fact remains that it isn't practical to limit the development of an entire world-class application just to prove a point or irritate somebody.

Cheers,

_andrew webb

___________________________________________________________________________

Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?

Posted by: "Lee Clawson"

Wed Jan 17, 2007 7:54 pm (PST)

on 1/16/07 1:43 PM, David Story wrote:

Question: Are there any plug-in providers that can satisfy this need?

Maybe. Kodak has one. I would think Adobe would take great pride in developing just such a product.

Lee Clawson

2/\V/\7 Studio

P.S.-- I liked the public beta offer a lot. And I expect Adobe gained a huge amount of knowledge quickly and for free.

___________________________________________________________________________

Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?

Posted by: "Jim Bean"

Wed Jan 17, 2007 7:55 pm (PST)

hello andrew, occasionally I think that I have a need that is not covered by pshop.. and 'forced' to 'work-around'.. and there are plenty people that continue to whine and bad mouth the adobe crew.. but for me, on adobe's worst day... everything is worlds better for me.. I have been able to greatly improve my services, grealy improve my market share, greatly improve my satisfaction and capablities... there are few 'real world' additions to the functions of ps that I can imagine needing... no longer is anything impossible, if you can imagine it, you can do it.. spend that same time many are wasting by complaining on a little education (any subject) and at the year's end you will be happier and likely financially rewarded.

don't shoot the hand that feeds, jim bean

___________________________________________________________________________

Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?

Posted by: "Murray DeJager"

Wed Jan 17, 2007 8:38 pm (PST)

Is Adobe the hand that feeds you... or are you the hand that feeds Adobe?

Murray DeJager

___________________________________________________________________________

Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?

Posted by: "Andrew Rodney"

Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:16 am (PST)

On 1/17/07 9:53 AM, "Lee Clawson" wrote:

Maybe. Kodak has one. I would think Adobe would take great pride in

developing just such a product.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, Kodak does have a fantastic profile editor called Custom Color ICC that among other things, can build device like profiles for CMYK to CMYK conversions. You can purchase the product at www.chromix,com (pick up a copy of ColorThink Pro at the same time and you're pretty well set for utilities).

There©ˆs no reason for Adobe to build a plug-in as one exists.

On 1/17/07 10:41 AM, "Jim Bean" wrote:

hello andrew, occasionally I think that I have a need that is not covered by

pshop.. and 'forced' to 'work-around'.. and there are plenty people that

continue to whine and bad mouth the adobe crew..

Jim, my take on this is that some pundits prefer to complain more to drive attention to themselves than to the company they complain about. We see this in many industries and the imaging industry is no different especially when dealing with a huge company that has driven said industry for so long and so successfully. These people actually have the delusion that corporate decision makers know they even exist, let along are building software to somehow punish them.

Andrew Rodney

___________________________________________________________________________

Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?

Posted by: "Pylant, Brian"

Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:17 am (PST)

I know little of Adobe's inner workings, and I've never been involved with an Adobe beta (but I'm not sure they could be as stubborn and short-sighted as Macromedia was towards the end). So perhaps I'm missing out on a side of the company that others on the list are privy to, but my practical experience with Adobe has generally been very good, overall they make my life immeasurably easier, not harder.

But no matter how low your view is of Adobe, imagine how much worse it would be if Photoshop was developed by Quark.

:o)

BRIAN PYLANT

Manager, Electronic Prepress

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::

Disc Makers

7905 North Route 130, Pennsauken, NJ 08110

Toll free: 1-800-468-9353 ext. 5539

___________________________________________________________________________

Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?

Posted by: "Laurentiu Todie"

Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:18 am (PST)

this "hand that feeds", feeds itself first : )

… and changed "A" to "arrow"

("airbrush" was better because easier to find on the keyboard)

changed the path tool to a contraption that makes it easier to integrate Illustrator in CS, (but wrecks havok for those used to the PS 2.0 stye tool [no inversion needed]

and so on…

I use Photoshop and am happy that it exists

it's good

but there are things I can complain about in the spirit

of… constructive criticism : )

PS, my bottom line is… tops as well, with PS

(no more sulfuric acid or rooms with… no light : )

Laurentiu Todie

___________________________________________________________________________

Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?

Posted by: "Ric Cohn"

Thu Jan 18, 2007 2:44 pm (PST)

Andrew,

ColorFlow Custom Color is available on chromix.com for $599. I'm sure it's everything you say it is, but to say to Adobe that there's no need for them to "build a plug-in" (which I take as telling them not to develop any new tools) is IMHO ludicrous.

This is as expensive (or more) than Photoshop! I'm sure I'd enjoy owning ColorFlow, but I also assume it's much more than I need (I know it's more than I can afford for the occasional use I would give it).

IMHO, both the existence and the cost of this product shows the need for Adobe to develop something usable for Photoshop.

Ric Cohn

___________________________________________________________________________

Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?

Posted by: "Andrew Rodney"

Thu Jan 18, 2007 2:44 pm (PST)

DMargulis wrote:

Lightroom competes, in a way, with both Camera Raw and

Bridge. Saying that a program shouldn't improve because it would compete with another

company product is a dangerous road to start down.

In a way? With all due respect, such a point clearly illustrates you need to spend more time in all three!

Bride is a browser, Lightroom is a database.

That ACR and LR share the IDENTICAL imaging pipeline and rendering tools and the FACT that both teams have gone out of their way to provide full parity for image processing and hooks to Bridge clearly prove you wrong. They are simply not competing products. They are separate products with separate goals for different users. LR is built from the ground up for one market segment (Photographers) that will be able to use it for a good 80% of their work instead of Bridge and ACR should they prefer these tools all the while providing more functionality for that core user group. LR and Photoshop+(ACR) no more compete than Illustrator and InDesign do (I'll point out, both have text tool but they ain't the same beast!)

___________________________________________________________________________

Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?

Posted by: "RJay Hansen"

Thu Jan 18, 2007 2:44 pm (PST)

On 1/18/07, Andrew Rodney wrote:

That would sound better if Adobe had never done this before, but they have included functionality in new versions of Photoshop that previously was only provided through third-party plugins.

RJay

___________________________________________________________________________

Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?

Posted by: "Lee Clawson"

Thu Jan 18, 2007 2:45 pm (PST)

on 1/18/07 11:06 AM, Andrew Rodney wrote:

Other than the pride of doing it even better than anyone else and having it

seamlessly integrate with their other products maybe there is no business

reason for Adobe.

Though instead of paying a couple hundred for an extra I'd like to have Adobe include this with the upgrade costs. That would make upgrading compelling.

Lee Clawson

2/\V/\7 Studio

___________________________________________________________________________

Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?

Posted by: Dan Margulis

Thu Jan 18, 2007 2:48 pm (PST)

How times do change department:

"There1s no reason for Adobe to build a plug-in as one exists....Jim, my take on this is that some pundits prefer more to dirive attention to themselves than to the company they complain about."

--Andrew Rodney to this list, 18 January 2007

"Here Dan and I are in TOTAL agreement. I want to have total control over profile editing in Photoshop (I can do it in Linocolor). I1ve been begging the Adobe team for this option for years. In fact I had a long conversation (mos of which I couldn1t totally follow) with Photoshop1s dad, Thomas Knoll. There is no question that Adobe can allow us the ability to edit profiles."

--Andrew Rodney to this list, 16 May 2002

Dan Margulis

___________________________________________________________________________

Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?

Posted by: "Andrew Rodney"

Thu Jan 18, 2007 6:48 pm (PST)

On 1/18/07 1:47 PM, Dan Margulis wrote:

How times do change department:

Only when you misunderstand the points.

Do I want to see the ability to edit inside of Photoshop WITHOUT a plug-in (which I mentioned is currently an option)? Yes. Could Adobe build the functionality into Photoshop? Of course. In fact it currently DOES build ICC profiles from the data entered into the Classic CMYK engine. Problem is, the ink models are terribly old and the right way to do this is measure the data using a Spectrophotometer and if you©ˆve got that, you probably have a dedicated profiling package. The instrument is the biggest cost to doing this kind of work by far. Does Adobe need to fix the Classic CMYK engine (or toss it)? Yes. Is Custom Color ICC worth the money? For me yes, for others yes. Obviously the price point reflects just what a vertical market this is and the reason that such functionality outside a 3rd party isn©ˆt yet seen in Photoshop.

Is blaming Adobe for the crimes and misdemeanors perpetrated by mankind useful? Nope. But it does sell books and magazine articles to the congregation.

Many of the major features from Layers to B&W conversions to 16-bit support was directly attributed to Alpha, and beta testers and those people who the Photoshop team values as providing useful feedback. Those who prefer to air their dirty laundry with respect to Adobe, laundry which is often inaccurate or ill informed, are often ignored. What©ˆs the old saying about catching flies with honey? It applies in the software business too.

Funny how if a topic on the so called color theory list that grow to this number (32) are discussing anything that really does pertain to color or color theory but happen to involve color management or ICC profiles, there©ˆs a waste in bandwidth and the discussion is ended. When the topic has nothing to do with color or color theory but has a desired controversy, it©ˆs fair game to go OT over and over again. Getting back on topic, you can do all kinds of things with respect to CMYK and black generation inside the Classic engine and even build out an ICC profile to reflect this. That the engine needs a ring job is key. And should you really want a robust tool for profiling editing INSIDE of Photoshop, there©ˆs a solution available. There are all kinds of products that provide similar functionality but without Photoshop as the editing host.

Andrew Rodney

___________________________________________________________________________

Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?

Posted by: "Ric Cohn"

Thu Jan 18, 2007 6:50 pm (PST)

On Jan 18, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Andrew Rodney wrote:

In a way? With all due respect, such a point clearly illustrates

you need to spend more time in

all three!

Bride is a browser, Lightroom is a database.

IMO saying that Bridge is a browser (and Lightroom's not?!) and that Lightroom is a database (and implying that Bridge doesn't share any of a databases features), is an oversimplification. Also, if Lightroom's defining difference is that it's a database then I think the program's in trouble. As a database program it doesn't have near the functionality of programs like Portfolio or iView. Before I'll add Lightroom to my "tool kit", it either needs to add functionality that makes it worth the time to learn to add another program to my workflow, or it needs to replace a program I'm using while giving better integration between the programs I now use.

In view of all this, I thought Dan's "in a way" was quite mild and his point well taken. I've been watching the forums for all these products and I've seen a good deal of discussion of what should be contained in both and where features should be different. I know I've been looking carefully to see if they leave out improvements to Bridge to make Lightroom more attractive as a purchase. Bridge was a version 1 product in CS2 and in need of a good deal of improvement. Bridge will be improved (as seen in the CS3 Beta), but was it improved more, or less, because of the development of Lightroom? Possibly a little of both.

Seems to me that if you don't see a lot of similarity between what users want from each program you're perhaps spending too much time looking at the minutiae and not enough looking at the big picture. I'm not saying that Adobe is necessarily holding back development of any of these products (although they do keep saying they can't do certain things because they don't have the resources), but I do think doing this could appear appealing to some "numbers" and "marketing" people at Adobe and I agree with Dan that this would be a dangerous road to start down.

Ric Cohn

___________________________________________________________________________

Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?

Posted by: "Henry"

Thu Jan 18, 2007 6:51 pm (PST)

Profile editing: I have heard that Adobe is too busy, and that they can't satisfy every desire that every user might want. This sounds reasonable. I seem to recall someone on this list saying that they got the word from Adobe that they had concerns that such a tool could possibly be misused, that it would be dangerous. That sounds like an odd reason to me - possibly a dodge.

On the surface, these reasons sound reasonable, EXCEPT when considered in the light of the use of their product. The product may contain a countless number tools for painting, drawing, making selections, working with channels, etc., etc., but the final goal in its use by many professionals is for putting ink on paper. Without profile editing, Photoshop is a tremendously made race car with one inch tires. It is a 4 bbl carburetor on a lawn mower; a very expensive lawn mower that only does a fair job of mowing - and only on certain kinds of lawns. That it can be set to two or three height positions is not enough, considering its cost. When profile editing seems so to be such a natural and necessary tool, and it is not provided, it can only raise suspicions.

For print professionals, the tool's main use would be in conjunction with press (CMYK) output. If Adobe cannot find a reason to support those users in such a basic need, this can only raise suspicions. For the folks on this list who do not want to describe these users as being targeted for non-support of their basic needs, I ask them to reconsider. I ask them to consider how many tools have been added, either practical or merely cute, that actually have very little to do with the making of separations.

It is understandable that some people consider Photoshop to be an RGB-centric program. It may be that Adobe isn't up to the task, or maybe they just lack the will. Whatever the case, profile editing probably isn't on the wish list of all of the users who are RGB-centric as well. They will be happy with a few more cute filters and such with each upgrade. Maybe they outnumber the users that are print professionals. Maybe they are easier to WOW (from a programmers perspective). Meanwhile, print professionals will continue to ask why they are being ignored - until there is a program that doesn't ignore their needs.

Henry Davis

___________________________________________________________________________

Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?

Posted by: "jeff090756"

Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:47 pm (PST)

Is Adobe the hand that feeds you... or are you the hand that feeds Adobe?

Murray DeJager

I think it's actually more of a symbiotic relationship.

But in reality if I decided to snub Adobe and pitch Photoshop and never use it; Adobe would'nt even notice. But if Adobe quite on Photoshop, or if I could no longer use photoshop for what I do daily. Well I'd loose a lot of $$$$ big time. And it would set back my abilities and offerings.

So.........who "really" feeds who.....

Jeff Natrop

___________________________________________________________________________

Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?

Posted by: "Murray DeJager"

Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:47 pm (PST)

Hi Andrew,

When I started this thread my sincere intent was not to start an Adobe bashing party. As an end user I personally have always viewed Adobe and Photoshop with very high praise! Adobe's programs have always been very reliable compared to other software that I've purchased over the years and I wouldn't part with Photoshop for anything!

But I was curious about some of the things I've heard said about Adobe, in particular regarding complaints from people far closer to the inner circle of things in this industry then I will ever be.

I1ve been begging the Adobe team for this option for years. In

fact I had a long conversation (mos of which I couldn1t totally

follow) with Photoshop1s dad, Thomas Knoll. There is

no question that Adobe can allow us the ability to edit profiles."

--Andrew Rodney to this list, 16 May 2002

The above comment actually answers one of my original questions. If you have "begged" the Adobe team for things in the past and have gone unrewarded then I can safely assume that they're not playing favorites with some people and not others. I'm guessing of course that Adobe probably considers you more of a "friend" than an "enemy!"

Is blaming Adobe for the crimes and misdemeanors perpetrated by

mankind useful? Nope. But it does sell books and magazine articles

to the congregation.

Actually, I much prefer to hold Microsoft responsible for all the ills of society!

Many of the major features from Layers to B&W conversions to 16-bit

support was directly attributed to Alpha, and beta testers and

those people who the Photoshop team values as providing useful

feedback. Those who prefer to air their dirty laundry with respect

to Adobe, laundry which is often inaccurate or ill informed, are

flies with honey? It applies in the software business too.

The above statement, also, it seems, answers one of my original questions: Would a company like Adobe ignore a certain segment of their industry to punish them for their opinions?

Based on the above response it now seems that that's possible. To be fair I realise Andrew that you're not the official spokesperson for Adobe. That leads me to one other question: Would Adobe punish a whole group of users, like the CMYK community in general, because of the opinions of one person... let's use Dan Margulis as an example?

Funny how if a topic on the so called color theory list that grow

to this number (32) are discussing anything that really does

pertain to color or color theory but happen to involve color

discussion is ended. When the topic has nothing to do with color or

game to go OT over and over again.

I agree the subject is off-topic but I don't think by much. Photoshop is the main tool used by people who need to color correct an image. And why some things get ignored by software developers and others not seemed to be a fair question. Insight was what I was looking for not a reason to beat-up on the makers of my favorite piece of software!

In the end I'm going to assume that it's possible that nobody except the people at Adobe really knows what makes them tick!

Murray DeJager

___________________________________________________________________________

Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?

Posted by: "Andrew Rodney"

Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:49 pm (PST)

Photoshop serves a community and is served by a community of users. Those users who serve Adobe do so with the goal of improving the product they use. You can criticize and suggest using tough love and as long as you©ˆre constructive and don©ˆt build animosity to the hosts who allow you to test and play in their sandbox, you get invited back and often see the fruits of your labor. Some beta testes would rather show off how much they think they know or do a lot of aggressive doggie posturing but that doesn©ˆt fly well. Lets not forget, being even a beta tester let alone alpha tester isn©ˆt something many users of this product will ever experience. Well we do have two major products from Adobe now available as a public beta (Kudo©ˆs to Adobe) so let©ˆs see how this flies in the future.

You can criticize a decision in how software is built both privately to the team and publicly but how you do so tells a lot about how well you©ˆre going to ever influence this product. For example, in CS3, there©ˆs a big mistake I pointed out to the team well before anyone outside saw the CS3 beta. It©ˆs in Print (formally Print with Preview). New in this version is the FPO in the upper left is now color managed. You can now see the effect of toggling the rendering intents and profiles. Prior it wasn©ˆt color managed and many of us both privately and publicly called this ©¯Print kind of with Preview.©˜ That wasn©ˆt a mean spirited comment, it was true and mentioned with an ounce of humor. In CS3, Adobe moved into the right direction but made a slight error IMHO. When the soft proof is on, they automatically apply the Paper White/Ink Black simulation. Many of us teaching about soft proofing refer to this option as the ©¯make my image look ugly©˜ button. Fact is, using this soft proof option DOES provide a much better and more accurate soft proof. Problem is, you have to hide all UI elements like palettes and menu©ˆs as the white here doesn©ˆt undergo the white simulation (something Adobe has no control over; that©ˆs happening at the OS level). OK so in the new Print, the simulation is on but you have the UI there in your face, the preview looks really ugly. You can©ˆt not adapt to the white here. Your eye can©ˆt ignore the UI elements and hence, the image looks ugly.

I©ˆve gone on record both on the internal lists and on external lists like this, that having the simulation on by default is a bad idea. You can©ˆt turn it off which is even worse. OK, so will this issue being the ruination of an industry? Will thousands of dollars of print material be output destined automatically for the trash can? Nope, neither. We©ˆll continue to ignore the soft proof as we©ˆve done since Print with Preview came onto the scene. It©ˆs not a good option but it©ˆs not anywhere as bad as a hot poker in your eye. Come on people, let©ˆs get serious here. Photoshop is an image editing application, not the cause of global warming and the bird flu!

Andrew Rodney

___________________________________________________________________________

Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?

Posted by: "Richard Wagner"

Fri Jan 19, 2007 8:23 am (PST)

On Jan 18, 2007, at 6:01 PM, Henry wrote:

Without profile

editing, Photoshop is a tremendously made race car with one inch tires.

It is a 4 bbl carburetor on a lawn mower; a very expensive lawn mower

that only does a fair job of mowing - and only on certain kinds of

lawns. That it can be set to two or three height positions is not

enough, considering its cost. When profile editing seems so to be such

a natural and necessary tool, and it is not provided, it can only raise

suspicions.

Henry,

Ferrari doesn't make the tires for their Formula One race cars, they buy them from Michelin (and this year they switch to Bridgestone). Most people don't know how to use the "standard" tires (ICC profiles) that come with Photoshop or that can be obtained for free, and now you want Adobe to toss in a set of racing tires in the form of free profile *editing*? Should they throw in a free spectrophotometer, too? Profile editing is not a "natural and necessary tool" for most Photoshop users. In fact, most Photoshop users couldn't even name the six types of ICC profiles if their life depended on it, let alone know whether they should be editing an a-->b table or a b-->a table. In fact, most PS users don't know the differences between matrix/ table-based profiles or rendering intents. And these people need to edit ICC profiles? What an absolute nightmare that would be.

The ProfileMaker Pro package is about 470 MB and about $250