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:
There©ˆs no reason for Adobe to build a
plug-in as one exists.
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:
There©ˆs no reason for Adobe to build a
plug-in as one exists.
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
often ignored. What©ˆs the old saying about
catching
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
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.
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