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
$2500. Under what business model could Adobe add in something comparable as
a freebie upgrade, particularly when most users don't need it and wouldn't
know how to use it, or would use it incorrectly? I build lots of profiles
with ProfileMaker, but I rarely edit profiles. If I have a bad profile, it
usually means I need to re-build it, not edit it.
The technology is available, and if you need it, you
can (and will) pay for it. However, I suspect that those who demand that it
be tossed in as a freebie upgrade don't currently own a profile editing
package, and therefore don't really need one. If you really need to edit
profiles, buy one of the currently available profiling packages. If you own
a Ferrari and you need to mow your lawn, buy a lawnmower, and don't expect
Ferrari to add a free mowing attachment to your car.
--Rich Wagner
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?
Posted by: "Lee Clawson"
Fri Jan 19, 2007 8:26 am (PST)
on 1/18/07 9:01 PM, Henry at hd@imagers.com wrote:
Meanwhile, print professionals will continue to ask
why they are being ignored
- until there is a program that doesn't ignore their
needs.
Henry,
I agree. I recall when Quark (X'Press) had us hating
them for non-existent customer service and we had mixed feelings like in
the ongoing thread (who feeds who). Then Adobe InDesign came out.
And I certainly think it fair to ask what we're doing
to clearly express to Adobe what we want/need"....
Lee Clawson
2/\V/\7 Studio
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?
Posted by: "Roger Howard"
Fri Jan 19, 2007 8:29 am (PST)
On Thu, January 18, 2007 5:04 pm, Ric Cohn wrote:
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.
It is a big oversimplification.
Bridge is the hub of the CS product line - it
interacts/integrates with basically all of the suite products. It's
intended to be the glue that ties these apps together... so it's a file
browser (in the literal sense) that provides a platform for automating
workflow between apps, basic metatagging, and other stuff. It also happens
to be able to host the Adobe Camera RAW plugin, which has lead a lot of
people to see Bridge as a RAW processor - but that's just a UI illusion.
It'll never be a standalone product, and while the RAW functionality is
nice to have there, that's not really it's main focus.
Lightroom *is* basically a standalone product for
photographers working in RAW (and JPEG for that matter). It has basic asset
management functionality (it'll organize your files for you), it's not a
browser at all as it doesn't present you with a filesystem view of your
assets. LR is also photo-specific - it's not a general workflow tool, it
doesn't integrate across the Adobe product line. It's a workflow tool for
photographers, who need a simple asset manager, a very nice RAW processing
environment with intuitive tools, and basic output tools (and the option
for lightweight integration with an external editor).
LR and Bridge won't compete with one another. Bridge
isn't standalone, so it really doesn't compete anyway - if you decide you
want Photoshop or the rest of the suite, you get Bridge for free. It's a
useful app, but it is definitely not going after the same crowd as LR.
LR will suit photographers who truly *don't* need or
use the power/depth of Photoshop - people who want to quickly and
pleasantly edit and convert tons of RAW files, and for whom the processing
controls embody 99% of what they'd do in Photoshop anyway.
- Roger Howard
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?
Posted by: "Richard Wagner"
Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:40 pm (PST)
I agree. The real competition will be between
Lightroom and Aperture (at least on Macs, for now). This was clear in
watching presentations by Apple (Aperture) and George Lepp (Lightroom) at
the current NANPA meeting. There are a lot of similarities between the two
work environments, and a lot of similarities in the feature sets.
Photoshop/ACR/Bridge will be there for those who do not want/need image
asset management or the "digital darkroom" environment for
photographers.
--Rich Wagner
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?
Posted by: Dan Margulis
Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:40 pm (PST)
Andrew Webb writes,
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.
As previously mentioned, you can't say
"they" about a company as big as Adobe. Any action that the
company takes, certain employees will disagree with. Previously in this
thread the names of John Nack and David Story have been mentioned. The idea
that *they* are purposely holding back features from a group of users is
indeed ridiculous. Unfortunately, neither is in a key position on the
Photoshop programming team--and neither was around in 1998.
In any case, this thread has somehow twisted itself
into the suggestion that I am casting aspersions on the entirety of Adobe
Systems Inc. because a handful of recalcitrant employees have chosen to
block a feature that everybody knows would be a good idea. I described the
Photoshop team's decade of excuses for not having done so as "pure
cussedness." This phrase, to me, seems about as strong as "good
golly."
Now, "simply vengeful, malicious, a childish
attempt to get back at perceived enemies"--that's serious rhetoric.
But it's NOT how I characterized not the refusal to *add* profile editing.
It's what I said about the oft-repeated threat to simply delete Custom CMYK
from the program and not replace it with *anything*. I stand by those
words.
Reputable software companies do not delete features
that are known to be critical, no matter how much they may dislike the
people who use them. If I were running Adobe, disciplinary action would be
taken against any employee who made such a threat. I would be very
interested to hear how either John or David can justify a threat to remove
such an important feature.
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.
This sounds logical in the abstract, but in this case
ignores history. Every "heavy hitter" that I'm aware of was on
the Photoshop team's case about this since it became evident that CMYK
users were not buying into ICC color management nearly ten years ago. I had
said even before the release of Photoshop 5 that refusing to include this
feature made it certain that the color-management concept would fail in the
CMYK community. By a year later, everybody else agreed. Bruce Fraser was on
their case to include it, and even Andrew Rodney, as you saw in a different
message, said, "Here Dan and I are in TOTAL agreement...I've been
begging the Adobe team for this option for years." This was in 2002,
so "for years" must mean right about since the release of
Photoshop 5 in 1998.
In 2001, Chris Murphy and I wrote a jointly signed
article for the Seybold Report, which pointed out the obvious: "A few
photo labs and other firms who cater mostly to RGB output support embedded
tags. In the CMYK world, the rejection by printers, prepress houses, and
service bureaus is essentially total."
To cure this, Chris and I said, "Photoshop needs
to be able to edit third-party ICC profiles. The current situation--one
profile needed for every black generation, every dot gain, and every total
ink, all produced not by Photoshop but by software of dubious
reliability--is not going to fly in the professional community."
So, there you have the lead article in the most
prestigious publication of industry commentary, with two voices that are
nominally from both sides of the spectrum, both of whom are intimately
familiar with how the print industry actually functions. To that, the
then-current head of the Photoshop team publicly applied an obscenity to
both Chris' and my names, reiterated that the 1998 architecture made Custom
CMYK obsolete, implied a conspiracy among printers, and threatened to
delete Custom CMYK altogether to teach the industry a lesson.
In the 2002 thread here already being referred to, a
different member of the Photoshop team reiterated the view that the 1998
architecture "replaced" Custom CMYK, and in words that dripped
with hatred, told the user who asked the question that he was in the stone
age, and again stated that he hoped the Photoshop team would delete Custom
CMYK in order to force the user to comply.
Consequently, when Ric Cohn tried to start a similar
move in 2005, in a thread on this list I told him that he was wasting his
time because the Photoshop team's mind was completely shut on this topic.
He did not believe me, and pursued the issue. Six weeks after the lengthy
thread ended, he posted again, titling the new thread "Possibliity of
changes in Photoshop (Dan right again?)"
He wrote (this is 2005, remember) "I just had an
exchange with Chris Cox [of the Photoshop programming team]...and thought
I'd add to my previous post about asking Adobe to update the CMYK engine. I
really don't want to believe Dan's negative viewpoint but after reading
Chris's comments on PS5's color management I'm convinced he's learned
nothing....I went out of my way not to throw mud, but clearly nothing I
said could have made any difference."
So, while posting feature requests may have merits as
a general rule, with respect to this issue it's just a waste of keystrokes,
at least until there are personnel changes in the Photoshop team. The team
has been told, year after year, that serious CMYK users cannot get by
without these tools--and told that not just by users but by the biggest
names in the field. And all they have to do is look at the current state of
adoption of ICC technology by commercial printers, ten years after
Photoshop 5, to know that *something* went seriously wrong.
We should all acknowledge and appreciate the
encouraging comments of John and David. I would also tip my hat to Thomas
Knoll, for being, in stark contrast to other members of the Photoshop team,
unfailingly courteous and professional to those he interacts with, even
when he disagrees with them. I have never heard of Thomas threatening to
yank Custom CMYK out of Photoshop, for example.
Nevertheless, it is clear that the opposition to
adding editing comes from Thomas. While Adobe politics are byzantine, as
best I understand them neither John or David would have the clout to force
Thomas to put something into the program that he does not wish to include.
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.
Undoubtedly, but they should ask who they're
humiliating and who they're hurting. If the people you mention wish to
harbor a grudge ten years after the problem that caused it, it's immature.
If they wish to blame a conspiracy for their own incompetent interface
design, it's paranoid and unhealthy. If they insist on calling us ugly
names, it may yield some momentary emotional satisfaction but is a practice
better dropped on the whole.
If these people, however, think that they are hurting
or even humiliating the CMYK *experts* by freezing development of new CMYK
features, just the opposite is true. Custom CMYK is quite well-behaved and
yields perfectly serviceable profiles *if* you have had a lot of experience
with calibrating things and with the vagaries of printing.
Refusing to update it doesn't hurt someone like me--I
already get nice profiles out of Custom CMYK, and while I would welcome
something more flexible, the quality gain for me personally would be
marginal at best. It hurts people like Ric, who come from an RGB background
and have trouble with something as kludged and opaque as Custom CMYK is. It
hurts the color management consultants, who can't sell their wares to
advanced CMYK users who require that the profile be editable. And it hurts
anyone trying to learn color correction because too much time needs to be
spent learning something that could be made simpler.
Nevertheless, it isn't going to be upgraded, so
there's no sense in belaboring the point. What should be belabored, and
condemned as unprofessional and unethical, is the continuing threat to
delete Custom CMYK altogether. If the Photoshop team is too busy to take
the limited time needed to make a decent profile editor it is really hard
to understand where they would find the time to go in and delete code that
they know is mission-critical to so many users. And it is really, *really*
hard to think of any possible explanation for deleting Custom CMYK other
than a desire to punish certain users.
Dan Margulis
P.S. The last word goes to Stephen Marsh, also from
the 2002 thread mentioned above.
************
I do not surf the Adobe forums much, I can't be
bothered joining and I get frustrated when I read many of the posts that go
on there.
Many people tell you that the built in settings are
crap - but I would bet that these same people have little or no practical
expereience in the real print world, or have not experienced the many
things which may be required of a serious prepress production user.
Both built in settings and proper profiles both have
pros and cons, the more you use and learn about both formats - the more you
see that each have their place, depending on the workflow and task at hand.
For the sake of argument...even though I currently use
a proper ICC profile for producing targeted seps for our common conditions
-if the next version of Photoshop did not include custom CMYK then I would
_not_ upgrade...this feature is that critical for advanced users or users
who need flexibility and far from useless or legacy.
Long live the built in custom CMYK settings.
If anyone doubts how useful the old built in settings
are, try this...make a vector EPS using solid black or 400% CMYK in Illus,
FreeHand, Quark etc...or even just some tint patches of 10, 20, 30% etc.
Make sure that an 'accurate', 'better' proper ICC profile is set as your
workspace. Now rasterize the EPS to grayscale mode or CMYK depending on the
source test...and see if you can get a proper ICC profile to rasterize your
vector elements with correct colour values...go on, I dare you.<g>
Granted not everyone rasterizes vector files, but for those that do this is
a big issue.
What is better, using a 'proper' profile that has
incorrect dot gain, or using a 'poor' custom CMYK built in setting which
has correct dot gain but may not offer softproofing or perceptual renders?
To me having control of the dot gain and other settings matters more than
whether the separation is produced by a proper ICC profile.
This has come up in the past, perhaps try searching for
keywords such as built-in CMYK etc.
Stephen Marsh
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?
Posted by: "Andrew Rodney"
Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:41 pm (PST)
With respect to your points about RGB and CMYK, keep
in mind that RGB profile editing is rarely necessary with stable devices
and good profiling practices. In the very rare times I need to edit an RGB
profile, it©ˆs a tweak to the proofing table in the profile (the
data that provides the soft proof). This allows for closer screen to print
matching. The other times is when trying to make one device match another
(make my Epson 3800 cross render a Kodak Matchprint). Very rare indeed.
I'll add that I©ˆve literally built thousands of RGB output
profiles so I©ˆm not pulling stat©ˆs out of my back end
to make such points.
The devices we normally profile to accept RGB data
(all those nice photo desktop ink jets, dye sub©ˆs etc) are by
and large, very well behaved and stable devices unlike so many presses. In
fact, both Canon and Epson supply canned profiles for many papers with
their printers and many, many customers are quite happy with the color.
This is primary due to the fact the printers are stable and in a fixed
behavior, the key to all color management. The profiles built in the US by
Epson for the Pro printers are surprisingly good. I ran many prints using
them on my 3800 before building my own. My profiles were better but not by
a large degree. The profiles needed no editing. Epson provides a free
utility to calibrate and sync up multiple models to behave the same and
thus make the canned profiles even more useful. Again, think presses spread
across the country run at who knows what target conditions and you start to
see the nightmare.
CMYK is a different beast simply because
it©ˆs such an ill behaved color model. Now before everyone goes
berserk by this statement, let us not forget that K is necessary simply due
to the rather impure attributes of the CMY inks. Yes, you can do some very
cool things with K when building a separation but the fact is, it greatly
complicates the ability to build a color print and I'll add, using the so
called RGB route in ink jets that have multiple black©ˆs and
color inks doesn©ˆt appear to be an issue here. What we need is
the ability to control black generation of course and come up with a CMYK
conversion for any and all possible conditions. That©ˆs a
problem!
So looking at the model both Adobe and the ink jet
manufacturers have come up with (build stable devices that conform to
specific standards, then supply profiles that reflect this), I©ˆm
now thinking that profile editing within Photoshop is something I now DO
NOT WANT. Here©ˆs why. We have a superb CMYK profile in the form
of U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2 which is intended for a very specific
condition known as TR001 SWOP. Back in 2002 at Seybold, Bruce Fraser, Chris
Murphy and I did a shoot-out of ICC profile packages and when testing
output to SWOP certified conditions as defined by TR001, the U.S. Web
Coated (SWOP) v2 profile produced the best output even compared to custom
built profiles. It works! This indicates Adobe has two possible paths. One
is to supply well built profiles for well defined print conditions like
TR001 or Gracol 7. Or it can let anyone with a print shop or proofer mess
around and produce behavior they feel is preferable, then ask users to
built or tweak existing profiles. Now that I look more closely at the
options, one being the attempt to throw a dart somewhere near the middle of
a very large barn, I think Adobe should toss the Classic CMYK engine which
is obviously buggy and broken in areas and just supply good profiles for
defined print processes. This has worked for the RGB group simply because
the devices are not being tweaked by end users to fit some (often) ill
defined target behavior to differentiae themselves from the print shop
across the street.
As Richard pointed out, the tools, expensive as they
are, can be obtained to build custom ICC profiles. It seems a lot easier if
the print industry by and large would simply conform to standards many so
fear and allow a single set of well built profiles to be used instead of
mucking up a pixel editor to fix a chaotic poorly defined method of
producing color.
Now, since I©ˆm on a short leash for posts,
let me add that as far as Lightroom and Bridge+ACR, my comments about one
being a browser while the other is a database is short, sweet and to the
point and is absolutely simplistic. The fact remains there are major
differences in just a browser and a browser built upon a database! But the
difference where discussed nicely by Ric Cohn. I could list many
differences in the two packages but I©ˆm not sure that would be
useful here (if you want to talk color theory and how LR differs from
Photoshop, we can start a new thread). I©ˆve spent a lot of time
recently at Adobe booth©ˆs trying to explain to customers the
differences since it©ˆs initially a logical question. Bottom line
is, they don©ˆt compete and they are as different as a Mini and a
Hummer!
Andrew Rodney
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?
Posted by: "Lee Clawson"
Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:46 pm (PST)
--Rich,
By your thinking I can't have a high performance
automobile because I might crash it and I don't deserve something included
in an upgrade that I'm paying for (and have paid for every 18 months).
Demanding it-- no, I don't read that in the postings.
However I do think there's room to improve the CMYK engine.
Lee Clawson
2/\V/\7 Studio
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?
Posted by: "Richard Wagner"
Fri Jan 19, 2007 4:12 pm (PST)
Lee,
You *can* have the performance - buy ProfileMaker or
another profile editing package, and no, you don't "deserve it"
for paying for Photoshop upgrades. ProfileMaker sells for over 3 times the
cost of Photoshop, and it is a completely different product (with its own
upgrades). By your reasoning, you should have the entire Creative Suite
simply because you've bought upgrades to PS. I just don't see it that way.
The "something included" with your upgrades to Photoshop are
significant improvements to the Photoshop application that the design team
feels benefit the greatest percentage of Photoshop users given the
resources invested. Adding code to Photoshop with the complexity/value of
ProfileMaker isn't likely to happen.
--Rich Wagner
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?
Posted by: "Henry"
Fri Jan 19, 2007 5:43 pm (PST)
On Jan 19, 2007, at 1:46 AM, Richard Wagner wrote:
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.
This sounds like the reasoning I mentioned hearing:
"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."
The danger is that Photoshop, a program that should be
very much about CMYK and how separations are made, isn't applying itself in
this direction, and makes noises that it could be pulling away from
meaningful CMYK support.
The ProfileMaker Pro package is about 470 MB and about
$2500. Under
what business model could Adobe add in something
comparable as a
freebie upgrade, particularly when most users don't
need it and
wouldn't know how to use it, or would use it
incorrectly? I build
lots of profiles with ProfileMaker, but I rarely edit
profiles. If I
have a bad profile, it usually means I need to
re-build it, not edit
it.
Again, it might be dangerous; Photoshop users won't
know how to use such tools. I do agree that control over the separation
process is something that most users will not need, but this kind of
reasoning wouldn't result in anything but the lowest common denominator
products. As I said:
"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)."
The technology is available, and if you need it, you
can (and will)
pay for it. However, I suspect that those who demand
that it be
tossed in as a freebie upgrade don't currently own a
profile editing
package, and therefore don't really need one. If you
really need to
edit profiles, buy one of the currently available
profiling
packages.
Instead of "editing", it might be better to
describe this as a need for the ability to control the separation process.
I really don't understand your notion that "those who demand that it
be tossed in as a freebie upgrade don't currently own a profile editing
package, and therefore don't really need one." Come again?
Free upgrade? I don't recall ever getting a free
upgrade.
If Photoshop gets to the point that the only
separations that can be made are those that are "hard-wired",
then it will be a program that print professionals will be very
disappointed in having once supported not only through the pocketbook, but
by endorsement as well. My bet is that Adobe understood very well at one
time, that they could really benefit from the endorsement of the print
trade if they were to evolve beyond a paint program. If they turn their
back on them now, it would be very disappointing.
If you own a Ferrari and you need to mow your lawn,
buy a
lawnmower, and don't expect Ferrari to add a free
mowing attachment
to your car.
The Ferrari is Photoshop, and we need to make
separations (mow the lawn). Again, Photoshop should be all about making
separations, along with the other "cute" stuff, but this is just
an opinion. It is a matter of priorities.
Henry Davis
___________________________________________________________________________
What Makes Adobe Tick?
Posted by: "Andrew Rodney"
Fri Jan 19, 2007 5:49 pm (PST)
I©ˆm on the road and I©ˆm kind of
done with this topic. If Dan wishes to answer or (as suggested below) start
a new post on using the Custom CMYK engine, cool, otherwise I©ˆm
out of here for a few days (to the relief of many I©ˆm sure
<g>).
On 1/19/07 1:09 PM, "DMargulis" wrote:
In any case, this thread has somehow twisted itself
into the suggestion that
I am casting aspersions on the entirety of Adobe
Systems Inc. because a
handful of recalcitrant employes have chosen to block
a feature that everybody
knows would be a good idea.
Apparently not everybody thinks its a good idea. The
decision doesn©ˆt seem to have hurt Adobe sales and the print
industry hasn©ˆt imploded. So if everybody agrees, I©ˆd
expect we©ˆd all be hearing about it outside the Color Theory
list such as on the Nightly News.
Now, "simply vengeful, malicious, a childish
attempt to get back at perceived
enemies"--that's serious rhetoric. But it's NOT
how I characterized not the
refusal to *add* profile editing. It's what I said
about the oft-repeated
threat to simply delete Custom CMYK from the program
and not replace it with
*anything*. I stand by those words.
Did anyone officially inside of Adobe say they were
going to do this (delete Custom CMYK)? This isn©ˆt the same as
requesting a profile editor.
This sounds logical in the abstract, but in this case
ignores history. Every
"heavy hitter" that I'm aware of was on the
Photoshop team's case about this
since it became evident that CMYK users were not
buying into ICC color
management nearly ten years ago.
Buying in what way? Are you referring to the sales of
Photoshop? Sales of print shops? Number of shops using profiles? Sales of
software products that build ICC profiles? What does that mean and how does
that affect Photoshop©ˆs design?
I had said even before the release of Photoshop 5 that
refusing to include
this feature made it certain that the color-management
concept would fail in
the CMYK community.
Define fail?
By a year later, everybody else agreed. Bruce Fraser
was on their case to
include it, and even Andrew Rodney, as you saw in a
different message, said,
"Here Dan and I are in TOTAL agreement...I've
been begging the Adobe team for
this option for years." This was in 2002, so
"for years" must mean right about
since the release of Photoshop 5 in 1998.
I also want LCH corrections and info palette, a
Saturation curve, and far more useful gamut compression for the display.
I©ˆve asked for those items as long, maybe longer then a new CMYK
engine. What©ˆs your point? Pop on the Stone©ˆs. You
can©ˆt always get what you want.
So, while posting feature requests may have merits as
a general rule, with
respect to this issue it's just a waste of keystrokes,
at least until there
are personnel changes in the Photoshop team. The team
has been told, year after
year, that serious CMYK users cannot get by without
these tools--and told that
not just by users but by the biggest names in the
field.
The tools have existed for years. Who says Photoshop
has to provide every tool a CMYK centric person would need to print a job.
So they should handle press control now? There was a time, Photoshop had NO
CMYK support at all! I was running a copy in those days, making money with
it too. Photoshop doesn't do preflight and how much does Pitstop Pro cost?
Ops, more than Photoshop!
And all they have to
do is look at the current state of adoption of ICC
technology by commercial
printers, ten years after Photoshop 5, to know that
*something* went seriously
wrong.
Who cares if these printers don©ˆt support
ICC technology? Maybe the folks selling the tools to make ICC profiles but
otherwise, if they don©ˆt want to use them, doesn©ˆt
this validate Adobe©ˆs slow speed in providing more tools to
tweak profiles for the print industry?
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.
Undoubtedly, but they should ask who they're
humiliating and
who they're hurting.
Who? More likely, these people are not on their radar
at all. Its the guys who visit the 10th floor and have actual meaningful,
constructive discussions with the engineers who are on their radar, guys
like Bruce Fraser.
If these people, however, think that they are hurting
or even humiliating the
CMYK *experts* by freezing development of new CMYK
features, just the opposite
is true. Custom CMYK is quite well-behaved and yields
perfectly serviceable
profiles *if* you have had a lot of experience with
calibrating things and
with the vagaries of printing.
Hurray for Adobe.
Refusing to update it doesn't hurt someone like me--I
already get nice
profiles out of Custom CMYK, and while I would welcome
something more
flexible, the quality gain for me personally would be
marginal at best. It
hurts people like Ric, who come from an RGB background
and have trouble with
something as kludged and opaque as Custom CMYK is.
What would be a useful new discussion that falls under
the list mandate is why you were able to get nice profiles out of Custom
CMYK but Ric can©ˆt because its kludged together.
It hurts the color management consultants, who can't
sell their wares to
advanced CMYK users who require that the profile be
editable.
That©ˆs possible however most consultants
sell product as well as their time and expertise so it would actually be
better to train them on a more powerful and useful tool such as Custom
Color ICC. Note, (in case anyone wants to get nasty), I don©ˆt
sell nor have ever sold products when consulting (which thankfully, I
rarely do these days). But the point is, the necessary tools have always
been available at a price.
And it hurts anyone trying to learn color correction
because too much time
needs to be spent learning something that could be
made simpler.
Most software falls into that camp (too much time
needs to be spent learning something that could be made simpler).
Andrew Rodney
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?
Posted by: "Ric Cohn"
Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:31 am (PST)
On Jan 19, 2007, at 6:15 PM, Richard Wagner wrote:
You *can* have the performance - buy ProfileMaker or
another profile
editing package, and no, you don't "deserve
it" for paying for
Photoshop upgrades. ProfileMaker sells for over 3
times the cost of
Photoshop, and it is a completely different product
(with its own
upgrades). By your reasoning, you should have the
entire Creative
Suite simply because you've bought upgrades to PS.
Richard,
I was going to leave this thread to a well deserved
ending, but I feel a need to comment one more time. You assign such extreme
positions to others that I can't help wondering if you do this for the rise
it will get or because you actually believe someone has this opinion. AFAIK
no one has asked for the equivalent of ProfileMaker. Dan has asked for
improvements which he estimates as a couple of days work. AFAIK no one here
or from Adobe has said he's way off the mark and that this is a huge
project, and from the size of this request I come away assuming even
moderate (but well thought out and executed) changes would make a big
difference.
Also, talking about program pricing makes no sense
when comparing programs that are for a very small market vs a mass market
product. Unlike a car, the cost of distributing software is nil. Ideally,
prices are set by the desire to maximize profits which can be by selling a
limited number at a high price or huge numbers at a low price. Intelligent
people can and do disagree on what is the correct price for a piece of
software. Would ProfileMaker earn much more money if it was priced at $200?
It would if the market was many times larger than they believe it to be.
There's a big barrier to a company like the one that makes ProfileMaker
testing this-- if they guess wrong they could put themselves out of
business.
Photoshop already has a history of adding features for
free that others are charging big bucks for. In many cases there were
already Plug-Ins with similar or even better features. There's Extract and
Lens Distortion correction to name two. Camera Raw is a good example. The
competition was either "free" when you bought an expensive
digital camera or expensive if you wanted something better. CaptureOne is
still competing with CameraRaw and is sold for $500. Like ProfileMaker it's
not directly comparable because It includes features like tethered shooting
that the Photoshop developers don't feel is appropriate to add to
Photoshop.
I could go on, but I think I'll end this thread (for
me anyway) here.
Ric Cohn
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?
Posted by: "Richard Wagner"
Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:30 am (PST)
On Jan 19, 2007, at 11:48 PM, Ric Cohn wrote:
I was going to leave this thread to a well deserved
ending, but I
feel a need to comment one more time. You assign such
extreme
positions to others that I can't help wondering if you
do this for
the rise it will get or because you actually believe
someone has
this opinion. AFAIK no one has asked for the
equivalent of
ProfileMaker. Dan has asked for improvements which he
estimates as
a couple of days work. AFAIK no one here or from Adobe
has said
he's way off the mark and that this is a huge project,
and from the
size of this request I come away assuming even
moderate (but well
thought out and executed) changes would make a big
difference.
Ric,
I could care less about getting a rise out of anyone.
No one has specifically stated what they want Adobe to include. What has
been requested is "profile editing." Of course, regardless of
what Adobe were to provide, someone would complain that they can do better
with X software. Profile editing, particularly on profiles from multiple
3rd party providers (that may contain "special sauce"
instructions) would not be a trivial addition, and I doubt that it would
require "a couple days of work." AFAIK, Dan is not a software
engineer, and I don't think his timetable for software development is
anywhere close to reality. Perhaps if the specifics of the requested
features were laid out, better assessments of development time/resources
could be made.
Also, talking about program pricing makes no sense
when comparing
programs that are for a very small market vs a mass
market product.
Unlike a car, the cost of distributing software is
nil. Ideally,
prices are set by the desire to maximize profits which
can be by
selling a limited number at a high price or huge
numbers at a low
price. Intelligent people can and do disagree on what
is the
correct price for a piece of software. Would
ProfileMaker earn much
more money if it was priced at $200? It would if the
market was
many times larger than they believe it to be. There's
a big barrier
to a company like the one that makes ProfileMaker
testing this-- if
they guess wrong they could put themselves out of
business.
The market would have to be more that 12.5 times
larger that they see it now, as determined by sales, to sell ProfileMaker
for $200 and not lose money. I suspect that GretagMacbeth has a pretty good
idea of their market. If they could sell ProfileMaker for $500 and increase
profits and market share, they would.
I agree that the cost of distributing the software is
nil - that isn't an issue. The fact that it is so easy to distribute the
software motivated GretagMacbeth to use dongle protection on the software.
But as I stated, the ProfileMaker package is 470 MB - that's a lot of code
and support files. Tossing the equivalent of this into Photoshop is not a
reasonable request. Yes, it's a "small market" product, but that
also implies that what is being requested for Photoshop serves a very small
segment of the PS market. What would be the motivation for Adobe to include
the equivalent of ProfileMaker in PS? There is a HUGE amount of engineering
effort that has gone into ProfileMaker, not a "couple of days of
work."
Photoshop already has a history of adding features for
free that
others are charging big bucks for. In many cases there
were already
Plug-Ins with similar or even better features. There's
Extract and
Lens Distortion correction to name two. Camera Raw is
a good example.
Camera RAW serves an *enormous* market segment, which
is why Adobe went there in the first place, and later decided to embark on
Lightroom. These are not even remotely comparable. Unlike ACR, profile
editing would serve a miniscule percentage of their market. If they wanted
to add profile editing, why shouldn't they add it as a standalone product,
similar to inDesign, Illustrator, GoLive, or Acrobat? Probably because it
wouldn't sell adequately enough to cover development costs.
CaptureOne is still competing with CameraRaw and is
sold for $500.
Like ProfileMaker it's not directly comparable because
It includes
features like tethered shooting that the Photoshop
developers don't
feel is appropriate to add to Photoshop.
Well, Aperture started out at $500 and is now $299,
just to remain competitive with other RAW converting software options. I'm
not sure that I follow your argument. I wouldn't say that C1 is
"competing" with ACR. C1 will continue to exist (regardless of
the competition) because Phase One users have no other option - they can't
process their files in ACR or Lightroom or Aperture or any other RAW
processor that I am aware of, so they're stuck - held hostage by Phase One.
The $500 is a cost of doing business that Phase One digital back users have
decided to accept. Not accepting would mean not using a Phase One digital
back. Do you see any Phase One support by Adobe here <http:
//www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/ cameraraw.html>? P1 users should be
screaming... and they may be - but they are apparently not a large enough
segment of the ACR user population for Adobe to care about. (Or some P1
user infuriated an Adobe engineer, and Adobe decided to take it out on all
P1 users, for the paranoids/conspiracy theorists in the crowd.)
Profile editors are available, and if you really need
one, you can buy one. It strikes me as ironic that this request for ICC
profile editing within Photoshop comes from a largely anti-ICC color
management crowd. If you really need/want to edit profiles, buy a profile
editor. Photographers drop $5,000 - $35,000 for digital cameras and digital
backs... if you need a profile editing tool, buy it, just like you buy any
other piece of equipment or software. ProfileMaker can do nearly anything
imaginable with ICC profiles, and then some. If you want something cheaper
than ProfileMaker, the Fuji ColorKit profile editor sells for only $589.
<http://www.chromix.com/ ColorGear/Shop/productdetail.cxsa?toolid=
1066> Cheaper yet, using a Mac, and need only 8-bit profiles? Try the
free ProfileEditor utility. <http:
//www.chromix.com/ColorSmarts/smartNote.cxsa? snid=444> You don't need
to wait for Adobe to add profile editing to Photoshop if you really need to
edit profiles.
--Rich Wagner
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?
Posted by: "Ric Cohn"r
Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:05 am (PST)
On Jan 20, 2007, at 4:12 AM, Richard Wagner wrote:
The $500 is a cost of doing business that Phase One
digital back
users have decided to accept.
Sorry, but you don't understand the
PhaseOne/CaptureOne business model. CaptureOne processes many Raw file
types. Phase One owners get a full version that works on (I believe) 2
machines and an unlimited number of free full versions that only processes
PhaseOne files. They have an additional/separate business which develops
and sells CaptureOne to owners of most other camera makers. Some percentage
purchase it for the tethered capture support (it's much better IMO than
Canon's capture software). For the rest it is competing directly with ACR
(and several other stand alone raw processors).
But as I stated, the ProfileMaker package is 470 MB -
that's a lot
of code and support files. Tossing the equivalent of
this into
Photoshop is not a reasonable request.
Which only you have suggested.
Profile editors are available, and if you really need
one, you can
buy one.
As have been most new features for Photoshop since
maybe 4.0. I don't get your point. Why make CMYK users of Photoshop wrong?
We are making our opinions known and Adobe can decide what they want to do.
For a software manufacturer here are costs and risks in developing upgrades
and there are potential costs and risks in not developing a product if
enough users purchase a different product rather than upgrading yours. I
have a big personal interest in having features I need added or improved
within Photoshop- both so I can get them at the cost of an upgrade, and so
I don't have to spend the enormous amount of time and effort needed to
properly learn a new program.
Ric Cohn
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?
Posted by: "Howard Smith"
Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:46 am (PST)
On 1/19/07 Andrew Rodney offered a suggestion that
makes a great deal of sense to me, but then I'm not someone who is
routinely involved in the commercial printing business.
Those who will have a need for designing custom
profiles for unusual print conditions can probably make good use of some of
the more expensive professional profile editors like the Kodak program
mentioned earlier. Those among us who are or who have worked with
established professional printing firms, as publishers and advertising
agencies surely are doing, would find it very useful to have a limited
numbr of profiles that would meet accepted industry standards for quality
printing. When asked, the printer whose equipment and/or printing process
was profiled to meet industry standards could unhesitatingly recommend the
correct profile for his process, and all we would have to do is to select
it from an offering in Photoshop. Printers who could not or would not do
this would be at a great competitive disadvantage. Because it seems to work
so well for so many folks, I would think that U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v.2 is
a good example of the functionality of such an approach. But then I'm far
from being an expert in this area, so it would be helpful to hear from
those who be most affected by such a feature, whether positively or
negatively. If there should happen to be full agreement on this point, it
shouldn't be that hard for Adobe to provide such profiles. Not to mention
the fact that this approach might appeal to them more than trying to build
an expensive and potentially buggy profile editor. A little standardization
on both ends should result in a lot fewer ruined jobs and a lot less need
for blame placing. So a compelling argument might be made that some
printers wouldn't be willing to go to all that trouble. The ones who didn't
would never get my business. When I was busy having offset prints done by
others I did not hesitate to change printers until I found one who did
consistently high quality work. Price was important, but it was always
secondary. A higher price for quality work was cheaper than having to pay
for substandard work and then throw it in a dumpster. Not all of us have
the legal muscle to force a printer to redo a poor job or to cancel his
invoice for it.
Comment excerpted from Andrew Rodney's post:
"This indicates Adobe has two possible paths. One is to supply well
built profiles for well defined print conditions like TR001 or Gracol 7. Or
it can let anyone with a print shop or proofer mess around and produce
behavior they feel is preferable, then ask users to built or tweak existing
profiles."
Howard Smith
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?
Posted by: "Lee Clawson"
Sun Jan 28, 2007 1:39 am (PST)
Howard,
When we start a job we don't know the printer until
the job is underway. When I do know the printer they don't know the press
until 24hrs prior to press time. This complicates things for all involved.
As it stands, I'd be happier to be able to make a
conversion from RGB to CMYK with a K plate curve to my specs.
Lee Clawson
2/\V/\7 Studio
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?
Posted by: "Andrew Rodney"
Sun Jan 28, 2007 6:43 am (PST)
Not knowing the printer, yes unless like the photo
labs of the past, most (nearly all pro labs) aimed the process at the same
target.
Not knowing the press? Who cares. What you're saying
is a shop with multiple presses can't keep them behaving to the same
standards which again is the main issue here. It's not about knowing where
the job will be printed by and large, it's not knowing who's aiming their
process at the side of that barn.
Andrew Rodney
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?
Posted by: "Howard Smith"
Mon Feb 5, 2007 3:38 pm (PST)
Andrew,
First of all I want to thank you and Lee Clawson for
replying to my post about commercial printing. The comments made by both of
you raise yet another question. Considering the size and net worth of the
commercial printing industry as a whole, has no one come up with any
concrete proposals for a little much needed standardization? Being an
outsider not directly involved with the commercial printing industry, maybe
I'm overlooking something. Has no leading printing industry organization
tried to do something about what seems to be an appalling situation?
From my own very limited experience I know that a good
printing crew can do wonders with a printing run's output. Obviously
technical knowledge and experience are factors that cannot be covered by
specifications, but it seems that it would be much easier for all concerned
if these million-dollar presses could be adjusted to some sort of accepted
standard. If all of the presses met these standards, it would be much
easier to obtain uniformly good printing output. Or is that an
impossibility? Couldn't they be adjusted so that each one would get
essentially the same output with any given set of inks and any given type
of paper? Would it not be possible to adjust all of the 4-color or 5-color
presses so that a group of test images would print very close to the same
if the image files had the same specified profile and the same paper and
ink type were used for the printing? With a cheap printer I can see why it
could be a problem. But with one of those warehouse-sized offset presses,
why can't it be adjusted to some kind of standard? Granted that different
inks and papers would affect the outcome, if the equipment was set to
specified standards then they should all produce reasonably close results
if they used the same inks and papers. Of course that wouldn't be
practical, but isn't it practical to adjust presses to such a standard that
it could be done? Then it should only be necessary to make suitable
adjustments for different types of paper and leave final manipulation up to
the printing crew. My impression at this point is that you never know quite
what to expect no matter how you prepare your file for submission to the
printer or to a middleman who works on it and in turn gives it to the
printer. It seems a miracle that consistently good work does seem to get
done. Or is there a considerable variation in book, magazine, and
advertising literature print results not obvious to those of us who see
only a single copy of the printed output?
Don't mean to beat this to death, but it just doesn't
make sense that so many people continue to be frustrated by the outcomes of
printing jobs.
Howard Smith
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?
Posted by: "Michael Demyan"
Mon Feb 5, 2007 5:18 pm (PST)
What Makes Adobe Tick?
MONEY!
By mandating an upgrade every 18 months they increase
their bottom line. Simple!
Don't mean to beat this to death, but it just doesn't
make sense that so
many people continue to be frustrated by the outcomes
of printing jobs.
Dan's basic premise for education.
KISS and get paid. On to the next project.
My Word.
Fine Photography by
Michael Demyan
www.mikedemyan.com
610-758-9769
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?
Posted by: "zthreen lists"
Mon Feb 5, 2007 5:18 pm (PST)
Chapter 13 of Professional Photoshop very quickly goes
over the mechanical workings of offset presses. I never really knew how one
of these machines worked, but when you read the description, you start to
get an idea of how hard it can be to get consistent results out of these
things.
I recently spent some time on a farm and one of the
pieces of equipment was a sileage harvester. It's a gigantic expensive
piece of equipment that just cuts down corn. It's expensive ($200,000+
brand new), has a monster diesel engine, sensors all throughout, and
expensive computer equipment inside to monitor it and keep everything
going. And yet, someone still has to get out of the cab every few minutes
and check that it's cutting the corn properly. Mechanical devices on this
scale with so many moving parts (particularly parts that wear out) just
aren't as fine-tunable as what we expect in other manufacturing.
Someone can correct me if this is wrong, but an offset
press seems to have much more in common with a combine harvester than the
inket printer sitting on your desk. And no farmer who's worth his salt will
tell you to trust the computer to get your crop right or that you can get
consistent yields without years of experience under your belt ;)
Matthew Rigdon
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?
Posted by: "Henry"
Mon Feb 5, 2007 5:18 pm (PST)
Aside from the standard health inspections, how do you
think Ice Cream stores would react to such standardization? It is an
innocent question, and may not be a good analogy, but it helps to show
where this subject could lead.
Would such standards result in the best in print
quality, or could one exceed standards, produce better printing, and yet be
"penalized" for not adhering to standards?
How many different standards would there need to be?
Henry Davis
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?
Posted by: "Andrew Rodney"
Mon Feb 5, 2007 6:15 pm (PST)
On 2/5/07 5:31 PM, "zthreen lists" wrote:
Chapter 13 of Professional Photoshop very quickly goes
over the
mechanical workings of offset presses. I never really
knew how one of
these machines worked, but when you read the
description, you start
to get an idea of how hard it can be to get consistent
results out of
these things.
Excuse me? There are computer controlled presses that
are incredulity consistent from start to finish and on every day. There are
press made before I was born being run by questionable operators too. I
suspect there©ˆs a bell shaped curve. But if you©ˆre to
believe this is true of all presses, you©ˆve been mislead!
Someone can correct me if this is wrong, but an offset
press seems to
have much more in common with a combine harvester than
the inket
printer sitting on your desk.
Which press and which inkjet?
You ain©ˆt talking about one of these:
http://www.komori.com/
On 2/5/07 5:52 PM, "Michael Demyan" wrote:
What Makes Adobe Tick?
MONEY!
As opposed by what other company?
By mandating an upgrade every 18 months they increase
their bottom line.
Simple!
No one©ˆs holding a gun to your head to
upgarde. The proposition is either a good business call on your part or you
don©ˆt upgrade. I don©ˆt see Adobe being unique in this
business model, do you?
Andrew Rodney
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?
Posted by: "John Denniston"
Mon Feb 5, 2007 8:59 pm (PST)
At 05:05 PM 2/5/2007 -0600, Howard wrote:
it seems that it would be much easier for all
concerned if these million-dollar
presses could be adjusted to some sort of accepted
standard. If all of the
presses met these standards, it would be much easier
to obtain uniformly
good printing output. Or is that an impossibility?
Hi Howard,
It's an impossibility. The best that can be done is to
find out what conditions produce the best quality on a particular press and
try to match these every day.
We had two newspapers printing on four presses in the
same building, two presses for each newspaper. The presses were new and the
best money could buy with computers controlling everything while monitoring
colour patches down the gutter to keep the colour accurate. It would be
stretching it to say these presses matched everyday the same way inkjets
will match each other. Not to say our reproduction was bad, it wasn't, it
was very good, and most days one would have to be very picky to notice
differences, but they were there, and every once in a while they were very
obvious, resulting in meetings that could turn very tense trying to find
out why.
Many newspapers print editions the same day in various
cities at both sides of the country and reproduction is at the top of their
worry lists. The quality comes from giving each of these presses
consistently a set of separations which everyone knows from testing and
consultation will work. Selecting a printer in a remote city might take
months of negotiation and testing.
Part of the problem is understanding that when
printing to an inkjet the result is determined by what is sent to the
printer. Turn it on, select the right profile, and you're done. A press
doesn't work like that and what is sent to the press is only half of the
result. There are a lot of skills required in setting up the press so it
will maintain consistent quality and every press is a little bit different
from every other one. You can't just load it with paper and turn it on.
Regards,
John Denniston
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?
Posted by: "Dennis Cress"
Mon Feb 5, 2007 11:57 pm (PST)
Matthew,
Despite an expert reply to your post to the contrary,
you are making a very good comparison between two seemingly unrelated
pieces of equipment. I spent 17 years at the business end of many types of
printing presses. I can tell you that the experience of a press operator is
unlike any job you can imagine. The clients who request printing only know
the contract proof and the press sheets to which they sign off - generally
brought to them by the CSR in a office removed from the actual pressroom.
They collect a few samples from the beginning of the
run and may spot check some of the final product sent to them by the
printer. They know little, if anything, of the press history of their job.
I don't doubt for a minute that consistency is the most important
contribution computers offer offset printing. The first thing I was taught
as a pressman was to be consistent. It may or may not have looked that
great, but I was consistent. Pressroom computers do not possess artificial
intelligence nor the means to adjust to mechanical conditions beyond their
control. They control ink, water, press speed, and I suppose these days
plate to blanket pressure. But those are not the only factors that affect
color.
There is a qualitative difference between the ink
flowing from the inkwell on an offset to its form rollers before being
applied to the plate, and an inkjet printer spraying ink from a series of
printheads. As a result, offset printing it is also about how the job
itself is designed.
If you have one color image on a printing plate - no
problem. But imagine a 16 page signature with multiple images that require
ink from different CMYK rollers in varying amounts. The first image up on
the plate is a beautiful forest landscape with wonderful greens and a blue
sky. Then inline and trailing that image on the same plate is a studio
image of a lovely model with very subtle warm skin tones beneath a heavy
cool solid. Ramp up the cyan to nail the forest and solid and your model
looks like she caught the flu. What you get as a pressman are opportunities
to compromise. You don't necessarily have perfect color for every image in
the run. The better the press operator, the better the compromise, and a
satisfied client. There is no substitute for human experience in any field,
it is hard won, and of much value.
I believe color management is an important tool to for
getting consistent color from an inkjet printer; but I would rather wrestle
a mountain lion than try to profile an offset press operated by three
different shifts.
Dennis Cress
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: What Makes Adobe Tick?
Posted by: "John Gallagher"
Tue Feb 6, 2007 8:06 am (PST)
There are several themes going on in this thread that
I would like to address. First, the mythology that printers are a bunch of
rich idiots who have bought million dollar pieces of equipment but have no
idea how to run them. Printers are very good at running presses, and very
good at satisifying customers who have ok'd proofs or press sheets. But
presses are extremely variable during the press run, as well as from run to
run and from day to day. This is NOT the fault of the press crew, this is
the nature of an offset press. There are probably about two hundred
variables that affect color and many of these are in flux as the press
runs. Chemestry on a press changes during the run as alkalinity or acidity
from the paper gets into the fountain solution and changes its PH. All of
these things can and should be monitored and are by good press crews, and
automated scanning spectro or densitometers help, particularly if they are
linked to the ink console for "closed loop' control. But the variables
remain and are not always fully controllable at 12000 sheets per hour. This
is what makes a printing press radically different from an inkjet printer.
That fact doesn't change regardless of the skill of the press crew. Better
crews with better process control tools on newer presses can print more
consistently than their opposites, this means less variation from sheet to
sheet, and more consistency over the entire press run, but it does not
change an offset press into something that behaves like an inkjet!
In my opinion there is no substitute for customers on
color critical jobs doing a press check or at the least, carefully
reviewing contract color proofs. When this is done and when working with a
good printer customer satisfaction is regularly achieved. In my opinion
expecting to get this level of quality and control over the process through
ICC profiles alone, (without being present visually) is
dreaming.
As to the idea that presses can or cannot be
standardized. They can be, and many printers in the US are doing it via the
Gracol 7 specification. Gracol 7 differs from previous specs such as SWOP
in that it DOES specify how something is to look and how it should measure.
This is different from merely specifying a range of ink densities and paper
brightnesses, etc. One of the key enablers of this technology is C.T.P.
which for the first time (since dot etchers) allows us to adjust the dots
that are on the printing plate to compensate for the idiosyncrasies of the
press. So while two presses in their 'native' state may never print within
a mile of each other, they can be made to print quite close if the plate
curves for each are properly adjusted. C.T.P. gives us the tools to do
this. Of course each press must then have the control tools available such
as a scanning densitometer or spectro, appropriate software and a well
trained crew, and be properly maintained, etc. if they are to print to the
standard consistently.
The counter argument from some printers is that
printing is an art not a science and their 'different from the standard'
printing is really better printing and is their advantage over the
competition. I think this is old school and is on the way out. The reality
is, better equipment, better training of press crews, and improved
technology has enabled most printers to print better than ever, and what is
needed now is better standardization. This became an in issue as when color
separation moved outside of the 'printer-trade shop' closed loop and onto
the customer's computer.
Standardization is not all the way there, but it is
been going on for some time and Gracol 7 has accelerated the momentum.
Contrary to some of the speculation I hear from this list, there are many
excellent printers who are printing very well, satisfying color critical
customers, and printing to a repeatable standard. There are also some, who
in this difficult and competitive business have not been able to generate
the capital necessary to buy the equipment required, pay for the training
required, and support the maintenance expenses required. This may be
because their customers will not support their investment in such things.
They will either support themselves with customers for whom this is not an
issue or they will dissappear from the scene. Implied here is the idea that
different printers serve different markets, and many of the posters to this
list represent but one. Choosing the correct printer is still a critical
decision, that no amount of industry standardization will change.
I will close by saying that we are still a ways away
from 'blind transfer' of color critical jobs. By that I mean, we cannot
rely on ICC profiles alone to assure high quality color. We must use our
eyes to view a contract proof or press sheets at the press check. This is
STILL how we do color critical jobs. While ICC profiles are a tool that can
save us a lot of time color adjusting for a specific process, they are not
a substitute for our eyes, for visual evaluation, or for assuring we are
going to get what we want.
John Gallagher
Prepress Manager, Val Print