What Makes Adobe Tick? | Dan Margulis | Photoshop

Ledet training home -> Adobe training -> Photoshop training -> Professional Photoshop training with Dan Margulis

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?

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

Contact request form

Receive Schedule
and Pricing updates.

If you let us know how to contact you, we will enter you into our monthly drawing for a free 2-day class (A $895 value).

Get free video training
Get free tips, tricks and shortcuts
Get special sale pricing and free seminar invitations

Logo_small

Teach for us

Sterling Ledet & Associates, Inc. 4100 Perimeter Park South Atlanta, GA 30341

work sales@ledet.com work administration@ledet.com work webmaster@ledet.com

P work 770.414.5007 P work 877.819.2665 F fax 312.896.9094

Authorized Training Provider

Receive Schedule and Pricing updates.

Receive Schedule
and Pricing updates.