Dan Margulis Applied Color Theory
Who's at Fault?
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:35:53 EDT
From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Who's at fault?
*****Forwarded message*****
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:54:12 +0100 (BST)
Subject: Who's at fault?
To: Dan Margulis
I recently had to send a psd file to a printer because
my Mac was dead. I removed the storage drive and
salvaged the file but was unable to convert to TIFF
due to the hardware problems I was having.
I explained to the printer that the file was a psd and
told him "the design work is done it just needs
converting" (word for word). He said he would
look at
it and I told him to call me if there were any
problems.
There were no phone calls so I assumed everything had
gone OK. Anyway, turns out he converted the file to a
TIFF but didn't convert to CMYK. I needed to use some
lighting effects in PS and had set up in Adobe 98.
Needless the say the prints turned out bad! They have
refused to reprint and want payment for the job.
Who is at fault here?
Alain Corf
________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:47:06 -0400
From: Preston Earle
Subject: Re: Who's at fault?
What sort of print job (offset, ink-jet, digital,
other)? What sort of color proof? If no color proof, why not? (One of the
purposes of a color proof is to catch errors like this, isn't it?.) What
about some compromise on the reprint, like you pay for materials and he
provides the labor, etc. or you pay for the cost of the reprint but the he
issues you a credit against future business (at say $.10 to $.20 on the
dollar) for the cost of the reprint such that he keeps a customer and you
ultimately get your reprint for free?
Preston Earle
________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:18:14 -0700
From: Jono Moore
Subject: Re: Who's at fault?
You should have signed off a proof. If you told the
printer to go ahead and print without a proof then you are kinda stuck.
If the picture looked obviously bad then I would
question the printer on why someone didn't mention the picture looked bad.
But if the picture looked ok, they wouldn't know what it is supposed to
look like.
As Preston mentioned in his message you may be able to
work some kind of deal on a reprint.
It's going to depend on how big a print job it is and
how much the printer wants to keep your business.
--
Jono Moore
udoprinting.com
________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 23:47:19 -0400
From: Terry Kruska
Subject: Re: Who's at fault?
Sorry but you are. While a good printer probably
would have anticipated problems and contacted you. They simply followed
your instructions.
________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 08:12:26 -0500
From: Henry Segalini
Subject: Who's at Fault?
We are offset lithographers and our customers'
expectation levels vary widely.
We have one (repeat "one") customer who
wants to save money and doesn't get a proof. However, what they get
(final product) is what they get and they pay for it. No discussion.
Running a job without a proof is so abnormal for us
that I (upper management) sometimes have to intervene, despite written
instructions on the job ticket, to assure the press crews that it is
OK to proceed without a proof.
So, your verbal instructions are worth the paper on
which they are printed.
Henry Segalini
St. Louis MO USA
________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:43:38 EDT
From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Re: Who's at fault?
Alain writes,
There were no phone calls so I assumed everything had
gone OK. Anyway,
turns out he converted the file to a TIFF but didn't
convert to CMYK. I needed to
use some lighting effects in PS and had set up in
Adobe 98. Needless the say
the prints turned out bad! They have refused to
reprint and want payment for
the job. Who is at fault here?
I would have to agree with others who have posted,
that the blame is primarily yours although the printer shares some of it.
This scenario has played itself out several times on
this list and dozens on others. The culprit is invariably Adobe RGB.
I don't favor that RGB definition anyway, but that's beside the
point. Anyone who uses Adobe RGB absolutely has to take the responsibility
to make sure that the next person knows, because if the next person doesn't
know and doesn't take action it will be a flat, washed-out disaster. With
other RGB definitions, the result wouldn't be nearly as bad.
We were first faced with this issue in, I think, 1999,
when Richard Kenward was victimized by a somewhat similar turn of events.
At that time there were some souls who thought that embedded profiling
might catch on as a workflow, so some people blamed the service provider.
Since then, the consensus on the list has been that most printers don't
even know what an embedded profile is because they've set up their systems
to ignore them completely. Hence, those who've experienced the
problem have found little sympathy here, because regardless of whether
printers *should* respect the Adobe RGB setting, the fact is they *don't*,
and people who expect that they will must accept the blame for the
inevitable result.
Dan Margulis
________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:24:27 -0400
From: John Castronovo
Subject: Re: Who's at fault?
Wait a second guys. Are we to understand that the
printer sent the RGB file to press without converting to CMYK at all, or
did the conversion turn out poorly because the profile was ignored?
john castronovo
tech photo & imaging
________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:59:49 +0100 (BST)
From: Alain Corf
Subject: Re: Who's at fault?
--- John Castronovo wrote:
Wait a second guys. Are we to understand that the
printer sent the RGB file
to press without converting to CMYK at all, or did the
conversion turn out
poorly because the profile was ignored?
Yes, the printer sent the RGB file to press without
converting to CMYK at all.
I have now created a confirmation form to be sent out
with my artwork which includes space for "special instructions".
The form will be signed and faxed back to me so there can be no confusion
about instructions.
Best regards,
Alain Corf
________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 01:00:02 +0100
From: Martin Orpen
Subject: Re: Who's at fault?
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:43:38 EDT, Dan Margulis wrote:
I would have to agree with others who have posted,
that the blame is
primarily yours although the printer shares some of
it.
Interesting logic...
The printer has been contracted to produce a piece of
work. As part of the contract he has also *chosen* to accept:
1. An RGB file
2. A PSD file that was not ready for print
3. Data from a faulty computer
These are BIG warning signs to anybody who is prepared
to give the project a millisecond of thought. Each of these points requires
time (and therefore money) to deal with.
Accepting the job without agreeing additional fees
would be unprofessional. Accepting the job without the expertise to deal
with these issues would also be unprofessional.
But they did accept the job. And then they *allegedly*
screwed it up.
The printer needs opprobrium not a sympathetic, minor
*share* of the blame.
Hence, those who've experienced the problem have found
little sympathy here, because
regardless of whether printers *should* respect the
Adobe RGB setting, the fact is they
*don't*, and people who expect that they will must
accept the blame for the
inevitable result.
If the printer does not have the expertise to handle
the RGB data then they should *not* accept RGB data.
They had choices here: honour the profile, use their
expertise to apply something better, call the client and ask them what to
do - or ignore everything and screw it up.
The actual RGB space used is of no consequence
whatsoever. Failure to respect an RGB profile means that the printer is
*choosing* to *reinterpret* the image data.
Taking on all of this responsibility and then failing
to get the client to sign off a proof before committing the job to press is
an exceptionally unprofessional thing to do.
I see no reason for the commissioner of the work to
accept responsibility for such unprofessional conduct from a supplier*.
If the printer will only accept plates, then you are
being billed only for their press time and expertise at keeping the press
running to acceptable standards. If they accept RGB PSD data then, you are
being billed for their image manipulation, colour management, page layout,
prepress and press expertise. If it ain't up to scratch then don't pay for
it.
*Apart from the fact that both have opted to remove
prepress professionals from the production process and therefore get
exactly what they deserve...
--
Martin Orpen
Idea Digital Imaging Ltd -- The Image Specialists
http://www.idea-digital.com
________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:40:13 -0400
From: John Castronovo
Subject: Re: Who's at fault?
Well, then he's an idiot or asleep at the wheel,
especially since you told him that the file needed conversion. Something
like this should be more than obvious on several levels in the work flow
without you even having to say anything. It's almost as if he wanted your
job to fail.
I'd 'politely' request that he take advantage of his
errors and emissions insurance policy to cover the cost of reprinting the
job at his expense. A law suit would get you at least half the money back
for sure, but it's probably not worth going through the aggravation of the
legal mill.
john castronovo
tech photo & imaging
________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 08:44:02 -0400
From: Lee Clawson
Subject: Re: Who's at fault?
In our studio if I say "all design work is
done" that means I signed off.
Ask for a proof before making (another) special
instruction form.
Lee
________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 21:43:25 -0700
From: Stuart Larson
Subject: Re: Who's at fault?
Who is at fault here?
This is a tough one, and the answer is,
predictably...you probably both are to some extent. I've been on both sides
of the coin, as co-owner of a design company and as a prepress guy for the
last 13 years.
The printer should have a clearly defined policy of
having clients sign off on proofs. They should also generate a proof that
would be of good enough quality for you to feel comfortable signing off on
it, and they should then be responsible for matching that proof. If you
have any doubts or misgivings, you should ask for a press check to be sure
you are satisfied before the job is run.
There isn't quite enough information in your post for
us to know everything. Is this a printer that you've worked with before?
Were your expectations realistic; were they based on past experience with
this particular printer?
What you told him ("it just needs
converting") could be interpreted many different ways. Converted from
one color space to another? From one mode to another? From one file type to
another? Obviously that's where the breakdown in communication occurred.
My expectation as a client, and what I do in practice
as a service provider, is to call with any concerns to make sure what
occurred with your job doesn't happen. It's all about expectations; color
is subjective. What is acceptable to one client may not be to another--many
clients are very happy with the old "pleasing color". Did you
expect him to know what you wanted? Did he think he knew what you wanted?
Or do you think he just didn't care enough or didn't have the expertise?
Did you abdicate your control by agreeing somehow to bypass the proofing
stage? I think these questions need to be answered before a conclusion can
be drawn.
Bottom line is...if there wasn't a proof for him to
match so he knew what you wanted, you can't fault him. If he didn't match
the proof to your satisfaction, contact PIA (if he's a member)--they have
arbitration services, so maybe you can get some relief there. If it's just
a lousy looking job that you think he shouldn't have run looking that way,
stand your ground. And find another printer.
As a printer, it doesn't do us any good if clients
aren't happy. We eat jobs occasionally that we don't feel are our fault
because it's good customer service...and good business in the long run.
There have been a few angry, or at least indignant,
responses assigning responsibility to the printer, but the client does have
responsibility in the workflow as well. Not every printer uses color
management and many don't know how to handle profiles. Unfortunately, there
isn't a clear or published standard--yet--regarding this. People using
color management should know this as reality in the industry, and as a
practical matter should probably assume the worst. It usually happens.
________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 08:26:21 -0500
From: Dan Tesch
Subject: Re: Who's at fault?
Oh, come on. I have been watching this thread for a
while now and wanted several times to chime in but this is it - to suggest
legal action - give me a break!
THE GUY DID NOT SEE A PROOF - TIS BOTH THEIR FAULTS!
CLIENT FOR NOT ASKING, PRINTER FOR NOT INSISTING!
Let them both learn a lesson and go on - shame on you
for suggesting legal action - and it is errors and omissions, not
emissions.
I'd 'politely' request that he take advantage of his
errors and emissions
insurance policy to cover the cost of reprinting the
job at his expense. A
law suit would get you at least half the money back
for sure, but it's
probably not worth going through the aggravation of
the legal mill.
john castronovo
________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 09:47:58 -0400
From: John Rawlins
Subject: Re: Who's at fault?
Martin Orpen wrote:
The printer has been contracted to produce a piece of
work. As part of the
contract he has also *chosen* to accept: 1. An RGB
file 2. A PSD file that
was not ready for print 3. Data from a faulty computer
Accepting the job without agreeing additional fees
would be unprofessional.
Accepting the job without the expertise to deal with
these issues would
also be unprofessional.
If the printer does not have the expertise to handle
the RGB data then
they should *not* accept RGB data.
I see no reason for the commissioner of the work to
accept responsibility
for such unprofessional conduct from a supplier*.
...If it ain't up to scratch then don't pay for it.
Well... &$?!!*@!!, I agree with NONE of
this. If a designer sends an RGB file with clear instructions to convert to
CMYK, and the printers fails to do so, you have a legitimate complaint.
If you send a file with vague instructions to print it with no proof,
end of story, you take what you get.
Additionally, there could be more to this story than
we are being told. We get very few jobs saying "print my photoshop
file". More than likely (just surmising here) it was an RGB image
placed into some other layout program. When it was ripped, the RIP made its
own conversion to CMYK, hence color that the creator was not happy with.
Most RIPS do a "fair" CMYK conversion at best, since we all agree
that is not the place it should be done. As a printer, we don't take a job
apart piece by piece looking for RGB files, unless we are told to do so. I
could have the RIP stop, and not proceed converting and RGB image, but we
don't. It's only a problem if the client catches a color problem, IN THE
PROOF, that we, or they go back and fix it.
IMHO, this is a clear example of someone wanting the
printer to pay for a rookie's error. Most of the files we receive are
clean, professionally prepared and rarely require any extra desktop time.
We also get of lot of junk thrown at us that we are asked to, and do fix.
Then there are the files from the "experts" that think they know
everything. These are the ones that have the most problems, complaints, and
don't want to pay for something. I had one tell me the other day that
"he had been doing this for 2 years" and knew what he was doing.
I didn't even respond.
John Rawlins
________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:34:19 +0100 (BST)
From: Alain Corf
Subject: Re: Re: Who's at fault?
John Rawlins wrote:
IMHO, this is a clear example of someone wanting the
printer to pay for a rookie's error.
On this particular occasion I had no choice but to
give the printer an RGB PSD for reasons mentioned earlier in the thread.
The images I normally send out are ready to go to press, hence the
instruction to convert given to the printer.
I did not give the printer an RGB file thinking it
would print OK on press! There was a comminication breakdown.
Alain "The Rookie" Corf
________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:37:12 -0500
From: Al MacDonald
Subject: Re: Who's at fault?
Point, Match & Set!
Dan Tesch is absolutely correct and his point is well
said.
Both are at fault.
There is far too much needless legal action taken in
this country.
Blame can not fall to either party in this case.
Accept responsibility, resolve it & move on.
But, also let it be a lesson - send good files with a
proof or take your chances!
--
Al MacDonald
Shaughnessy MacDonald, Inc.
Elk Grove Village, IL 60007
________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:45:02 -0400
From: Michael O'Connor
Subject: Re: Who's at fault?
It would be nice to know who initiated the
communication cited, and whether there was ever any mention, by anyone,
that the file was RGB.
It seems from the description of the communication
that you were more concerned with the format conversion than the color
conversion, leading the printer to associate the problems he was to call
about with the format conversion.
Unless it was a very unprofessional shop I can't
believe that RGB wasn't mentioned. In my experience, even shops that have
established RGB workflows internally want CMYK files when supplied, so
without any other specifics I would tend to think that somewhere in the
communication you'd said something to the effect that "rgb will be
fine", and maybe, "I do it all the time".
That there's no mention of asking to be provided a
proof also seems telling, I certainly would never want to go to press with
anything I cared at all about without seeing a proof I could trust or, at
the very least, knowing the workflow intimately.
From the surrounding circumstances its reasonable to
assume your hardware problems had you wait past the last minute, having the
job become a rush. If that's true, your priorities would now look to have
been time and file format.
With the provided information, I have a hard time
seeing the developing situation as one in which the printer would be likely
to have any real blame.
Michael O'Connor
________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:14:18 -0400
From: "fred"
Subject: Re: Re: Who's at fault?
As someone who is a printer
and also usually just reads this list for the valuable information that
appears here, I wanted to give some observations. It seems to me that there
is not enough information here to properly decide the issue, however,
having been in this business since 1981 and having been involved in digital
workflows since the late '80s some things are usually true in printing.
A customer who gives you a
job based on no proofs in the quote, I assume no proofs in the quote
because the originator of this thread was not surprised that he was not
signing any proofs, means that the quality expectations of this project are
usually very low. Any mid to high level quality project would never be
quoted without proofs, in our case these include a final trimmed proof and
a full color contract proof. Furthermore, most printers will not even quote
any job, regardless of quality level without proofs being part of the
quote. It is only when a customer tells us directly that they do not want
to pay for proofing do we even consider it, and then only after the
designer signs a disclaimer that they maintain sole responsibility for
content and color. All we do at that point is RIP the file and print to
SWOP ranges for color. The type of work that we do in this category is
usually low-end direct mail crap that gets tossed out before making it into
most people's homes (thank god for our disposable society providing us this
employment).
Having said all that, our shop would probably reprint
the job for this customer at paper cost only or possibly no cost if we felt
we could salvage the relationship and move forward together as buyer and
vendor. As a printer I would not have allowed this job to process through
my shop without a proof once I knew the nature of the files I received. Our
goal is to print your project and make you happy with the result, in this
case that is not possible without first showing a proof. If the customer
refused a proof at this point, I would insist they sign a waiver removing
responsibility for quality. If I felt we would have a long relationship
with this customer, as I want with all our customers, I would probably
offer this proof free or reduced cost to show the importance of the proof,
and our ability to match these proofs.
Thanks for letting me rant a little, I hope I did not
offend anyone with these comments I just wanted to express a viewpoint from
a vendor as opposed to a buyer of printing.
Thank you,
Fred Gamber
MagnaniMedia
________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:39:00 -0400
From: John Romano
Subject: Re: Re: Who's at fault?
Printer didnt have OKd proofs and client didnt request
to see a proof knowing there would be a RGB to CMYK conversion.
Both are incredibly stupid acts on both behalfs.
So your mac went dowm and you had to send the file
RGB, hogwash you could have done your own conversion to a standard CMYK
space on any mac and you would have been better off.
The printer could have done a flightcheck to see if
there were RGBs before assembly.
So many excuses for this but it comes down to seeing
proofs, thats what there for. To catch stupid mistakes, Nothing goes to
plate here without an CUSTOMER OKd proof.This eliminates most stupidity.
John
________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:03:55 -0700
From: Ray Maxwell
Subject: RE: Re: Who's at fault?
Imagine the following:
A person sends a sketch of a house to a builder.
The sketch has dimensions in "units". The designer
does not specify whether the units are metric or English. A unit is
an arbitrary length chosen by the designer. The sketch has no
materials specified. The builder does not talk with the person
sending the sketch. The builder builds the house facing the wrong way
on the lot. The builder builds the house out of very weak materials.
The door is so low the person cannot enter the house. The first
wind that comes along blows the house down.
Whose fault is this?
When we change the context to another industry this
whole thing sounds bizarre. But this is the current state of the art
in the printing industry. We do this business by high craft and art.
Every job is custom. We have not matured to a level where we
use manufacturing methods that were developed more than two hundred years
ago. They started building guns with interchangeable parts at that
time. Before that time each gun was hand crafted. Each job was
custom. Each one was done using high craft and art. No two guns were
alike. You could not move a part from one gun to another.
When will the printing industry move to specifying
color on agreed international standards? When will the printing
industry move to tolerance color using agreed upon international standards?
When will we move to an objective way to specify what we want
manufactured? When will we agree on the language of our industry? It
is possible to do this today. The standards exist. The
measurement instruments exist.
"You must send a proof". This tells
the whole story. We have to send a maquette. An artists model.
We cannot just send numbers, because the numbers don't have any
device independent meaning in our industry.
When was the last time you saw a house builder with a
detailed model sitting on the construction site?
We will only change when we adopt manufacturing
methods. We need process control. We need understanding of the
physics of our process at a first principals level. We need standards
for specifying color and specifying the tolerance that is acceptable.
We need to agree on a page description language that covers all of
the results that we need to complete the job.
We all are at fault for using methods that are more
than 200 years out of date!!!
Now, I will wait for all of the replies that will tell
me about the faults with CIELab. I think these faults are small with
respect to the situation described at the beginning of this thread. I
believe that if the designer had a calibrated proofing method in his shop
(softproof or hardcopy) and had sent the data in a standard RGB space and
had ask for the printer to print to a tolerance of delta E of 5, he would
have gotten much closer than he did.
I hope all of us will be willing to spend some time
working on standards committees like SWOP, GRACOL, SNAP, ICC, etc.
OK, I will put my soapbox away now and go back to
getting some work done.
Ray
The opinions expressed here are solely those of the
author and not of the company he works for.
Creo
Ray Maxwell | Senior Color Systems
Engineer, Inkjet Printing
4225 Kincaid Street | Phone (604)
451-2700 ext. 2004
Burnaby, B.C.
Canada V5G 4P5
IMAGINE CREATE BELIEVE
________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:46:02 -0600
From: Chris Murphy
Subject: Re: Who's at fault?
On Sunday, June 29, 2003, at 03:59 PM, Alain
wrote:
Yes, the printer sent the RGB file to press without
converting to CMYK at all.
If that is really true, then the printer is 100% at
fault (again, unless the contract/agreement you signed stipulates otherwise
in a case like this). Relying on built-in, generic, in-RIP color management
to properly separate a job is asking for disaster.
Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (TM)
www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor
________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:07:02 -0600
From: Chris Murphy
Subject: Re: Who's at fault?
On Sunday, June 29, 2003, at 10:43 PM, Stuart
Larson wrote:
Unfortunately, there isn't a
clear or published standard--yet--regarding this.
People using color
management should know this as reality in the
industry, and as a
practical matter should probably assume the worst. It
usually happens.
There are standards committees working on this issue:
CGATS (Committee for Graphic Arts Technologies Standards), and the ICC
which deals pretty much exclusively with the format of profiles.
Also, the various flavors of PDF/X are published
standards and all deal with the color management issue in different ways.
PDF/X-1a is CMYK only, fonts and images must be embedded, and an
OutputIntent specified. The OutputIntent is either an externally referenced
output process (like SWOP/TR001), or an explicitly embedded profile. For
PDF/X-3 is device color and device independent color (each object can be
defined by a profile), fonts and images are to be embedded, and
OutputIntent is to be specified.
Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (TM)
www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor
________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:37:53 -0600
From: Chris Murphy
Subject: Re: Who's at fault?
Who is at fault here?
It's not a good idea for you to approve something for
printing with an agreed upon proof, or agreed upon press behavior. You have
no idea what you're going to get, and if you enter into a contract to
purchase printed product without a proof, or defined press behavior that is
very, very risky business.
For the printer to engage in printing without a proof
is even riskier because he's usually not asking for upfront payment. It's
not reasonable for a printer to acknowledge this is not a prepaid job,
implying you will pay upon satisfaction of delivered product, and then say
you must pay no matter what.
Conclusion: a failure to communicate by both parties.
He probably heard "unless I think looks ugly, print it as is" and
you heard "print it unless I think think it look ugly, otherwise call
me." The sure form of communication is a proof. If you're going to
cheap out on a proof, these are the kinds of things that happen.
Resolution: the fair thing would be for both of you to
come to an agreement that neither of you are totally satisfied with.
Whatever his actual materials cost is, if you were to pay 1/2 of that would
hurt him and hurt you equally and hopefully there would be a lesson
learned. In reality, he's mostly on the hook unless you've signed some kind
of contract/agreement that stipulates otherwise, in cases like this.
Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (TM)
www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor
________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:44:07 -0600
From: Chris Murphy
Subject: Re: Who's at fault?
On Saturday, June 28, 2003, at 11:43 AM, Dan
Margulis wrote:
Since then, the consensus on the list
has been that most printers don't even know what an
embedded profile is
because they've set up their systems to ignore them
completely.
Hence, those who've experienced the problem have found
little sympathy here,
because regardless of whether printers *should*
respect the Adobe RGB setting, the fact is they *don't*, and people who
expect that they will must accept the blame
for the inevitable result.
It's a classic case of walking in a cross walk,
assuming the Mack Truck is going to stop before smearing the pedestrian
onto the pavement for the next two blocks. The customer can be in the
right, and still get creamed. Don't make assumptions. (And that goes for
printers too.)
Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (TM)
www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor
________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:36:43 -0600
From: Chris Murphy
Subject: Re: Re: Who's at fault?
On Monday, June 30, 2003, at 11:03 AM, Ray
Maxwell wrote:
We all are at fault for using methods that are more
than 200 years out
of date!!!
Pretty much, yeah. But even today there are root beers
made in small batches by hand. Regular icky beer too. There will always be
room for truly unique services and products.
Now, I will wait for all of the replies that will tell
me about the faults
with CIELab. I think these faults are small with
respect to the situation
described at the beginning of this thread. I
believe that if the designer
had a calibrated proofing method in his shop
(softproof or hardcopy) and had
sent the data in a standard RGB space and had ask for
the printer to print
to a tolerance of delta E of 5, he would have gotten
much closer than he
did.
This is asking a lot from a printer that apparently
didn't even preflight the job, and ended up submitting it to the whim of
PostScript color management in who knows what RIP doing who knows what kind
of conversion. It might have taken him months to do delta E calculations on
every unique color in a given image.
Also, we should be using delta Ecmc as a minimum.
Delta E76 is really easy to use but it's also really flawed (underestimates
the difference in neutrals and yellows, underestimates in red and blue.)
I've been using delta E2000 lately, which is supposedly even better than
cmc.
Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (TM)
www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor
________________________________________________________________________
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 00:04:05 +0100
From: Martin Orpen
Subject: Re: Who's at fault?
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 09:47:58 -0400, John Rawlins wrote:
Well... &$?!!*@!!, I agree with NONE of
this. If a designer sends an RGB
file with clear instructions to convert to CMYK, and
the printers fails to
do so, you have a legitimate complaint.
Glad we &$?!!*@! agree then.
The client sent an RGB Photoshop file. How are you
going to print that without making two or more conversions to the file?
By choosing to accept this type of data you are
implying that you have the expertise to offer the additional services of
Photoshop work and RGB to CMYK separation.
If you have those expertise then you can usually spot
the stuff which is totally out of gamut and make sure that borderline stuff
is proofed and agreed before committing to a print run.
You don't just run it and then hold out your hand
expecting to be paid.
If you send a file with vague
instructions to print it with no proof, end of story,
you take what you get.
Dan's quoted version of the post didn't mention that
the client had ordered the print job to go ahead *without* a proof -
although the original poster is rather vague on this point.
If he did then that was a stupid thing to do. However,
the supplier should have *insisted* on a proof being produced because of
the dangers associated with accepting RGB PSD data - and the possibility
that they won't get paid if it goes wrong.
Additionally, there could be more to this story than
we are being told.
That's why I used the word *allegedly* in my post.
We get very few jobs saying "print my photoshop
file". More than likely (just
surmising here) it was an RGB image placed into some
other layout program.
When it was ripped, the RIP made its own conversion to
CMYK, hence color
that the creator was not happy with. Most RIPS do a
"fair" CMYK conversion
at best, since we all agree that is not the place it
should be done. As a
printer, we don't take a job apart piece by piece
looking for RGB files,
unless we are told to do so. I could have the RIP
stop, and not proceed
converting and RGB image, but we don't. It's only a
problem if the client
catches a color problem, IN THE PROOF, that we, or
they go back and fix it.
IMHO in-rip separations are crap. And I'm dubious that
you've got a RIP that can handle layered PSD data. RGB data should be
caught during flight checking and the job stopped until the client either
supplies new images or pays you to do the conversion. Proofing the job when
you know it is incorrect is a waste of everyone's time and a waste of your
client's money.
IMHO, this is a clear example of someone wanting the
printer to pay for a
rookie's error. Most of the files we receive are
clean, professionally
prepared and rarely require any extra desktop time. We
also get of lot of
junk thrown at us that we are asked to, and do fix.
Then there are the files
from the "experts" that think they know
everything. These are the ones that
have the most problems, complaints, and don't want to
pay for something. I
had one tell me the other day that "he had been
doing this for 2 years" and
knew what he was doing. I didn't even respond.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this. The only
things that are *clear* from this scenario are that there are plenty of
businesses around that find it easier to proof and print rubbish than to
pick up the phone and talk to a client.
If the guy is both a rookie and having problems with
his system then one might think that:
1. he deserves a little helpful handholding, or
2. deserves being told politely to take his difficult
job elsewhere
Instead, he gets a crap print job, a bill and a bunch
of industry professionals snickering that he deserved everything that he
got.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see this working as a
sustainable business model. And, as I mentioned in my post, as the prepress
industry is disappearing one would assume that printers are going to be
dealing with more and more *rookies* with iffy RGB Photoshop images.
You never know, being a little more helpful might be
advantageous... Or maybe I'm just a pre-press guy who fancies being a
customer relations consultant this week :-)
--
Martin Orpen
Idea Digital Imaging Ltd -- The Image Specialists
http://www.idea-digital.com
________________________________________________________________________
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 00:20:08 -0400
From: John Castronovo
Subject: Re: Who's at fault?
From: "Dan Tesch"
times to chime in but this is it - to suggest legal
action - give me a break!
Hey Dan! Who suggested legal action? I said it was an
unwise thing to consider!
THE GUY DID NOT SEE A PROOF - TIS BOTH THEIR FAULTS!
A printer who runs a job and doesn't look at his
output is a fool and a hack. Bells should've gone off in his head several
times on this one. From the sound of it, the job was a total mess, and now
he wants payment. If it were my shop, we'd have to eat the job because none
of my customers would pay the bill for a crap. On the other hand, if it
were my shop, this kind of thing doesn't happen because we preflight every
image and we either tell the customer what's wrong or we charge to fix it.
Turning out bad work and blaming the customer isn't an option. Especially
when the customer flagged the job with a request for special attention.
CLIENT FOR NOT ASKING, PRINTER FOR NOT INSISTING!
The customer asked for the printer's help. The printer
agreed but didn't follow through.
Let them both learn a lesson and go on - shame on you
for suggesting
legal action - and it is errors and omissions, not
emissions.
Again, who suggested legal action? Sorry for the typo.
I do know better - I've been in this sorry business over 30 years. Should
be sued for my error on omission?
john castronovo
________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:40:08 EDT
From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Re: Re: Who's at fault?
Martin writes,
These are BIG warning signs to anybody who is prepared
to give the project a
millisecond of thought. Each of these points requires
time (and therefore
money) to deal with. Accepting the job without
agreeing additional fees would
be unprofessional. Accepting the job without the
expertise to deal with these
issues would also be unprofessional.
Very correct in principle. In real life, the printer
was confronted with a young, inexperienced client (Alain has given me this
info offline) who had an emergency over which he was no doubt very upset.
The idea that under the circumstances the printer should want to try to
help and not want to charge extra doesn't sound unprofessional to me.
And speaking of principle vs. real-life, permit me to
quote myself, from "Professional Photoshop 6"
"Every few weeks, some color discussion group
features wailing and gnashing of teeth on the part of a user of Adobe RGB
who was foolish enough to pass an RGB file on to a service provider who had
never heard of Adobe RGB and had all color management turned off, thus
guaranteeing a nearly colorless result. The [Conventional Color Management
Wisdom] waxes wroth when this occurs. The service provider is called all
kinds of names, great sympathy is expressed for the victim, other service
providers are warned that resistance is futile, and everyone waits for the
next victim to fall into the trap so that the fun can begin again. The
practical person, however, accepts the world the way it is. For better or
worse most service providers have declined to learn much about this
methodology."
This was written three years ago, by which time it had
become apparent that the idea of honoring embedded profiles from strangers
was going noplace. There was no need to include it in the most recent
edition, because, except in the minds of most most extreme of color
management zealots, the issue is dead--as many posts to the group have
indicated, the topic is so far below the radar screen of most printers that
they couldn't even tell you what a profile is.
It's pointless to argue right or wrong here. The facts
are, far more so even they were in 2000, that if you expect the service
provider to act on an embedded profile, you're asking for what happened to
Alain to happen to you. If it *does* happen, then you can have the great
fun of blaming the service provider on this list or elsewhere. Personally,
I think it's more fun to have the job done right and forget about the
politics.
Dan Margulis
________________________________________________________________________
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 01:09:35 -0400
From: John Castronovo
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Who's at fault?
From: Chris Murphy
It's a classic case of walking in a cross walk,
assuming the Mack Truck
is going to stop before smearing the pedestrian onto
the pavement for
the next two blocks. The customer can be in the right,
and still get
creamed. Don't make assumptions. (And that goes for
printers too.)
Yes, I feel like I'm about to walk out in front of a
truck whenever I deal with a printer too. It shouldn't be that way.
Of course, in this event the dead pedestrian's estate
is entitled to an award for his untimely death. In our case, the client's
file has been "smeared" and the driver of the Mack truck, our
printer, still wants to get paid. Just because most printers don't respect
profiles, it doesn't give them the right to print junk. Shouldn't they at
least look and question if they're not going to go by the rules of the
road?
Then Dan Margulis wrote:
It's pointless to argue right or wrong here. The facts
are, far more so even
they were in 2000, that if you expect the service
provider to act on an
embedded profile, you're asking for what happened to
Alain to happen to you.
But we ARE arguing right and wrong here, aren't we?
Why shouldn't we expect printers to respect profiles when they agree to
accept RGB files? Everyone agrees that none of this would've happened if
the profile had been observed, so why is it right to throw it out?
john castronovo
________________________________________________________________________
From: Loring Palleske
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 09:13:55 -0400
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Who's at fault?
Personally it seems pretty simple to me. The printer
agreed to do the work and accepted a RGB file.
It wasn't reasonably close to customer expectation. I
wouldn't pay (the full amount anyways). Try to work out what is fair
and if he isn't open to finding an equitable solution go elsewhere.
Don't pay dime one until you receive acceptable output.
Regards,
Loring Palleske
Creative Imaging
905.441.2661
________________________________________________________________________
From: Andrew Rodney
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 07:16:41 -0600
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Who's at fault?
on 6/30/03 11:09 PM, john c. wrote:
But we ARE arguing right and wrong here, aren't we?
Why shouldn't we expect
printers to respect profiles when they agree to accept
RGB files? Everyone
agrees that none of this would've happened if the
profile had been observed,
so why is it right to throw it out?
I agree! It1s a shame so many printers heads explode
when they get an RGB file. Worse, so many haven1t a clue how to make a
conversion. If they are going to accept RGB data, they better get hip to
embedded profiles and how to make a good conversion. Otherwise don1t accept
them.
More reason Photographers and the like should take the
conversions out of the hands of these people. They know what color the file
should be better than anyone pushing files though a system, they deserve to
be paid to convert and edit if necessary the file in output space. They are
the new group producing the RGB data anyway (the number of images from high
end CMYK on the fly scanners is dropping like files and in fact film is
becoming a less used media every day, replaced by cameras that only produce
RGB data).
Provide the printer a file in output space and just
have them crank it out. It1s been done this way for years and years in the
photo labs by and large. They don1t open or mess with the files. They are
not qualified to anyway. Pass the numbers to the output device and leave
the data alone. OR if you are going to mess with the data, you better be
dame sure you have a calibrated and profiled display and know how to deal
with embedded profiles. Despite what Dan and company will tell us about the
failure of embedded profiles, the fact remains that if you get a file which
is nothing more than 11s and zero1s and have NO meaning without a profile,
you simply have NO business messing or altering with those numbers unless
you know what they mean. And they have no meaning without a profile. It1s
as simple as that.
Andrew Rodney
http://www.imagingrevue.com
________________________________________________________________________
From: "don reisler "
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 09:23:01 -0400
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Who's at fault?
I may be in a somewhat different situation from most
of you in that I am a buyer of printing services and could not run a press
with a manual.
However, I am in the business of buying things for
resale (rare books) and have been doing that for 35 years. I use the same
process for buying printing as I do for buying books. I try really hard to
work with the seller so that they want to help me; have confidence that I
will be a repeat costumer for a fair (not always the lowest) price, and
that I will not try to get something extra or a bonus every time we do
business. In return, I want them to care that the job be done well rather
than tricking me to some obscure specification that gets them off the hook
legally but is clearly no good.
I have been using the same printer for several years
and most of the press and pre press and driver folks know us and their
service has been wonderful. I pay my bills on time and in full. I have had
many issues, problems, and technical questions over the past many years but
they have been helpful, supportive, and willing to run tests and even send
people to my office (home) to help calibrate. When there have been serious
problems I have not screamed but asked for help and they have sent staff
and management out here and we have gone over press sheets with loups, etc.
to reach an understanding of what I want and what they can do.
The point being, think of your printer as part of your
team not an adversary. On the other hand, if you are the printer, try to
make the client an ally. So much of what I read about this very important
thread sounds like war rather than collaborative efforts. In general, I try
not to buy from adversaries since it ends up working poorly and whenever
there is a problem there is a fight not an attempt to solve it to
everybody's satisfaction. Of course, I want the press people to look at the
run and if it is obviously wrong, then stop and call me. I always give a
24/7 telephone number and try really hard to convince them that I would
rather be called than get a messed up job. I try always to tell folks that
"better is better than quicker."
The impression I get is that the relationship between
printer and printee is wholly adversarial and take no prisoners. Is that
really how it is out there in the world and am I just lucky here in
Virginia?
Don
--
Jo Ann Reisler, Ltd.
Fine Childrens and Illustrated Books
Original Illustrative Art
________________________________________________________________________
From: Martin Orpen
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 14:24:34 +0100
Subject: [colortheory] Re: Who's at fault?
on Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Dan Margulis wrote:
This was written three years ago, by which time it had
become apparent that
the idea of honoring embedded profiles from strangers
was going noplace. There
was no need to include it in the most recent edition,
because, except in the
minds of most most extreme of color management
zealots, the issue is dead--as
many posts to the group have indicated, the topic is
so far below the radar
screen of most printers that they couldn't even tell
you what a profile is.
Dan, I'll make a point of reading all you write on
Photoshop retouching because I have the utmost respect for your skills and
knowledge.
But I take your views on colour management with a
large pinch of salt.
Raw RGB data is meaningless. It's like supplying an
orchestral score without a time signature or any of the above and below
stave instructions that give the music it's feeling and emphasis. Sure, you
can make out the tune - but nobody's going to pay to listen to it.
If you only have one output device and you are the
final destination for the image then you can be in the comfortable position
of printing it and telling the client to screw themselves if they don't
like it.
We don't have that option. We output in RGB and/or
CMYK and then move the data on to other suppliers.
Closed-loop is not an option for us. We wouldn't use
it even if it were because the next supplier in the line will soon spot
that we have adapted the image to suit our favourite device (no matter how
awful it is) and thereby degraded it for anybody else who needs to use the
data.
A simple colour tag means that I see pretty much what
the client saw on their screen and get to use it as a basis for my
separation and enhancements.
Ignoring it means that I have to re-invent the wheel
every time I open a new image. I also needlessly risk getting it wrong and
then wasting time, materials and getting into a needless argument at
billing time.
What is the point?
My feelings are that many suppliers are reluctant to
get into colour management because it requires them to:
1. educate themselves
2. purchase calibration devices
3. maintain strict production controls
Maybe we should meet up at the Heidelberg hall at
DRUPA next year and you can introduce me to the press guys that recommend
operating their presses without colour management?
You claim: "the topic is so far below the radar
screen of most printers that they couldn't even tell you what a profile
is".
So what's new? There are loads of idiots around who
think that owning a good press makes them a good printer. Criticising and
publicising piss-poor printing will get the business moving to people who
can do a better job.
--
Martin Orpen
Idea Digital Imaging Ltd -- The Image Specialists
http://www.idea-digital.com
________________________________________________________________________
From: John Rawlins
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 08:37:14 -0400
Subject: [colortheory] Re: Who's at fault?
I guess since none of us were there as material
witnesses to what exactly was said, or took place. Its one of those cases
of don't get your eye poked out for the finger pointing ordeals. Sounds
like a case for Judge Judy.
And... for all the sayers of "everyone makes
proofs"... not always true. Hard proofs at least. We have some very
high end 4-color real-estate work we do on a weekly basis. Job comes in at
5:00pm, and we're on press by 8:00pm. We run standard densities, and OK the
jobs by the color bars only. The job delivers to the mail house at 8:
00am the next morning. Usually 8 to 12 different card versions, 15 to 25M
per card. There is no time for hard proofs, or time for client approvals.
We make hi-res monitor proofs and go. We put a lot of trust in the file
provider, and they put trust in us. The rules are simple, they are
responsible for supplying CMYK, hi-res, images, bleeds, and limiting fonts
to a pre-approved "pool" of about 50 different fonts. We are
responsible for trapping, ripping the files, and imposing on the forms for
the right card to back up the right card. In over two years of doing this
particular job, on a weekly basis, printing over 1000 different cards, we
have had 2 cards that had to be reprinted. Both due to RGB images, that the
client let slip by, as did we. They paid to have them reprinted. To them,
its far cheaper than the costs of contract proofs on everything, and the
added time to make them, and get them approved. Certainly not recommended
S.O.P. for all everyone, but we do have some clients we can do this with.
John Rawlins
________________________________________________________________________
From: Andrew Rodney
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 08:08:09 -0600
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Re: Who's at fault?
on 7/1/03 7:24 AM, Martin Orpen wrote:
But I take your views on colour management with a
large pinch of salt.
Thanks god Chris and I are not the only one1s on the
list <g>. Off list, that1s a different story.
Raw RGB data is meaningless. It's like supplying an
orchestral score without
a time signature or any of the above and below stave
instructions that give
the music it's feeling and emphasis. Sure, you can
make out the tune - but
nobody's going to pay to listen to it.
It1s like supplying the orchestral sore upside down
and backwards.
The analogy I give to photographers is this. I1m going
to supply you with an unlabeled box of 4x5 film in which you will find a
single sheet of 4x5 film with no notches. Your job is to expose and process
this sheet of film. That1s virtually impossible to do since the user has no
idea if the film is Positive or Neg, or what ISO the film is. User has no
idea how to expose or process the film. Now label the box 3VPS III2 (the
profile) and you can do the job. The label on the box didn1t change the
content of the film one lick. Neither do profiles. But they do provide
critical information.
If you only have one output device and you are the
final destination for the
image then you can be in the comfortable position of
printing it and telling
the client to screw themselves if they don't like it.
You have to remember the background of so many who
don1t understand profiles which is exactly what you describe. It goes back
to that old fashion idea of working by the numbers only. Great if you KNOW
the numbers for the device you plan to print to. And in the old days, that
was a very viable workflow since there were so few devices (some press in
house) that you were going to target. Today that1s simply not viable for a
vast number of people. I want CMYK and RGB numbers from a file to output to
a press, an Epson, a Lightjet, an Iris etc. No one can juggle all the
correct numbers for so many devices. In fact, with the vast number of
images coming from digital cameras and end user scanners in RGB, who can
possibly control the input numbers without profiles?
We don't have that option. We output in RGB and/or
CMYK and then move the
data on to other suppliers.
Yup. And that1s NOT going to change. If anyone thinks
it is, they should also pray for type setting to come back too.
Closed-loop is not an option for us.
You and a huge number of users. And that grows all the
time while closed loop shrinks.
A simple colour tag means that I see pretty much what
the client saw on
their screen and get to use it as a basis for my
separation and
enhancements.
Isn1t that a nice thing! Unless you like to work with
totally ambiguous color that doesn1t appear correct anywhere. For those
people that like control for themselves only and like to keep things closed
loop and behind closed doors, this is scary stuff. For the rest of us, it1s
a wonderful way to work.
Ignoring it means that I have to re-invent the wheel
every time I open a new
image. I also needlessly risk getting it wrong and
then wasting time,
materials and getting into a needless argument at
billing time.
Look, when your job is to produce 2-3 proofs at a
clients expense to nail the color, what you propose is heresy!
1. educate themselves
What, do something different? Shocking.
2. purchase calibration devices
I think that1s a lesser issue since most of these
people have decent budgets (Presses and proofing devices are pretty
expensive. CMS hardware and software is not in within the big picture.
3. maintain strict production controls
Oh boy, that1s a big one!
You claim: "the topic is so far below the radar
screen of most printers that
they couldn't even tell you what a profile is".
You have to listen to this year after year with no
statically data to back it up before you start to ignore this. You hear
such statements as if they are fact but you never get any empirical data
other than what appears to be a feeling or belief. Now, I can tell you that
according to a recent report of the TWGA, 63% of graphic arts users are
Applying Color Management. Did I pull this out of my-you-know what? No,
here's a URL to check out:
http://members.whattheythink.com/news/newslink.cfm?id=
10627
Even if we discount the eye-balling part of the
article, we have to consider the displays are calibrated in some fashion
and that some descriptor of the numbers have to be in place or what all
these guys are seeing is science fiction. The fact that 63& admit to
using color management of some kind is telling in itself.
Even if we say that more users are not using CMS than
are, the report leads me to believe that the scales are turning the other
way, not the opposite as you would believe listening to some non backed-up,
"ear to the ground" opinion.
Andrew Rodney
http://www.imagingrevue.com/
________________________________________________________________________
From: Chris Murphy
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 08:51:29 -0600
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Re: Who's at fault?
On Monday, June 30, 2003, at 08:40 PM, Dan
Margulis wrote:
Very correct in principle. In real life, the printer
was confronted with a
young, inexperienced client (Alain has given me this
info offline) who had an
emergency over which he was no doubt very upset. The
idea that under the
circumstances the printer should want to try to help
and not want to charge extra
doesn't sound unprofessional to me to me.
The printer did not stipulate any requirements to
accepting the file. He accepted the file with the condition that it needed
to be converted. Any monkey or house plant can do: Image>Mode>CMYK
Color, but it takes someone with a certain level of competency slightly
higher than a monkey or house plant to ensure a good separation is being
made. Since he accepted the RGB file "convert to some crappy
CMYK" is inherently not an option, yet this printer took it by
submitting the file to the whim of color management in his RIP.
It was dereliction of duty for him to do this, and
amounts to sabotage of the job. He could have done no worse had he
intentionally or even "accidentally" dragged the whole job
through a fifth color made of dog crap.
It's pointless to argue right or wrong here. The facts
are, far more so even
they were in 2000, that if you expect the service
provider to act on an
embedded profile, you're asking for what happened to
Alain to happen
to you.
You know why? Because there is a culture of
irresponsibility whenever those responsibilities are not clearly defined
and enforced. If a printer were to ignore an embedded font, there would be
a conniption fit on all sides and obviously the printer would be at fault.
If the printer is going to accept RGB files, they are under obligation to
honor an embedded profile. If the embedded profile is wrong for some
strange reason, it's the customer's fault, just like if they'd embedded the
wrong font.
And in Alain's case, it has nothing to do with
embedded profiles. The printer not only ignored the embedded profile, he
assigned and used a totally different profile by sending it off to his RIP
- where the Adobe RGB profile was ignored, and a generic source and
destination were used to convert his job. I don't see how you can blame
this on embedded profiles because it's TOTALLY unrelated.
Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (TM)
www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor
________________________________________________________________________
From: Henry Segalini
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 10:21:34 -0500
Subject: [colortheory] [color theory] - Who's at Fault?
A) One definition of quality is, "Meeting or
exceeding customer expectations". Were the customer expectations
fully communicated and understood?
B) One of the participants in this thread referred to
"rules of the road". Does anyone know where can I get a
copy of these rules? How many people know these rules?
C) I feel sorry for those who believe that their
relationship with their printer must be adversarial. As a printer
since 1959 (starting in that paragon of friendship, NYC), I can assure you
that long-term relationships are not adversarial. I cannot remember
one customer/supplier relationship which has been both long-term and
adversarial. This includes both sub-contractor and customers who have
a wide range of expectations and abilities (but excludes unavoidable
relationships, as with a monopoly like the old Ma Bell).
Henry Segalini
St Louis MO USA
________________________________________________________________________
From: "Annette Murray"
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 11:48:37 -0400
Subject: RE: [colortheory] Re: Who's at fault?
Do you realize how many Photoshop users and prepress
personnel do not know how to use Image Mode Assign and Image Mode Convert?
Do you know how many do not even know it exists?!!?
A simple explanation needs to be developed and widely
distributed on how to use Image Mode Assign and Image Mode Convert.
This would alleviate many of the "who's at fault
issues".
Annette Murray
ANRO Inc.
________________________________________________________________________
From: Dennis Dunbar
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 10:28:09 -0700
Subject: [colortheory] Re: Re: Who's at fault?
Dan wrote:
This was written three years ago, by which time it had
become apparent that
the idea of honoring embedded profiles from strangers
was going noplace. There
was no need to include it in the most recent edition,
because, except in the
minds of most most extreme of color management
zealots, the issue is dead--as
many posts to the group have indicated, the topic is
so far below the radar
screen of most printers that they couldn't even tell
you what a profile is.<<<
I am curious about so