Dan Margulis Applied Color Theory
Sheetfed and Web Profiles
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 10:35:58 EST
From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
Before I left for Asia, Ric Cohn wrote,
I just tried this with a file of mine. It is definitely
true that if I
take a file converted with a custom Photoshop CMYK
(where I don’t
change the ink definitions) and then do an assign
profile for Swop(V2)
that the near neutrals and highlights all preview as
much bluer. I’d
also say that this blueness is not (with my limited
experience) what I
would expect if I sent this file to most printers.
That’s correct. The CMYK file that was being
discussed to start this thread has been printed by at least ten different
printers in at least five different countries. If you view the CMYK file on
*any* reasonably calibrated monitor with the v.2 profile loaded, it looks
way bluer than *any* of the actual print results.
The fact that the profile is defective in this area is
no great surprise. Pastel colors are extremely difficult in CMYK. Many
machine-generated profiles overstate how bright they are. If you compare a
file full of pastel colors with the SWOP v.2 profile vs. a default Custom
CMYK one, the Custom CMYK will be more accurate.
Of course, there are other types of image in which the
SWOP v.2 profile will do better. Plus, there’s a bright side: since
it overestimates light blues, it will tend to yield warmer-looking seps,
which can be a good thing.
The problem, of course, is that we shouldn’t have
to live with the issue if we don’t want to. If Photoshop would give
us a way to edit the profile, we could leave it alone if the extra blue
doesn’t bother us and eliminate it easily if it does. Until that
editing capability comes, these prepackaged profiles are not an option for
quality-oriented CMYK users.
Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 09:57:12 -0700
From: Andrew Rodney
Subject: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
on 11/3/04 8:35 AM, Dan Margulis wrote:
The problem, of course, is that we shouldn’t have
to live with the issue if
we don’t want to. If Photoshop would give us a
way to edit the profile, we
could leave it alone if the extra blue doesn’t
bother us and eliminate it easily if it does.
I agree with you but I don1t see that ever happening.
Until that editing capability comes, these
prepackaged profiles are
not an option for quality-oriented CMYK users.
There are third party products that can do this. While
I1d love to see that in Photoshop, the option to edit profiles exists.
Kodak is releasing it1s excellent profile editor once again that runs IN
Photoshop.
Prepackages profiles that ARE created for the output in
mind will work fine. Prepackages profiles that are not will work poorly.
This isn1t anything earth shatteringly new. There are all kinds of areas
Photoshop can1t deal with in this realm; device links, n-color profiles
(profiles that have more then four channels). Be nice if Photoshop could do
this, it can1t. Still no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.
There are solutions out there.
Andrew Rodney
http://digitaldog.net
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 15:23:00 -0500
From: Ric Cohn
Subject: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
Dan-
Thanks for the response. I think the issue is that many
images (perhaps even all of Adobe’s original test images) would
probably look fine converted with this profile.
The image I looked at was a cool silver colored piece
of electronics. If the actual typical press reproduction really varies that
much from how the file previews I don’t see how this can be
considered a good-enough profile. Dan’s explanation helps me
understand that many/most files would not look that different in the
preview and that many typical images would not be adversely affected on
press by some added yellow, but if I had adjusted my file to correct from
the preview and then ran it on a typical yellowish-white press stock, a
silvery piece of stereo equipment would look like piss!
I also think that Adobe should beef up the CMYK engine
a bit. I don’t agree that CMYK output is so unusual a task for
Photoshop that it’s users should be expected to go to a 3rd party
product to do it correctly. I know Andrew Rodney is an expert in using
these programs, but I really don’t know where to begin in evaluating
the pro’s and con’s and then going through the learning curve
to use the specialized solutions- some of which cost more than Photoshop!
Ric Cohn
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 14:38:02 -0700
From: Andrew Rodney
Subject: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
on 11/3/04 1:23 PM, Ric Cohn wrote:
I know Andrew Rodney is an expert in using these
programs,
but I really don’t know where to begin in
evaluating the pro’s and
con’s and then going through the learning
curve to use the specialized
solutions- some of which cost more than
Photoshop!
You shouldn1t have to. If service providers would
provide service (give you the right profiles for good conversions in the
first place) you wouldn1t have to jump through all these hoops. Photoshop
has the capabilities of producing fine conversions. Just give it the right
recipe. It1s not however going to provide a means of building that from
scratch (you1d need a pretty expensive Spectrophotometer to do the job any
justice). As for the old and in many cases scary Classic CMYK engine, I
suspect Adobe would love to make it disappear but will not anytime soon.
But don1t expect it to be beefed up either. It1s got the same capabilities
it1s had since day one with plenty of potential hurt-me buttons.
Once you have a good conversion recipe, making this
work is a simple as picking 3Mode Change-CMYK2. Getting that recipe is the
hard part. If printers would standardize or provide recipes for their
non-standard conversions, this would all be a lot less complicated for most
users.
Andrew Rodney
http://digitaldog.net/
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:48:02 -0500
From: Ric Cohn
Subject: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles.
I’m sure I’m showing my ignorance, but what
the heck— I’ve done it before... I believe that
printer’s should either print to recognized standards (and not just
say they do) or, better yet, supply profiles for their true printing
conditions. However, real world, I don’t see this happening that fast
for the majority of printers. I would love to just work with those that do,
but reality is often otherwise.
I don’t understand why there can’t be some
way to see what the expected conditions of an icc profile like the
Photoshop SWOP V2 webcoated are and make small changes in the expectations.
It seems to me the most frequent changes one wishes to make are in dot
gain, total ink and GCR amount. As long as Photoshop can’t edit these
profiles why can’t a family of icc profile’s at least be
supplied with reasonable variations in these variables?
Thanks,
Ric Cohn
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 16:55:04 -0000
From: “John William Lund”
Subject: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
Ric Cohn wrote:
It seems to me the most
frequent changes one wishes to make are in dot
gain, total ink and GCR
amount. As long as Photoshop can’t edit
these profiles why can’t a
family of icc profile’s at least be
supplied with reasonable variations
in these variables?
— Steve Upton has done just that, generated
a series of output profiles based on the TR001 data set, with varying
Kgen & total inks. Look around his website, CHROMix.com, for a
link to download them.
John
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 00:09:50 -0800
From: “Darren Bernaerdt”
Subject: RE: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
John,
The “Profile Central” section of the
chromix.com site has been down for a “server upgrade” for a
long time. Is there another source for these profiles that you are aware
of?
Darren Bernaerdt
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 12:37:09 -0000
From: Stephen Marsh
Subject: Profile Variations
It would be good if someone could make a range of GCR
and Ink Limit profiles for public distribution from published data for
common conditions such as TR001, Euro etc.
The Chromix TR001 profiles are a good example, as they
offer a range of GCR and UCR and various ink limits - but no heavy GCR. My
only real issue is that the perceptual intent has a contrast kick in it
which departs from the original. With low key images this can be good, in
an artistic sense. I like the Adobe v2 profiles in that the perceptual
intent is tame in that it does not overly affect in-gamut colours with
special secret sauce. There are both good and bad examples of freely
available press profiles, what is considered good and bad often depends on
the user and their expectations and setting.
Stephen Marsh.
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 15:10:24 -0000
From: “John William Lund”
Subject: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
—- “Darren Bernaerdt”
wrote:
The “Profile Central” section of the
chromix.com site has been down for a
“server upgrade” for a long time. Is
there another source for these profiles
that you are aware of?
— Hmmm, you’re right. Sorry, I
don’t have another source.
Maybe email CHROMix? Steve may check this list from
time to time, but I know he’s quite busy trying to finish ColorThink
Pro...
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 17:23:47 -0800
From: “John Feld”
Subject: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
As has been said previously, there seems to be an
amazing lack of awareness of about accurate color in the industry as
a whole. Many of the nationwide printers have people who are very
knowledgeable about color, but they are not in every plant, and on a more
local level it is often extremely hard to find a shop that can even supply
profiles, let alone having workable ones. When they are supplied, the
prepress people tend to accept it as gospel, and don’t usually even
give more than a cursory look at jobs as they go through. Dan talks of
reducing tweaking to a minimum. In my experience tweaking is a rarity.
All the theory in the world is no good if it is not
used in the trenches. And for the general design house, print buyer and the
end customer this is a shadow world. Hence Newsweek can have that orange
blob for a sun. How can we get even the basics to be understood and
appreciated out in the real world? Previously the prepress hardware
suppliers (Scitex, Hell, Agfa) included training with their RIPs and
imagesetters, which included some color theory and real-world practicality.
Now it seems that 99% of the people doing prepress are less well educated.
John
_________________________
John Feld
PC Graphics Report
www.pcgraphicsreport.com
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 22:32:21 -0500
From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Re: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
John Feld writes,
How can we get even the basics to be understood and
appreciated out in the
real world? Previously the prepress hardware suppliers
(Scitex, Hell, Agfa)
included training with their RIPs and imagesetters,
which included some
color theory and real-world practicality. Now it seems
that 99% of the
people doing prepress are less well educated.
It may seem that way, but it isn’t true. It
isn’t directly comparable because so many beginners have entered the
field because it has become so cheap to get a quality digicam and a home
office setup capable of professional-level image processing. If you exclude
these people, and speak only of the kind of folks who are serious enough
about the field that they would probably be involved in it even without
today’s temptations, then the skill set is considerably better, IMHO,
not worse.
I just finished teaching an advanced color theory class
where we discussed this very point. The students were highly skilled, and
as it happened many were from operations that accept input from a variety
of sources. I put up for discussion the question of whether original images
are better or worse than they were two years ago, and got a unanimous
response, with which I concur, namely: the average original image is worse,
however the average original image supplied by a *professional
photographer* is better.
Similarly, in my own classes, the average attendee is
considerably more sophisticated than persons of similar experience would
have been only a few years ago. Those people who are serious about imaging
know more about the subject than ever, and we shouldn’t blind
ourselves to this fact by considering all the johnny-come-latelys.
Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 18:35:54 -0500
From: Bob Johnson
Subject: Re: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
On 11/9/04 10:32 PM, “Dan Margulis” wrote:
It may seem that way, but it isn’t true. It
isn’t directly comparable because
so many beginners have entered the field because it has
become so cheap to get
a quality digicam and a home office setup capable of
professional-level image
processing. If you exclude these people, and speak only
of the kind of folks
who are serious enough about the field that they would
probably be involved in
it even without today’s temptations, then the
skill set is considerably
better, IMHO, not worse.
Dan
From a different side:
I work for a large pre-press organization, and
we’re finding the talent pool to be very shallow.
The “professional photographer”, and I have
many friends in that trade, is certainly providing better files than you
would get from all but the finest ‘chromes and drum scanner. Armed
with your classes and books, they are ahead of most pre-press operators.
Our department averages about 15 years experience. We have a very high end
digital proofer, Gretag Spectrolino, all the toys. Two of us know how to
use them and none of the other strippers, color guys, etc have a clue, or
even care to know.
We are training ad agencies on Adobe CS programs, and
our own guys barely can find their way thru them. First thing most of the
strippers do is export to Ill 8.
We provide press profiling, but most of the clients
refuse because they can’t print the same way twice and know that we
will disallow their complaints when we tell them the job was made for the
profile and they can’t hold their press in tolerance.
We just installed a big “application” from
one of the last big pre-press companys. No one wants to use it because
it’s new and we don’t have time for mistakes. Customers demand
shorter turnaround and lower prices. We provide a web site for customers to
view and approve their jobs. The customer calls in wanting to know when
they can have delivery and we tell them “as soon as you approve the
job, we’ll go ahead”. They tell us they don’t have time
to look at a web site, it’s just a copy change anyway, so
what’s the big deal?
Customer Service people are mere order takers. They
have NO knowledge of the trade, wouldn’t know Magenta from PMS 485.
We are lucky that they are good order takers, and seem to have a high
tolerence for pain, as we make them call the customer to ask why stripping
only has CMYK files for an 8 color job.
We have tried to hire “pre-press people” to
little avail. The rare case of a ‘designer’ who wants to
“get under the hood” usually fails. The young kids worked on
the college newspaper, so they have a feel for Quark, but have no idea what
happened after they pressed the print button.
Hate to sound so bad, but it’s pretty grim on the
production side. Wages are stagnant if you’re lucky, the
‘old-timers’ have all retired, and customers think that
they’re paying too much unless it’s free. One customer asked
for a 2% move in the magenta highlite, and then didn’t want to pay
for it because he couldn’t see much of a difference.
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:34:33 -0500
From: Terry Wyse
Subject: Re: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
I’d have to agree with John Feld and Bob Johnson.
As a color management consultant, I have the opportunity to visit quite a
number of prepress/print shops across the country and I really do think the
overall knowledge level has dropped in the past 10 years or so. I think one
of the key reasons is lack of training. Back in my production days in the
80’s and 90’s, my employers were pretty good about sending me
off to whatever training class (usually sponsored by dealers and vendors) I
happen to have an interest in (imagine today being sent off for TWO WEEKS
of scanner training!). Now a days, there’s very little training going
on due in large part, I think, to the myth that the “computer”
has made learning all these applications and skills so much easier. I would
dare say that most folks application skill levels have stagnated to what
they were doing about 3-4 versions ago and they’ve been playing
catch-up ever since.
Dan, your impression of higher skill levels evidenced
by the folks attending your classes is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
OF COURSE they have better skills because either they personally or their
employers has seen that they’re getting the training/education they
need. I would also be real curious what percentage of your students are
in-the-trenches prepress folks as opposed to pure creative types,
photographers and image editing specialists.
I don’t want you to take this wrong, but
there’s not a whole lot of your techniques that can be used in a pure
prepress production environment. Not because they AREN’T useful or
productive, but the prepress person today is rarely allowed the opportunity
to use these advanced techniques, even if they knew how to use them. Much
of this has to do with today’s economics. These garage designers and
photographers that think they know perfectly well how to prepare a job for
a commercial printer generally aren’t willing to pay for the prepress
folks to fix these jobs. So the prepress person’s “job”
today is to simply shuffle these ill-prepared files through their
production RIPing system and hope for the best. The tighter turn-arounds
today compared to even a few years ago have made it virtually impossible to
turn out a really good print job in the time required. I personally think
that today’s technology (better apps, better color management tools,
etc.) has raised the quality of the top few percent of printing jobs but I
think the vast majority of jobs that are in the middle to lower end have
indirectly suffered as a result of technology.
In the color management world that I live in, I think
it’s a crime (sort of) that photographers are the ones leading the
way towards adaption of an ICC-based workflow or “image
handling”. Personally, I’d like to see the prepress and print
shops of the world leading the way because they stand to benefit the most
both for their internal production control and as a way to better serve
their customers. In a way, I sort of pity photographers because their
trying to push a technology to two groups that don’t seem to want to
deal with it. One group, ad agencies and designers, resists because they
don’t understand the technology and why they NOW need to be concerned
with something they’ve never had to deal with before and the other
group, prepress/print types, resists because they generally don’t
have the time or resources to educate their operators given the quick turn
of today’s jobs. I chalk this up mostly to ignorance and lack of
vision and NOT to some sort of resounding rejection of ICC color management
technology. Reminds me of my children at the dinner table when
they’re SURE they won’t like something on the table when we
know they’ve never even TRIED it yet. More often than not, we make
them try it (we’re bad parents!) and, whatta ya know, they actually
kind of like it!
Quote for today:
“You think education is expensive? Try
ignorance.”
Terry
_____________________________
WyseConsul
Color Management Consulting
terry@wyseconsul.com
704.843.0858
http://www.colormanagementgroup.com
http://www.wyseconsul.com (coming soon)
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:34:49 -0600
From: Jim Bean
Subject: the problem is not sheetfed vs web coated
hello terry, I am one of those criminal photographers
that endured dan’s classes.. from my experience.. there were more
than a few ‘real world-in the trenches” types in my
groups. The association of skill sets with education hasn’t changed
much over the years.. In today’s printing industry two weeks to go to
any school would seem excessive/unnecessary... if you are truly interested
in scanning/pre-press or whatever the topic.. you would make a reasonable
effort to expand your skill set through a variety of methods..
Personally, I’d like to see the prepress and
print shops of the world leading the way
because they stand to benefit the most both for their
internal production
control and as a way to better serve their customers.
My personal experiences with a small cross section of
the printing industry throughout the US indicates that those people in
prepress couldn’t lead a horse to water.. Their own staff does
understand the basics.. you are correct.. they basically drag/drop the
files into a RIP and roll the dice.. the people I have found that
consistently deliver in an otherwise tough environment are the front line
graphics people in many of the medium sized newspapers.. those people get
more than their ‘fair share’ of totally bizarre files and on a
daily basis deliver... I think this ability to ‘get it done” is
directly associated with ‘working in those trenches’.. graphics
people/photographers/people that write many of the HOW TO books all suffer
from narrow viewpoints...I have had a little experience with hiring high
end graphics people.. one characteristic is: They all know it all...
why use quark when I can build it in Illustrator.. Too many people simply
will not admit that they don’t know.. and that is where the problems
begin.. rather than ask.. they guess.. When their files go to output..
rather than experiencing the ‘high five’ of a good file.. there
is only the momentary pause that they were shot at and missed... jim bean
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 15:39:08 -0500
From: Terry Wyse
Subject: Re: the problem is not sheetfed vs web coated
Yo Jim,
Understand that I’m not “mad” at
photographers for leading the CM charge. I’ll high-five any group
that takes the ball and runs with it. Besides, I’ve done work for a
few photogs (I’m a closet photographer) that, after I spent a bit of
time with them talking CMYK and color management stuff, I come back later
and they’ll show me something they’re doing that’s one of
those “I wish I’d thought of that!” things. No, I’m
just rather ticked that it’s not “my” group that’s
leading the way but instead holding things back. But hey, basically the
same thing happened with DTP back in the late 80s so why should I be
surprised.
As to your other points: Amen.
Terry
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 18:50:46 -0500
From: Rick McCleary
Subject: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
In the color management world that I live in, I think
it’s a crime
(sort of) that photographers are the ones leading the
way towards
adaption of an ICC-based workflow or “image
handling”.
Boy, is that ever true. I am a photographer
working for large corporations that spend tens of thousands on their annual
report printing. I find myself stuck in the middle - between the
design folks and the printing/pre-press folks. I’m having to
teach both sides. It isn’t easy. And I don’t get
paid for it. The design community suffers from a combination of lack
of time to learn the “new” ways and an old-school arrogance
about their ability to control every aspect of the job (rooted in
20-year-old technology). The printers suffer from the same disease.
It’s like our parents in the early 60’s (I’m dating
myself...) whining about the “new math”.
Personally, I’d
like to see the prepress and print shops of the world
leading the way
because they stand to benefit the most both for their
internal
production control and as a way to better serve their
customers.
Who wouldn’t want to work more efficiently, put
out better work, and make more money? I guarantee that the first
printer in each market to invest the time to learn about techniques like
Bill Aktinson’s high-density printing will make a killing.
Hell, they don’t even need to go that far. How about
employing a simple, short list of best practices regarding color
management?
In a way, I sort of pity photographers because their
trying to push a
technology to two groups that don’t seem to want
to deal with it. One
group, ad agencies and designers, resists because they
don’t understand
the technology and why they NOW need to be concerned
with something
they’ve never had to deal with before and the
other group,
prepress/print types, resists because they generally
don’t have the
time or resources to educate their operators given the
quick turn of
today’s jobs. I chalk this up mostly to ignorance
and lack of vision
and NOT to some sort of resounding rejection of ICC
color management
technology.
This stuff is not brain surgery. It’s not
like trying to explain quantum physics. The problem is a simple one
to solve.
Education is key.
And to learn, one must be motivated. The
motivation is money.
______________________
Rick McCleary Photography
201 Orchard Drive
Purcellville, VA 20132
v 540-338-4895
c 540-454-7180
www.rickmccleary.com
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 18:05:18 EST
From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Re: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
Bob Johnson writes,
I work for a large pre-press organization, and
we’re finding the talent pool
to be very shallow. The “professional
photographer” , and I have many friends
in that trade, is certainly providing better files than
you would get from
all but the finest ‘chromes and drum scanner.
Armed with your classes and books, they are ahead of most pre-press
operators.
The prepress industry hasn’t quite vanished, but
it’s a small fraction of its former size. Since that was where most
of the knowledge about how to make good, printable images resided,
it’s left quite a vacuum, as well as a big business opportunity. Some
photographers have stepped up to the plate, and many small groups of
designers or freelancers have, but the printing and what’s left of
the prepress houses by and large haven’t, so what you say is true.
Unfortunate, because only five or eight years ago the idea that a
photographer would know more about the process than the folks down the line
would have been pretty ridiculous.
Our department averages about 15 years experience. We
have a very high end
digital proofer, Gretag Spectrolino, all the toys. Two
of us know how to use
them and none of the other strippers, color guys, etc
have a clue, or even
care to know.
Then, had I been running the company, certain
individuals would not have acquired the 15 years of experience.
We have tried to hire “pre-press people” to
little avail. The rare case of a
‘designer’ who wants to “get under
the hood” usually fails. The young kids
worked on the college newspaper, so they have a feel
for Quark, but have no
idea what happened after they pressed the print button.
It’s a nasty situation in comparison to the case
ten years back, which is why prepress operations are doing so poorly:
1) Ten years ago, it would have been very difficult for
an employee to leave the company and set up his own business in
competition. Now, it’s easy.
2) Ten years ago, a very good employee could maybe turn
out twice as much quality work as the next guy, and so could be kept happy
with a slightly higher salary and a bit of recognition. But now, a very
good employee can do six times as much work as the next guy, but the
company can’t afford to pay him six times as much.
3) Ten years ago, few in-house departments would have
competed with the prepress house to hire from the same small field of
qualified retouchers. Now, they offer better working conditions and
probably better salary and benefits as well.
Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 00:01:19 EST
From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Re: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
As a color management consultant, I have the
opportunity to visit quite a
number of prepress/print shops across the country and I
really do think the
overall knowledge level has dropped in the past 10
years or so. I think
one of the key reasons is lack of training. Back in my
production days
in the 80’s and 90’s, my employers were
pretty good about sending me
off to whatever training class (usually sponsored by
dealers and
vendors) I happen to have an interest in (image today
being sent off
for TWO WEEKS of scanner training!). Now a days,
there’s very little
training going on due in large part, I think, to the
myth that the
“computer” has made learning all these
applications and skills so much
easier.
I agree with the result but not the reasoning. The
company was willing to invest a considerable amount in training you to use
a drum scanner because they didn’t think you were going to then quit,
buy a drum scanner, a couple of imagesetters and appropriate darkroom
equipment, and set up business in your spare bedroom.
Dan, your impression of higher skill levels evidenced
by the folks
attending your classes is sort of a self-fulfilling
prophecy. OF COURSE
they have better skills because either they personally
or their
employers has seen that they’re getting the
training/education they
need.
That’s not it. People who attended two or five
years ago were paid for by their employers just as they are today. And yet,
with the same apparent background and experience level, they’re more
sophisticated today.
I would also be real curious what percentage of your
students are
in-the-trenches prepress folks as opposed to pure
creative types,
photographers and image editing specialists.
If you are talking about somebody who works for a
prepress or printing company that takes in work from the general public,
less than 10%. If you mean somebody who works for a company’s
in-house production and does what could loosely be called prepress, but
only on the company’s own work, around a third.
I don’t want you to take this wrong, but
there’s not a whole lot of
your techniques that can be used in a pure prepress
production
environment. Not because they AREN’T useful or
productive, but the
prepress person today is rarely allowed the opportunity
to use these
advanced techniques, even if they knew how to use them.
Much of this
has to do with today’s economics. These garage
designers and
photographers that think they know perfectly well how
to prepare a job
for a commercial printer generally aren’t willing
to pay for the
prepress folks to fix these jobs. So the prepress
person’s “job” today
is to simply shuffle these ill-prepared files through
their production
RIPing system and hope for the best.
I don’t take it wrong because it’s true.
In the color management world that I live in, I think
it’s a crime
(sort of) that photographers are the ones leading the
way towards
adaption of an ICC-based workflow or “image
handling”.
I see no such political correctness in their agenda,
merely an acceptance of three obvious facts: 1) If the image prints badly,
the client may not be able to figure out whose fault it was; 2) The chances
of the printer being able to be helpful in image preparation are not good;
3) It is a lot easier for the client to hire a new photographer than a new
printer.
On this list, it’s pretty clear that the
photographers who have figured out how to take control of as much of the
imaging process as possible are the ones who claim to be making money.
Personally, I’d like to see the prepress and
print shops of the world
leading the way because they stand to benefit the most
both for their internal
production control and as a way to better serve their
customers.
Printers are actually rather good at making this
decision for themselves. The technical quality of most printing is, IMHO,
better than ever. In just the last few years, we’ve seen a
rapid transition to CTP, to a PDF workflow, and to a wide variety of new
proofing methods. Thus, the printing industry has proven itself
considerably more flexible and innovative than, say, advocates of ICC color
management. This year, the printing industry has been spending a good deal
of time and money accommodating itself to a world in which InDesign has
suddenly become a huge factor.
By and large, however, printers have declined to take
much interest in how images are and should be prepared, which is
unfortunate. There are some printers who have a good idea of what their dot
gain is, and some who know what their ink limit is or what kind of black
generation works best in their workflow. However, they’re few and far
between. Many books suggest that before making separations, you should
consult with the printer as to what settings to use. Personally, I’d
sooner consult a plumber—at least the plumber wouldn’t feel
embarrassed at not knowing the answer, and wouldn’t answer with the
first thing that came into his head.
My hat is off to the printers who *do* know the
answers, of course.
Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 10:06:40 -0800
From: Jono Moore
Subject: Re: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
Rick wrote:
Boy, is that ever true. I am a photographer working for
large
corporations that spend tens of thousands on their
annual report
printing. I find myself stuck in the middle -
between the design folks
and the printing/pre-press folks. I’m
having to teach both sides. It
isn’t easy. And I don’t get paid for
it.
Of course, you could supply CMYK and get on with life. :
)
Playing devil’s advocate here (well, sort-of) ...
You want an industry to change to make your life easier.
We’ll get there eventually, but the technology
has to get there first. It isn’t easy, nor inexpensive, to implement
colour management - in monetary and human terms. Currently things are far
too convoluted; implementing colour management between operating systems,
applications, RIPs, etc. is a major endeavour.
How about employing a simple, short list of best
practices regarding color management?
And where do we get this list? Is every printer
supposed to come up with their own? Then we’re not any further ahead
than we were before.
This stuff is not brain surgery. It’s not
like trying to explain
quantum physics. The problem is a simple one to
solve.
Given the money and resources to throw at the problem.
Education is key.
I thought K was key!
And to learn, one must be motivated. The
motivation is money.
Yes, the money...Do you have any idea what margins are
like in the printing industry? There’s not a lot of profit
going around, and without profit it’s difficult to invest in new
technologies. Maybe things are different elsewhere (I don’t think
so), but out here on the left coast of Canada printing is cutthroat.
Don’t get me wrong - I think that colour
management is something that will be good in the long run but there’s
still a lot of work that has to be done to make it user friendly.
I’ve spent a few years learning about it (in my
spare time) and am at the point now that I am comfortable using profiles in
PS for converting images and the like, but I’m not ready to hand
control of CMYK conversions over to an automatic process - I don’t
think the pictures will look as good as they could.
Those are my thoughts on the problem; from the trenches
in prepress.
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 10:30:38 -0800
From: Jono Moore
Subject: Re: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
Dan wrote:
By and large, however, printers have declined to take
much interest in how
images are and should be prepared, which is
unfortunate.
I think the problem here is that they didn’t have
to before. Now everyone seems to expect the printer to handle this where
not too long ago it wasn’t their problem.
I think part of the problem is the way Photoshop took
over years ago - everyone ended up working to whatever PS spat out.
There are some printers
who have a good idea of what their dot gain is, and
some who know what their
ink limit is or what kind of black generation works
best in their workflow.
This is a tough one - I’ve tried talking to
pressman about these things and get blank stares. Pressman know nothing of
dots, what they know and work to is Standard Ink Density.
If I can’t talk to pressman about these things
how do I find them out? Currently I’m experimenting with different
black generation settings and the like but it’s tough to say whether
one way is better than another.
I, as a prepress tech, don’t seem to have access
to any sort of empirical data to help (unless someone can point me to
some).
Part of the problem, as I mentioned in my previous
post, is the lack of money to throw at the problem. I work for smaller
printers and the resources just aren’t there.
I suggest that if the colour management evangelists
want to get wider adoption they’re going about it the wrong way. The
grassroots effort isn’t working, you’ve got to start at the top
and work down. Someone has to come up with a way to sell it to the owners
and managers.
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 08:10:52 -0000
From:Stephen Marsh
Subject: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
Howard writes:
Or do you do what
Dan Margulis indicates is his preferred plan of action:
convert RGB files
to a CMYK working space that consists of Adobe's
USWebCoatedSWOP.icc
profile(?), edited to have 17% dot gain instead of the
default 20%, changed
to Light black generation instead of the default
Medium, and changed to an
85% black limit instead of the default 100%?
This has been mistaken MANY times before.
Dan uses the LEGACY CUSTOM CMYK ENGINE which IS
EDITABLE.
The Adobe v2 profiles are proper third party ICC
profile software package generated ICC profiles and not the custom CMYK
legacy of Photoshop.
One can't edit a proper third party ICC profile in
Photoshop alone (there is a plugin available but I don't wish to confuse
the issue).
Binuscans PhotoRetouchPro product, does include a ICC
profile editor but I am unsure if it is RGB only or also CMYK and what
other features it has.
When I make this my CMYK
working space and open the womanbluecast.psd file from
Dan's Professional
Photoshop CD, the cast changes from the decided blue
described by one of
Dan's readers to the more magenta-tinted blue in Dan's
printed version.
For me, I think it was Japanese defualts that gave the
best visual preview to the printed result when viewed in less than ideal
average consumer conditions.
Stephen Marsh.
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 08:01:48 -0600
From: "drhobbes"
Subject: Re: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
Stephen,
Thank you for answering my question.
It sounds so clearcut in Professional Photoshop, yet turns out to be
so confusing in real life.
I'll just have to research this thing and
post my findings later. There's no question that I'm not alone my quest to
get some fundamental understanding of what must be done to a file before
sending it to any printer.
Through this post I would like to suggest
to Dan that he really should clarify this point in his next revision.
Those of us who don't have his extensive background in prepress and
printing press operation are justified in believing from his book that it's
a simple matter of just changing the settings in the Adobe v2 profiles.
It is misleading at best that this seems to work just as he describes
when we are dealing with monitor images. Evidently it does not work as well
with files sent off to the printer.
Howard Smith
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 17:26:33 -0800
From: Peter Constable
Subject: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
Stephen writes:
Dan uses the LEGACY CUSTOM CMYK ENGINE which IS
EDITABLE.
The Adobe v2 profiles are proper third party ICC
profile software
package generated ICC profiles and not the custom CMYK
legacy of
Photoshop.
For clarification, Adobe's v2 profiles are created
using Adobe's own in-house software, not third party software.
_peter
Peter Constable
Adobe Systems, Inc.
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 01:46:23 -0000
From:Stephen Marsh
Subject: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
And now one final question and I'll not
bother you folks for a time.
What exactly is a LEGACY CUSTOM CMYK ENGINE? This
is a new one for me at
least.
Howard, versions prior to v5 used SEPARATION TABLES.
Thus this "legacy Custom CMYK" Photoshop CMYK
option in say v6, 7, CS etc.
In your profile menus in Photoshop - you should be able
to select a pre-built or pre-generated, pre-installed ICC profile (ones
usually created with third party profile software).
Photoshop can also make CMYK conversions using the old
legacy separation table methods - which are really treated as ICC profiles
in v6 or higher (but these legacy profiles are not the same as one made by
a third party profile package).
Stephen Marsh.
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 02:03:35 -0000
From:Stephen Marsh
Subject: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
Peter writes:
For clarification, Adobe's v2 profiles are created
using Adobe's own
in-house software, not third party software.
Thanks Peter, I would have thought that you would have
used a branded product from GretagMacbeth or someone, like
"ProfileMaker" or some other such standard ICC profile generation
software package (after making colorimetric machine readings to plug into
this software).
I did not know that Adobe had their own software (not
that I should know this :)
I may have to pass some profiles through a profile
inspector...
So when can we expect Adobe to offer it's professional
colour customers (ie Photoshop users) - the ability to edit or create ICC
profiles?
Having the ability to alter GCR and other factors is
one of the reasons that the legacy custom CMYK is still used a lot in day
to day real world production.
Stephen Marsh.
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 21:10:39 -0600
From: "drhobbes"
Subject: Adobe's CMYK profiles
Sometimes the obvious is obscured by the
confusing. Legacy Custom CMYK Engine is a reference to Adobe's CMYK
profiles in Photoshop 5.5 and earlier. Beginning with Photoshop 6.0,
the CMYK color profiles were changed to the Adobe v2 version. This
version is based on TR001 data--evidently a requirement for a
SWOP-acceptable CMYK profile. The complaint that some have made of
"editing deficiencies" in Adobe's profiles, appears to be based
on the inability to edit ink values and on the lack of black ink simulation
and paper white simulation in soft proofing. Dot gain (also known as
TVI, or tone value increase), black ink generation,and ink limits (also
known as TAC, or total area coverage) are editable. For those trying
to create a custom profile that brings profile-rendered colors into line
with colorimetric measurements, the difficulty in editing ink values may be
perceived as a serious deficiency. For the majority of us who are
just trying to get a printed result that meets our expectations, that may
not be quite so critical. "Ink values" refers to profiles
of the four printing inks, described by LAB or xyY values, something most
of us don't need to worry about unless we're consultants or specialists in
custom profile creation.
When a file is converted to CMYK, the
image appearance does not change. The numbers that describe CMYK
colors in the image will print properly if the press conditions are those
for which the profile is intended. Unless these conditions are known,
the image will appear satisfactory on the monitor but may not look at all
the same when printed. The CMYK numbers tell the press how you expect
it to represent the image colors, but they leave the monitor image alone.
You can duplicate an RGB image, convert one of them to CMYK with a
12% dot gain, tag it with that profile, then open the second into a CMYK
color space that has a 40% dot gain setting. They will look alike on
the monitor, but the printed output of one will scarcely resemble the
other. Thus the potential difference in appearance of the same image
on the monitor vs. its appearance on paper if the image's conversion
profile was edited to contain settings that were not suited for the actual
printing conditions. As noted before, it doesn't have to be exact if
a good proof is provided and the press crew is competent. It's
remarkable how much an image can be edited at the time of printing, though
this cannot be considered a safety net if an improper profile is used for
the conversion. If you have a CMYK image and want to see what would
happen under different press conditions than those for which its profile
was intended, you can use Assign Profile to change the monitor image
appearance to show how the numbers in that existing file will print under
those different press conditions. This time you will see a change in
image appearance on the monitor, but the numbers will continue to refer to
the original printing conditions for which the profile was intended at the
time of conversion.
The first of the duplicate images
referred to above was tagged to keep it from changing its appearance when
you converted the second file with the 40% dot gain profile. I remind
you of this because there have been endless discussions about tagged vs.
untagged files. A tag is not only unnecessary for files sent to a
printer but may even cause problems with a RIP, and then there are printers
will strip out tags as a routine procedure. Granted that the appearance of
an untagged image file will change if someone down the line opens it into a
different CMYK profile than you used, the color numbers in that file will
remain unchanged. So even if the display on the stranger's monitor
looks vastly different from the display on your own monitor, the printing
device is going to follow the specifications in the profile in effect at
the time the image was converted from LAB or RGB to CMYK. It will
take conscious effort on the part of the stranger to alter those numbers.
Keep in mind that the printing device cannot think. If you give
it the wrong specifications for the actual printing conditions, the output
will not be what you expected.
At this point, unless someone wants to
correct my thinking, it would appear that use of one of Adobe's CMYK
profiles for image prepress work is both workable and satisfactory provided
intelligent guidelines are followed in editing the chosen profile before
conversion (once a file has been converted to CMYK, you can edit the color
space to your heart's content without affecting anything but the image's
appearance on the monitor--just like with Assign Profile). Needless
to say, the choice should be based on expected printing conditions, not
just on dot gain value. For Dan's suggested changes in things like
black generation, ink limits, etc., you can refer to Professional
Photoshop. However, Dan earllier has recommended in this forum that
the black dot gain be 2 - 4% higher, cyan and magenta equal, and yellow 2%
lower. Before deciding on black generation setting, GCR, TAC, etc.,
those with little prepress work experience really should give Professional
Photoshop a good reading. What you want to avoid is using the default
settings in the Adobe profiles. Some users look down on the Adobe
supplied profiles because they are not "editable" and the default
settings do not represent real world conditions. In fact it would
appear that these profiles are well designed for the job for which they are
intended, and they are editable in the sense that we can make just about
all the changes that we need. Granted that the defaults do not
represent real world conditions, but hey! default settings are not intended
to represent the best way to do things.
Recently I made a comment about the CD's
womanbluecast, which one reader reported to have a blue cast that made its
appearance on his monitor different from that in Dan's book.
Apparently this was due to his use of an unedited (default) version
of a CMYK profile with the default black ink limit left at 100%.
Changing it to 85% brought the color back into line with the
illustration. Why? Again, from Dan's book, black content
affects final color. Adding black increases color tone, and reducing
it reduces that tone--thereby changing the appearance of the colors in the
image. The color that is present in a higher percentage than others
will be the one that shows the most difference.
Howard Smith
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 21:19:19 -0600
From: "drhobbes"
Subject: Re: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
First of all I want to thank Stephen and Peter for the
additional information that turned up here right after sending in a lengthy
dissertation that may help clear things a bit for newcomers. It took
me three years to reach this point, and then only because of generous
assistance from members of this forum.
Howard Smith
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 19:18:12 -0700
From: Andrew Rodney
Subject: Re: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
On 12/9/04 7:03 PM, "Stephen Marsh"
wrote:
Thanks Peter, I would have thought that you would have
used a branded
product from GretagMacbeth or someone, like
"ProfileMaker" or some other
such standard ICC profile generation software package
(after making
colorimetric machine readings to plug into this
software).
Thomas Knoll wrote his own software to do this. The
profile is outstanding.
So when can we expect Adobe to offer it's professional
colour customers (ie
Photoshop users) - the ability to edit or create ICC
profiles?
When I asked him about it, he told me it has no GUI
(Thomas doesn1t need one). So this is (like Camera RAW) a piece of software
Thomas had to write himself to satisfy his needs. Be cool to have such a
product but alas, it1s not available to mere mortals.
Andrew Rodney
http://digitaldog.net/
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 02:01:41 EST
From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Re: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
Howard Smith writes,
Through this post I would like to suggest to Dan that
he really should
clarify this point in his next revision.
On page 270 there is a three-page section discussing
exactly these points. The relation between a Custom CMYK setting and the
SWOP v.2 setting are fully explained. It would be difficult to imagine how
my recommendation to learn to use the Custom CMYK dialog because the v.2
settings CANNOT BE EDITED OR CHANGED could possibly be made more clear.
Those of us who don't have his extensive
background in prepress and
printing press operation are justified in believing
from his book that it's a simple
matter of just changing the settings in the Adobe v2
profiles.
The Adobe profiles CANNOT BE EDITED OR CHANGED. This
concept has been reinforced many times on this list, particularly by
Stephen Marsh.
Similarly, nothing in the book could possibly justify
anyone in thinking that the process is simple. It has three full chapters
on the adjustments possible in Custom CMYK.
It is misleading at best that this seems to work just
as he describes when
we are dealing with monitor images. Evidently it does
not work as well with
files sent off to the printer.
I have no idea what this can be referring to. If the
CMYK setting is correct, whether it was generated by Custom CMYK or not, it
works for both monitor and for printer.
Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 09:09:29 -0000
From:Stephen Marsh
Subject: Re: Adobe's CMYK profiles
Hi Howard, I will add comments where necessary - where
I have trimmed text away it needed no comment, or I could not comment.
I understand that you are attempting to get a handle on
a complex subject that has confused more than one member of this list in
the past. Stick with it, I think you are close!
Beginning with Photoshop 6.0, the CMYK color profiles
were changed
to the Adobe v2 version.
v4 or earlier only used the separation table method. It
could load, and save out separation tables.
Things changed in v5.x - it had the ability to load old
style Adobe separation table engine or to use ICC profiles (there was also
a third option to load separation tables from other sources outside of the
legacy Adobe CMYK engine). It could no longer save sep tables, these became
an ICC profile when saved. Dot gain also changed in v5. It was still called
20% but it did not have the same LAB value reading in the midtone as in v4.
This is why there are two prebuilt ICC profiles called Photoshop 4 Default
CMYK or Photoshop 5 Default CMYK or whatever they are named (they should
all be based off SWOP Coated 20% dot-gain, Med. GCR, 100%K etc). From v5 to
now, 20% still means what it did in v5.
Then v6 really changed things, everything became ICC
profile based and the 'old, legacy' CMYK separation method became 'Custom
CMYK'.
This presumably uses the same old methods behind the
scenes but the data appears as a ICC profile since that is all that later
versions deal with.
The complaint that some have made of "editing
deficiencies" in
Adobe's profiles, appears to be based on the inability
to edit ink
values and on the lack of black ink simulation and
paper white
simulation in soft proofing. Dot gain (also known
as TVI, or tone
value increase), black ink generation,and ink limits
(also known as
TAC, or total area coverage) are editable.
The problem is ICC profile editing deficiencies in
Photoshop, not the profile itself. Or another way to word this is...Adobe
have only given its CMYK power users ONE fixed set of conditions to
separate into - without offering any other alternate profiles. Adobe also
do not offer an ICC profile for newsprint, where as their old Custom CMYK
engine did.
For me it is this simple: Dear Adobe, please give the
print industry easy, affordable access to profile editing abilites in
Photoshop or if you do not wish to turn an image editor into a profile
editor, then at least offer more profiles. But who cares about the print
market, they stopped being a serious customer back in v4 or v5. Digital
photography and other areas is where the future and money is.
Some profile makers do make a 'suite' of profiles for
similar conditions. The aim-point may be TR001, but they may produce UCR,
various GCR ratios and even ink weights like 280/300/330 etc. This is much
better than only one profile. Chromix did this for TR001.
Even though some users get in trouble and may not need
or wish to know about prepress variables - some users of Photoshop do
require these things. I would like to think that in this day and age we
have progressed from the mindset of "there is only one flavour of
CMYK".
In the old days, many users just hit the mode/cmyk
button and that was as much thought into prepress that was given. But some
users knew a little more, and would alter variables to suit their
conditions. These users who do need to have flexible separation options
made and still make good use of the Custom CMYK controls offered by Adobe.
Many scorn this old system (often those who have a professional interest in
competing current ICC technology). Many embrace this system (often those
who need results that are image dependent and who understand that a single
conversion method is far from ideal).
When a file is converted to CMYK, the image appearance
does not change.
In-gamut colours will not change. I knew what you meant
to say though.
Out-of-gamut colours - get clipped if using Custom CMYK
or Relative Colorimetric rendering with a proper ICC profile. O-o-G colours
will be compressed if using Perceptual rendering.
Also, if the profile creation software has a
proprietary 'secret sauce' method built into the Perceptual intent - one
can get a significant contrast boost. The Adobe v2 profiles do not have
this (this good in my view). If the image needs to be lighter, the dot gain
should be addressed, not a contrst curve applied which may wipe out
highlights.
At this point, unless someone wants to correct my
thinking, it
would appear that use of one of Adobe's CMYK profiles
for image
prepress work is both workable and satisfactory
<<
I will cut you off there!
Yes, the Adobe profiles are good/satisfactory - if they
actually describe the final conditions. Same as for any profile.
The situation and question that you are really asking
here is:
If I have 'an average, nice but unimpressive RGB image'
- that looks good on the monitor and in test press simulation inkjet
prints...what is the best conversion for an unknown condition - but we
presume that it is safe to assume SWOP type conditions (as opposed to say
European or Japanese)? Does one convert using the v2 SWOP profile, or the
Custom CMYK engine?
That is a harder question to answer.
I will give you this hint though, in the real world
when results matter over theory - theory often fails.
Some users look down on the Adobe supplied profiles
because they
are not "editable" and the default settings
do not represent real
world conditions.\
I think that bit is mixed up. The Adobe v2 ICC profiles
do represent real world conditions. It is just a matter of your real world
conditions matching those described by these profiles.
If the prebuilt profile does not match the condition,
then one can simply use it and hope for the best (not good).
Or one can find a profile that does match the
condition, or simply use Custom CMYK to make a separation that does suit
the condition better than the proper ICC profile. In theory the proper ICC
profile is better, but in practise often not as good as Custom CMYK.
In a nutshell, I do use the Adobe v2 profile (and
others) - but 90% of the time I would CHOOSE to use the Custom CMYK setting
instead.
Q: Would I use a proper ICC profile instead of Custom
CMYK if it delivered the dot gain, black plate weight, black ink limit and
total ink limit that is required?
A: Yes.
Q: Is it easy for the average person to possess such a
profile or the tools, knowledge and skill (not to mention time/budget) to
generate such a profile?
A: No.
Is it any wonder that Custom CMYK is such a valuable
tool to many users, considering the nature of the print industry?
The last question is the one which Dan has obliquely
commented on about machine generated profiles often misrepresenting pastel
colours without some human editing.
This is easy to prove/disprove - but the current
exercise/image of the blue woman is not the best way to do this. Even
profile vendors make a distinction between a raw profile and one which has
been 'tuned'.
I know how/why ICC works - but it often sounds like
smoke and mirrors.
Stephen Marsh.
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:07:03 -0700
From: Andrew Rodney
Subject: Re: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
On 12/10/04 12:01 AM, "Dan Margulis"
wrote:
The Adobe profiles CANNOT BE EDITED OR CHANGED. This
concept has been
reinforced many times on this list, particularly by
Stephen Marsh.
To clarify, they CAN be modified with a 3rd party
profile editor. They cannot be modified in Photoshop it self.
Andrew Rodney
http://digitaldog.net/
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 10:30:26 EST
From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Re: Adobe's CMYK profiles
Howard Smith writes,
The complaint that some have made of "editing
deficiencies" in Adobe's
profiles, appears to be based on the inability to edit
ink values and on the lack
of black ink simulation and paper white simulation in
soft proofing. Dot gain
(also known as TVI, or tone value increase), black ink
generation,and ink
limits (also known as TAC, or total area coverage) are
editable.
No, they are not. The v.2 profiles are COMPLETELY
UNEDITABLE within Photoshop. You cannot change dot gain. You cannot change
black ink generation. You cannot change total ink limit, or black ink
limit, or UCA. You cannot change ANYTHING AT ALL. Not one jot, not one
tittle, not no way, not no how. You have to take them exactly as they are,
or leave them and use Custom CMYK. The minute you change to Custom CMYK,
you are trashing the v.2 profile in favor of an entirely different profile
that is being built from scratch using defaults that date from Photoshop 5.
Therefore, your very long post is based on a single
fundamental error--that when you have the v.2 profile loaded, and switch to
Custom CMYK, you are somehow magically editing that profile. Again: when
you switch to Custom CMYK, you are not editing the v.2 profile, because
that v.2 profile CANNOT BE EDITED OR CHANGED IN ANY WAY. You are throwing
it away and beginning from scratch.
Consequently, you have reached a completely wrong
conclusion in something like the following.
Recently I made a comment about the CD's womanbluecast,
which one reader
reported to have a blue cast that made its appearance
on his monitor different
from that in Dan's book. Apparently this was due
to his use of an unedited
(default) version of a CMYK profile with the default
black ink limit left at
100%. Changing it to 85% brought the color back
into line with the illustration.
Why?
Not for the reasons you stated. The original v.2
profile does NOT have a black ink limit of 100%. Only the Custom CMYK
engine has that default. The reason you saw 100% was that you
switched into Custom CMYK, and the minute you did that, the v.2 profile was
toast, history, finished, forgotten about, of no account, and no longer a
factor. The monitor rendition looked too blue at first because the v.2
profile does not represent light blues accurately. It looked better when
you went to Custom CMYK because you were no longer using the v.2 profile,
but rather an entirely new, made-from-scratch profile using an engine that
doesn't have this particular problem, although it has others.
Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:49:36 -0700
From: Andrew Rodney
Subject: Re: Adobe's CMYK profiles
On 12/10/04 8:30 AM, "Dan Margulis"
wrote:
Therefore, your very long post is based on a single
fundamental error--that
when you have the v.2 profile loaded, and switch to
Custom CMYK, you are
somehow magically editing that profile.
Hold the presses, I actually totally agree with Dan on
this point. This is totally DUMB that Adobe doesn1t inform you that the
switch has nothing to do with the U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2 profile you
were just working with. You1re supposed to notice that v2 is missing? They
should make this much clearer.
Andrew Rodney
http://digitaldog.net/
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:16:29 -0600
From: "drhobbes"
Subject: Re: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
Dan Margulis gave the following response to my comments
on CMYK profiles:
On page 270 there is a three-page section discussing
exactly these points.
The relation between a Custom CMYK setting and the SWOP
v.2 setting are fully
explained. It would be difficult to imagine how my
recommendation to learn to
use the Custom CMYK dialog because the v.2 settings
CANNOT BE EDITED OR
CHANGED could possibly be made more clear.
The Adobe profiles CANNOT BE EDITED OR CHANGED. This
concept has been
reinforced many times on this list, particularly by
Stephen Marsh.
Similarly, nothing in the book could possibly justify
anyone in thinking that
the process is simple. It has three full chapters on
the adjustments possible
in Custom CMYK.
If the CMYK setting is correct, whether it was
generated by Custom CMYK or not, it works for both monitor and for printer.
Dan,
First of all, thank you for taking the
time to respond to my post.
On page 270 of Professional Photoshop you
state very clearly that the CMYK settings can be changed if one uses the
traditional Photoshop engine (Custom CMYK), then you just as clearly state
that "(the) profile...supplied with Photoshop...can't be edited within
Photoshop." Isn't the act of changing dot gain, ink limits etc.
considered editing? Then you state that "few knowledgeable users
employ (U.S., Web Coated SWOP v2)...". Dan, what is a custom
CMYK if it isn't one made by editing the settings in one of Photoshop's
CMYK profiles? I agree that both you and Stephen Marsh have clearly
stated that the v.2 settings cannot be edited or changed. O.K., but
where does the Custom CMYK come from if not from a modification of one of
Adobe's profiles? Perhaps it would make this whole thing a little
more clear if you or Stephen Marsh would be willing to post an example of
the specific steps you take in creating a Custom CMYK profile that you will
use for converting something you intend to send to press.
I totally agree that nothing in your book
could possibly justify anyone thinking that any of this is simple. I
didn't wear out three copies for the fun of it.
As much as I respect your knowledge and
your writing ability, I cannot agree that your explanation of the creation
and use of custom CMYK profiles cannot be made more clear. You have a
lifetime of experience in this field, but some of us are a little short of
that, which could explain why you feel it's crystal clear and I do not.
For whatever it's worth, several other well known Photoshop writers
are convinced that they also have explained these things very clearly.
They haven't. I am not a stupid person, but after three years
of pretty serious study I still do not know how to create a custom CMYK
profile without resorting to modification of an Adobe supplied profile or
calibration instrumentation. Because of your adamant stand against
calibrationism, and my respect for your judgment, this latter is not a
route I am interested in taking.
We both have short tempers, Dan, so I can
understand why you might not want to pursue this. Just be assured
that my intent here is to get an answer to my questions, not to challenge
you or any of the others who have given their time so generously. We
all have similar goals, but some of us are slower than others.
Howard Smith
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:35:09 -0600
From: "drhobbes"
Subject: Re: Adobe's CMYK profiles
Well, Dan, I've just got to start reading current
e-mail before sending in my replies to earlier messages. You've
pretty well answered my last post before you received it.
I'll have to study your current message about Custom
CMYK just like I've done with Professional Photoshop--over and over until
I've wrung everything out of it.
As I noted in the post that you haven't seen yet, this
looks a whole lot more clear and understandable to you than it does to some
of us. This is the first time anyone has ever explained that Custom
CMYK has no relationship to the Adobe profile that had been active at the
time the Custom choice was made. My belief was that choosing
"Custom" meant that we were being given an opportunity to make
changes to the v.2 profile. That's why it was totally puzzling to
keep getting these comments about the v.2 profiles being uneditable.
I thought that switching to Custom was simply giving me the
opportunity to change the v.2 settings, not taking me into new territory to
build a profile from scratch. Perhaps New And Different would be
preferable to Custom.
Now I can just hope that you read your current e-mails
before responding to my unfortunate last post--unless of course you want to
add any more information to what you just posted.
Thank you for not giving up on me.
Howard Smith
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 14:11:29 -0600
From: "drhobbes"
Subject: Re: Re: Adobe's CMYK profiles
Stephen,
If you have written any books or articles
on Photoshop or on printing, please post the information so I can order
them. Your answers to my questions about Adobe Custom and v.2
profiles were both complete and understandable.
Thank you for going to so much trouble to
answer my posts. I hope the time will come when I'll have an
opportunity to reciprocate for all the generous responses to my sometimes
misguided questions.
Howard Smith
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:43:39 -0600
From: "drhobbes"
Subject: Re: Adobe's CMYK profiles
On 12/10/04 8:30 AM, "Dan Margulis"
wrote:
Therefore, your very long post is based on a single
fundamental error--that
when you have the v.2 profile loaded, and switch to
Custom CMYK, you are
somehow magically editing that profile.
Then on 12/10/04, Andrew Rodney added:
Hold the presses, I actually totally agree with Dan on
this point. This is
totally DUMB that Adobe doesn1t inform you that the
switch has nothing to do
with the U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2 profile you were
just working with.
You1re supposed to notice that v2 is missing? They
should make this much
clearer.
Oh, I totally agree! Neither you nor Dan can
appreciate how much it means to me to get this cleared up at last.
Three long years wasted! Well, on the other hand I did learn
some other things...
I appreciate you folks not giving up on me, even when
it must have been trying your patience to keep telling me over and over
that the v.2 profiles couldn't be edited in Photoshop. It's so nice
to have this make sense.
Howard Smith
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 17:28:06 -0500
From: Terry Wyse
Subject: Re: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
On Dec 10, 2004, at 2:16 PM, drhobbes wrote:
Isn't the act of changing dot gain, ink limits
etc. considered editing?
The POINT is you're NOT editing the actual profile you
currently have selected as your CMYK working space. Plug in ANY profile you
want as your working space profile and then pull down "Custom
CMYK". It's identical in each case which should be your first clue
that the default settings of Custom CMYK have nothing whatsoever to do with
the profile you have selected as your working space.
Dan, what is a custom CMYK if it isn't one made by
editing the settings in one of
Photoshop's CMYK profiles?
It's not. See above. In fact, density and dot gain
values are something rather foreign to an ICC profile. You can certainly
INFER from the colorimetric values that it might have "x" dot
gain or "y" density but it's nothing that's really inherent to
the profile. To put it another way, there are no tags or data in a profile
that explicitly tell you what the press/print conditions were.
I agree that both you and Stephen Marsh have
clearly stated that the v.2 settings cannot be edited
or changed. O.K., but
where does the Custom CMYK come from if not from a
modification of one
of Adobe's profiles?
With CustomCMYK, you're simply starting with a basic
ink set (SWOP, Toyo, whatever), plugging in some dot gain values (along
with the usual total ink limit, UCR/GCR, etc.) and it attempts to build a
simplistic profile from the supplied data. I wouldn't say it's
"bad" in any way, as long as it meets your needs, but I have to
believe that it's starting with very simple assumptions about press
behavior as compared to something like SWOPv2 that's based on REAL press
behavior (TR001). Just my opinion though.
Regards,
Terry
_____________________________
WyseConsul
Color Management Consulting
704.843.0858
http://www.colormanagementgroup.com
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 00:08:32 -0000
From:Stephen Marsh
Subject: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
I wouldn't say it's "bad" in any way,
as long as it meets your needs, but I have to believe
that it's
starting with very simple assumptions about press
behavior as
compared to something like SWOPv2 that's based on REAL
press behavior
(TR001).
Agreed Terry! Custom CMYK is not bad - if you get the
press results you require who could care if the technology does not use a
wide base of colours for it's calculations or offer softproofing etc.
Just as the Adobe v2 SWOP profile is not bad, if it
gives you the press results that you were after. And if one had more
flexible choices in ink weights and GCR methods with a TR001 aimpoint (or
other standards), then custom CMYK would be required even less than it is
today.
Stephen Marsh.
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 19:00:44 -0600
From: "drhobbes"
Subject: Re: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
Terry,
Thank you for your detailed response to
my questions about Photoshop profiles. This looks very simple now,
but it wasn't so easy to grasp when I was on the outside looking in and
with no previous experience with the strange things being witnessed.
I understand Dan's frustration with my being unable to understand
what he sincerely felt was an explanation that should have been immediately
clear to almost anyone. He just didn't realize that people like me
were out there. The fact that the Photoshop v.2 profiles go out the
window when you check Custom is just a little thing, but then so is a flu
virus.
There's just one question left.
If you have the time to answer it, your help certainly will be
appreciated this time as well.
What kind of profile do the majority of
prepress people use for conversion to CMYK? Do they most commonly use
the legacy Photoshop Custom CMYK, off-the shelf third-party profiles, their
own machine-generated custom profiles, profiling data or profiles provided
by the printing firm or by a service bureau, or do they more commonly send
in files converted with and/or tagged with any manner of strange profiles
that must be worked around by whoever makes the printing plates? From
what has been said earlier, Dan Margulis uses the legacy Photoshop Custom
CMYK profile with settings he recommends in Professional Photoshop. I
wonder if I misunderstood this as well?
Howard Smith
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 19:11:18 -0700
From: Ron Kelly
Subject: Re: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
Mr. D.R. Hobbes:
Hello, friend. One who is brave to ask questions of the
high and mightly wizards; many more of us in the shadows are listening.
By the way: how is Frodo doing, and all the other
Hobbes-it's? Please pass along my regards.
FWIW: I have never had much luck, despite all the
advice to, using SWOP v.2 or any of the canned profiles. They just don't
come close enough, and as I realize now I can't change 'em so if they're
off the mark, you're cooked, eh?
I use my own fine-tuned legacy Photoshop Custom CMYK
profiles, and it's working fine, except that I always wonder if I'm living
in a little backwater. So I try to keep a weather eye out.
I always find myself wondering, "Is this the best
way to do things? Could they be better?" but I never know the answer
to that question, and I suspect I'm not alone.
Cheers,
Ron Kelly
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 00:09:33 -0600
From: "drhobbes"
Subject: Apology
Dan,
Please accept my apologies. You
were right and I was very much in error. Now that I can see the whole
picture the description you provided on pages 270 and 271 is both clear and
understandable. Since you can expect to encounter some readers who
may be even more dense than me, you might consider putting in a specific
example (for example, how you prepared a profile for the photograph of the
cowboy that was included in your book).. Sometimes those of us who
can't grasp simple explanations may understand better if we are given
either redundant explanations or better yet a simple, real-life example.
So you can understand why anyone would be
confused by a perfectly clear explanation, let's put it this way, Dan.
Suppose you were attending a lecture on medical immunology and the
speaker was describing symptoms of a disease that affects the skin, the
nervous system, and the immune system. Let's say that in the course
of that lecture he states clearly and unequivocally that the
interrelationship of the symptoms is due to their common origin in the
embryo. Now he and other knowledgeable biologists would know
perfectly well what he was talking about but you and most of the physicians
might feel left out. It's not a question of intelligence, but a question of
familiarity with the subject. Now suppose he went on to explain that the
embryo is formed from basically three different layers of tissue, and that
the outer layer (the ectoderm) is the origin of the outer skin, the mouth,
the nervous system, and the immune system. You would understand the
skin part, but what about the nervous system and the immune system?
Being quick enough to recognize that not everyone in the audience had the
background to follow his lecture, he might go on to explain for their
benefit that the skin along the midline of the back forms a deep groove
that closes over to form the tube that becomes the rudiment of the spinal
cord from which the nerves will branch and that some of the nervous tissue
will differentiate into components of the immune system. Once he
offered these details that are familiar to biologists but not to prepress
experts, you (and most of the biologists in the audience) would understand
what he was talking about when he resumed his description of disease
symptoms that involve all three systems. Even without a degree in
biology or medicine you would be able to understand how these symptoms were
related to the common origin of the affected tissues. Actually not
all of this is elementary to a many biologists or to most physicians, but
that's beside the point.
Anyway, I'm sorry to have caused you such
frustration. Thank you for gritting your teeth and going ahead and
explaining it in detail that even I could understand.
Howard Smith
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 10:40:04 +0000
From: Shangara Singh
Subject: Re: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
It was 10/12/04 10:28 pm, when Terry Wyse wrote:
The POINT is you're NOT editing the actual profile you
currently have
selected as your CMYK working space. Plug in ANY
profile you want as
your working space profile and then pull down
"Custom CMYK". It's
identical in each case which should be your first clue
that the default
settings of Custom CMYK have nothing whatsoever to do
with the profile
you have selected as your working space.
Terry
Not if you select Photoshop 4 Default CMYK. <g>
OK, it's a small change but a change nonetheless.
What's more, because Custom RGB uses the settings for
the current RGB profile, it's easy to assume that Custom CMYK also behaves
similarly. Of course, once you know, you know. However, before you know,
there's ample elbow room to make wrong assumptions. Consistency is the key
to reducing assumptions, IMHO, and sadly that's lacking in the interface.
In some areas the user interface principles have been
so heavily violated that the user has no choice but to unlearn what they
have learned and learn an illogical behaviour - and unlearn it again when
working in other apps that are more logically laid out and which follow
user interface principles.
Shangara.
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 20:34:16 -0900
From: KmKm/Crystal Images
Subject: Custom CMYK
So, please Dan, what do you mean "from
scratch"? The Custom CMYK profile must be based on something?
If not v2 or whatever it looked like it was, then what? And what are
those "other problems"? I traveled down this path with my
project and made similar wrong assumptions, apparently--though output on my
own printer has been fairly agreeable with my monitor and my intent.
Would love to understand more. Kathleen
--
Kathleen M.K. Menke
Crystal Images
http://kcd.com/ci
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 21:07:16 -0600
From: "drhobbes"
Subject: Re: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
On December 10, 2004, Ron Kelly wrote:
FWIW: I have never had much luck, despite all the
advice to, using SWOP
v.2 or any of the canned profiles. They just don't come
close enough,
and as I realize now I can't change 'em so if they're
off the mark,
you're cooked, eh?
I use my own fine-tuned legacy Photoshop Custom CMYK
profiles, and it's
working fine, except that I always wonder if I'm living
in a little
backwater. So I try to keep a weather eye out.
I always find myself wondering, "Is this the best
way to do things?
Could they be better?" but I never know the answer
to that question,
and I suspect I'm not alone.
Thanks for asking, Ron. Frodo is
doing just fine, counting his potential Christmas gifts already!
(Jaken's feelings are hurt that you didn't ask about him also...).
You asked "Is this the best way to
do things". If you can't find a better way, it's the best way.
The worst way is to wait for something better to come along.
Experimentation is the yeast of life. The more you put into it,
the bigger the rise you get out of it.
Howard Smith
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 08:56:52 -0800
From: Eric Bullock
Subject: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
What kind of profile do the majority of prepress people
use for
conversion to CMYK?
The key part of that question is "the
majority". I would venture to assert that the bulk of CMYK separations
are done with the Adobe SWOPv2 profile...which has become sort of a
"when in doubt" default for many people out there. Short of more
specific information it isn't an awful choice.
-eb-
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 11:56:46 EST
From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Re: Custom CMYK
Kathleen Menke writes,
So, please Dan, what do you mean "from
scratch"?
I mean that once the CMYK setting is changed from
"SWOP v.2" to "Custom CMYK", every last trace,
particle, iota, and jot of the SWOP v.2 profile is absolutely, positively,
unconditionally, and irrevocably erased, destroyed, eliminated, extirpated,
taken out of, removed, and missing from what comes next; and that the
process of profile editing begins afresh with something else.
The Custom CMYK profile must be based on something?
If not v2 or whatever
it looked like it was, then what?
The traditional Photoshop CMYK default profile, last
updated in Photoshop 5.
And what are those "other problems"?
Underestimation of black dot gain, overestimation of
cyan dot gain, a 100% black ink limit, a non-skeleton black generation, and
previews that are misleading in the shadows because the engine assumes that
100k is absolutely black.
Many threads related to these topics are posted at
http:
//www.ledet.com/margulis/ACT_postings/SeparationIssues/Separation.htm
Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 14:38:56 -0600
From: "john opitz"
Subject: Re: Adobe's CMYK profiles
Hello Stephen,
How are you ? It's been a while since we conversed.
This post I'm making is not to be against color management. Color
management is useful. And since the current thread of the Custom cmyk
is a hot topic, some people not knowing, changing to custom cmyk is
creating a new profile and its (not) modifing an existing profile, and I
know some...... that think this as well. And their in publishing. Well, I'm
going to add to what some might consider color management as magic, to
remove the smoke (and mirrors) about it. This is not my take on it, but I
agree with it. It's from the book "Real World Color Management (1st
edition)". "Where the Models fail". Page 45. I will not
quote the book word for word, anyway (that God).
The CIE models is designed to predict the degree.....
of two (solid) color swatches seen at a specific distance, background,
lighting that would appear to match. We (humans) see color in context.
Color Managements' goal is not to get a colorimetric match, just a
pleasing image.
A "well trained" (key-words here)
"eye" beats a "colorimeter" every time ( Ooo. other
key-words here) for evaluating final color.
Now this sounds like I'm against color
management, Stephen. I'm just agreeing with the book...... Now I understand
it so clearly now, when the Man says: "If you want
quality.....customize", using the eyeball method. Btw, this might not
be the exact quote (Professional Photoshop, which edition...unknown). But
something close. Pretty scary that I can quote authors. You think I read
too much? More so, retain too much? In all, with the above kept in mind one
who uses color management (machine "colorimeter" generated
profiles) will not be disappointed. No more chasing rainbows and setting
traps for unicorns, for me.
John
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 14:19:23 -0700
From: Andrew Rodney
Subject: Re: Re: Adobe's CMYK profiles
On 12/11/04 1:38 PM, "john opitz" wrote:
A "well trained" (key-words here)
"eye" beats a "colorimeter" every time
( Ooo. other key-words here) for evaluating final
color.
True but let1s not misunderstand Bruce1s point here.
He1s saying that if the goal is to evaluate the quality of a complex color
image, CIE colorimetry and instruments are not appropriate. However, these
instruments and the work of the CIE is key to actually producing ICC device
profiles. So we have a system by which we need to view complex color images
and make evaluations and we have systems in which we need to fingerprint a
device by viewing solid colors. One system isn1t right for the other goal
and vise versa. This is why eye ball calibration is not very effective
while instrument analysis of image quality isn1t very effective. Boils down
to the right tool for the right job.
"If you want quality.....customize", using
the eyeball method.
I1d say use the eyeball for estimating quality. For
producing specific repeatable color analysis based upon the measurement of
a solid color, an instrument is vastly superior.
Andrew Rodney
http://digitaldog.net/
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 22:29:41 -0000
From:Stephen Marsh
Subject: CMYK Colour Settings Test
With the recent posts on 'what happens when one changes
the dialog to Custom CMYK from say the Adobe SWOP v2 pre-built ICC profile'
perhaps a quick little test will help nail this issue in folks minds.
* Create a new file in greyscale mode at some tint
value (50% K). Perhaps place a colour sampler so you can note values in the
next steps
* Convert to profile to the SWOP v2 profile
* Save a history snapshot (named SWOP v2 if you like)
* Undo the conversion
* Convert to profile to the Custom CMYK without
changing any other settings or values (this is where it has been mistakenly
presumed that Custom CMYK references the v2 profile).
* Save a snapshot (named Custom CMYK if you like)
* Compare the colour values between the snapshots.
Also repeat with real images, perhaps saving a snapshot
of each conversion methods black plate and then compare etc. Also note in
the staus bar section of the Photoshop main window that one can have this
to display document ICC profile (or file size etc).
Another little test:
Make a new CMYK file with solid patches of C, M, Y, K
and other tones and colours etc. Assign the SWOP v2 profile to this file
and read/note LAB values of the CMYK numbers. Then assign a Custom CMYK
generated profile (such as Photoshop 5 Default CMYK.icc) and note the LAB
values. It should now be obvious that the default Custom CMYK does not have
the same LAB response as does TR001 (SWOP v2).
If you require more accuracy in your LAB readings,
change your rendering intent in Color Settings to Absolute Colorimetric as
you make these measurements - BUT DONT FORGET TO CHANGE IT BACK TO RELCOL
or PERCEPTUAL once you are done with the evaluation (this is not really
critical for this simple test mentioned above, but is required if you do
need more accurate LAB measurements when doing colorimetric tasks).
Stephen Marsh.
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 09:04:40 -0500
From: Terry Wyse
Subject: Re: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
I debated even attempting to come up with an answer to
this question but I'll give it a shot:
I would say it's mostly between
"USWebCoated(SWOP)v2" or "USSheetfedCoated". Most would
probably default to SWOPv2 even if they are a commercial sheetfed shop
(which is too bad). But I suppose there are just as many that upgraded from
the Photoshop 4/5 days that simply set their color preferences to either
Photoshop 4/5 defaults and left it there. Again, too bad.
Personally, I hope there starts a movement towards
standard ICC profiles that model real press behavior and that these would
be available in Photoshop. I can't see how it would be a bad thing to
settle on a half dozen or so profiles that would cover SWOP/web publication
work (TR001), commercial sheetfed (GRACoL TR004) and possibly Newspaper
(IFRA). You could also throw flexo/packaging (FIRST) in their as well. I'm
speaking mostly of the US printing industry. In Europe, you've got the ECI
working on this and their collection of ISO characterization data.
I personally use a slightly tweaked version of
USSheetfedCoated, tweaked more for the realities of linear CTP than for
anything else (USheetfedCoated assumes too much gain, more like a
film-to-plate workflow). I prefer the gray balance behavior and solid ink
hues of this profile over SWOPv2. I work mostly with either commercial
sheetfed or web printers so my bias is definitely towards commercial
printing regardless of how the paper is transported through the press. :-)
Given that, in my press optimization work I'm always pushing the press
towards GRACoL guidelines as far as density and dot gain.
I could go on but I have to be heading to Nashville
today to get some work done!
Terry
_____________________________
WyseConsul
Color Management Consulting
704.843.0858
http://www.colormanagementgroup.com
http://www.wyseconsul.com (coming soon)
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 14:20:19 -0600
From: "drhobbes"
Subject: Re: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
On December 12, 2004, Terry Wyse posted a complete and
most informative response to my questions about which profile(s) are most
popular for commercial printing use. As the entire post immediately
precedes this acknowledgement of his help, the message has been deleted for
brevity.
Terry,
Thank you for generously taking the time
and effort to clarify this. It may not be all that big a deal to you, but
it's more than valuable to me--and I'm sure to many of those who stand on
the sidelines, watching and hoping that someone will ask all these wild
questions. Your post has been saved for further study.
This information may be common knowledge
to you and to your peers who have years of education and experience in this
field. It's very fortunate for the rest of us that you understand
our desperation and were willing to take the time to further our
education. This is the kind of applied knowledge that is sorely
lacking in almost all of the books on the subject, at least in my own
extensive collection.
For what it's worth, if anyone else who
browses this forum could answer yet another of my unending questions, it
will undoubtedly be helpful to many of ouir number. Has it been your
experience that sometimes you get poor printed output with profiles that
are known to be right for the job? And, on the other hand, have you
found that some printers can produce good results even when the profiles
used are not the ideal choice for the job? Along these same lines if anyone
would be willing to provide either horror stories or examples of printers
or others who went to extraordinary lengths to give you a good result, that
could be as instructive as any kind of technical advice. Sometimes
it's easier to learn from examples than from detailed descriptions.
As an example, my first commercial printing job was color separated
by a true expert, one of the best. It was unfortunate for me that the
printer, recommended to me by a co-worker's brother, had never done a color
printing job in his life. It was my fault for not asking questions
before contracting for the job. What I'm looking for here is some
idea of just how much leeway we have when assigning profiles, preparing
proofs and choosing printing firms (if there is any choice). Is this
an exact science or can we make little errors along the way and still
survive?
Howard Smith
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 16:50:34 -0500
From: "jc castronovo"
Subject: Re: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
This leads me to ask the question of how much control a
pressman has on the job. If our files aren't exactly what they should be,
when is the job hopelessly lost? I know that's a lot to ask for in such a
forum as this, but I know that a lot can be done on press. How do we know
when a pressman is just being lazy and blaming the files? What should we
expect of him?
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 16:17:45 EST
From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Re: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
Terry writes,
Personally, I hope there starts a movement towards
standard ICC
profiles that model real press behavior and that these
would be
available in Photoshop. I can't see how it would be a
bad thing to
settle on a half dozen or so profiles that would cover
SWOP/web
publication work (TR001), commercial sheetfed (GRACoL
TR004) and
possibly Newspaper (IFRA). You could also throw
flexo/packaging (FIRST)
in their as well.
The philosophy is an excellent one, but unfortunately,
until Photoshop allows us to edit the profiles, it's a waste of breath.
It's ridiculous that we should be forced to use
something as dated as Custom CMYK, but not as ridiculous as being
repeatedly asked to change to something that doesn't meet our minimum
requirements. If the experience of the nearly seven years since Photoshop 5
should have taught Adobe anything, it's that the ability to tweak profiles
is an absolute prerequisite for the high-end CMYK community. Until
it's there, your otherwise commendable idea is a nonstarter.
Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 17:28:44 EST
From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Re: Apology
Howard Smith writes,
Please accept my apologies. You were right and I
was very much in error.
Now that I can see the whole picture the description
you provided on pages 270
and 271 is both clear and understandable. Since
you can expect to encounter
some readers who may be even more dense than me, you
might consider putting in
a specific example
First of all, not to worry about being wrong. Color is
unique in that nearly everybody has certain blind spots, where they talk
themselves out of seeing something that's obvious to everybody else. It
happens to me, too; at least twice this year I've discovered I completely
misunderstood some concept, and although I was getting to the right result,
I was getting there for all the wrong reasons, and I can't imagine how I
could possibly have been so stupid.
With respect to the book, because of this effect, that
certain people can't get a handle on certain concepts, beginning with the
last edition there are boxes in most chapters called "Stumbling
Blocks": concepts that I think are clearly explained elsewhere but,
for some reason, certain readers aren't grasping. For the next edition,
I'll put this one in.
Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 18:06:03 -0900
From: KmKm/Crystal Images
Subject: Custom CMYK
Thank you, Dan, for these answers and yes, I did go
through the archives. Still have a few questions, if you will indulge
me.
The traditional Photoshop CMYK default profile, last
updated in Photoshop 5.
Is it possible to state which of the current profiles,
the Custom CMYK profile most closely relates to?
Underestimation of black dot gain, overestimation of
cyan dot gain, a 100%
black ink limit, a non-skeleton black generation, and
previews that are
misleading in the shadows because the engine assumes
that 100k is
absolutely black.
"Underestimation of black dot gain"--meaning
printed result will be more dark in output than anticipated by what is
viewed on the monitor?
And if so, can this be compensated for (somewhat) by
"lighten/contrast" and evaluating one's own proof off one's own
inkjet? (I assume this somewhat depends on which inkjet and which
RIP).
The 100% black ink limit can be edited, correct?
As well as the UCR/GCR settings? This to me seems the value of
the custom CMYK profile?
But then there was that niggling comment about editing
this profile only affects screen view and not output? If so, then
what's the point of editing? I guess that's why I chose to embed
profiles--to hold the settings in the final output.
I can only hope that I've made enough mistakes and
false assumptions to cancel each other out so many times that maybe
something will come out okay. And if not, then there will be multiple
reasons why or why or not, it seems. Can't wait to see what happens when
they get ahold of my files in Hong Kong for tests proofs off of who knows
what system? Especially since they sent me this comment
"No matter which printer you use, the quality of
your scans will lead to the same result, which will not vary with the
printer."
So far, I have let this comment pass in stride. I
figured at least I have someone in Hong Kong communicating directly with
me, which has been hard to achieve with other print reps. Also they have
been willing to discuss issues such as my Pagemaker files, PDF's, embedded
profiles, dot gain, UCR/GCR, etc.
Similar to other posts I read in archives, my Hong Kong
print rep advised 12% dot gain (which Dan questioned and probably rightly
so), which I dutifully set, and UCR with total ink 330% and black ink 90%,
but I chose light GCR with 5% UCA with same ink settings. After
converting to my new profile (and embedding/sorry Stephen), I then fiddled
with images and came up with the best output I could on my own printer and
sent off files and my composite proofs. Anyone want to predict the
results? (They may be using film rather than CTP and printing
straight from my Pagemaker files. They have offered to test at both
175 and 200 lpi.
Thanks again. Even if I have screwed up big time,
the learning process here is fascinating. Regards, Kathleen
--
Kathleen M.K. Menke
Crystal Images
http://kcd.com/ci
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 22:04:29 -0800
From: rudy harvey
Subject: Custom CMYK
It should be noted that the Custom CMYK settings
existed long before the Swop V2 profiles.
Custom CMYK was in Photoshop 2.5 I believe. The Swop V2
profiles were introduced in Photoshop 6. That's gotta be at least 5 years.
There's no way the Swop V2 profiles could be based on the Custom CMYK
settings. They are both useful, but are completely different.
I frequently use the Custom CMYK to make a proof setup
to simulate proofs from printers who won't or can't send me a profile for
their proofer or press.
The The Swop V2 profiles we use for about a third of
our rgb to cmyk conversions the other two-thirds use a custom profile we
made and edited just for conversions.
My .02
Rudy Harvey
Color Management Consultant
Adobe Certified Expert -Photoshop
Certified Photographic Consultant
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 07:39:25 -0000
From:Stephen Marsh
Subject: Re: Custom CMYK
Is it possible to state which of the current profiles,
the Custom
CMYK profile most closely relates to?
Photoshop 5 Default CMYK.icc (which was generated by
Custom CMYK by Adobe, it should match SWOP Coated 20%, Med GCR, 100K,
300TIL, 0UCA).
The legacy Custom CMYK engine in no way, shape or form
ralates to any machine measured and profile generating package produced ICC
profile.
About the only common thing is that they both mention
SWOP in their name - but I can show you at least half a dozen
"SWOP" profiles which are all different anyway.
As your are making your own profile via Custom CMYK by
entering the settings your HK printer recommends, it should all be
editable. But if you have made the conversion first before you know what
separation specs to separate to...
If your files are in CMYK and you then change your
Custom CMYK profile settings to some new ideal value, then you will need to
reconvert as the profile is only being used for display once the file in
CMYK.
If the file was RGB and you change your Custom CMYK
then it would not matter and the RGB would be both separated and displayed
with this profile.
Stephen Marsh.
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:02:53 EST
From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Re: Custom CMYK
Kathleen Menke writes,
Is it possible to state which of the current profiles,
the Custom
CMYK profile most closely relates to?
No. They are all different in different ways.
"Underestimation of black dot gain"--meaning
printed result will be
more dark in output than anticipated by what is viewed
on the monitor?
A better phrase would be "muddier-looking",
as all but the purest colors would be contaminated by excessive black ink.
And if so, can this be compensated for (somewhat) by
"lighten/contrast" and evaluating one's own
proof off one's own
inkjet?.
No.
The 100% black ink limit can be edited, correct?
As well as the
UCR/GCR settings? This to me seems the value of
the custom CMYK
profile?
Correct.
But then there was that niggling comment about editing
this profile
only affects screen view and not output? If so,
then what's the
point of editing?
The point is to get not just a better preview but a
better separation. If you edit the profile AFTER the file is already in
CMYK, then, yes, it affects only the screen view. However, if you edit it
BEFORE the file is in CMYK, then it will be taken into account during
separation, and the resulting CMYK file will be different (and thus will
output differently) than if the profile had not been edited.
Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 07:41:55 -0700
From: Andrew Rodney
Subject: Re: Re: Custom CMYK
On 12/13/04 12:39 AM, "Stephen Marsh"
wrote:
About the only common thing is that they both mention
SWOP in their
name - but I can show you at least half a dozen
"SWOP" profiles which
are all different anyway.
Pretty frightening! And I1d agree totally that what you
say above syncs up with my experiences with 3SWOP2.
As your are making your own profile via Custom CMYK by
entering the
settings your HK printer recommends, it should all be
editable. But
if you have made the conversion first before you know
what separation
specs to separate to...
Exactly. And while this allows some editing, it1s not
the full Monty. That is, you1re still basing the conversions on a huge part
of the engine you can1t configure. You can measure some 61 or so color
patches and make a custom ink model and tweak but at this point, you
probably have the equipment to roll a true CMYK ICC profile. So the classic
CMYK engine does provide a heck of a lot more tweaking then you1d have if
you only had the U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2 profile at your disposal, it1s
still not giving you a huge degree of control over the separation process.
Andrew Rodney
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:20:08 +0000
From: Richard Kenward
Subject: Re: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
I jc castronovo writes
This leads me to ask the question of how much control a
pressman has on the
job. If our files aren't exactly what they should be,
when is the job
hopelessly lost? I know that's a lot to ask for in such
a forum as this, but
I know that a lot can be done on press. How do we know
when a pressman is
just being lazy and blaming the files? What should we
expect of him?
Dear John
I believe that going to press checks is an important
part of getting a "feel" of what is possible and what is not,
especially if it is a job of any size and by that I mean number of pages
involved. It also gives you a pretty good idea of if the outfit are
up to the job or floundering!
Cheers
Richard
--
Richard Kenward www.precision-drum-scanning.co.uk
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:35:51 -0600
From: "drhobbes"
Subject: Re: Apology
From: Dan Margulis
With respect to the book, because of this effect, that
certain people can't
get a handle on certain concepts, beginning with the
last edition there are
boxes in most chapters called "Stumbling
Blocks": concepts that I think are
clearly explained elsewhere but, for some reason,
certain readers aren't grasping.
For the next edition, I'll put this one in.
Thanks, Dan! Undoubtedly there are many among us who
will appreciate this addition.
Is there any possibility of your telling us when to
expect publication of your new edition?
Howard Smith
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 18:18:41 -0800
From: Jono Moore
Subject: Re: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 19:00:44 -0600, drhobbes wrote:
What kind of profile do the majority of
prepress people use for
conversion to CMYK?
I use custom CMYK, because that is how I learned to do
it in Photoshop years ago.
I've recently started playing with the Sheetfed v2
profile, after recommendations from the folks on this list. But it feels a
bit too much like a black box to me. :-)
Unfortunately I'm not doing a lot of 4 colour work at
the moment so I don't get a lot of chance to experiment.
As an aside, does anyone know what sort of settings the
Adobe profiles use for black generation, etc?
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 18:32:18 -0800
From: Jono Moore
Subject: Re: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 16:50:34 -0500, jc castronovo
wrote:
This leads me to ask the question of how much control a
pressman has on the
job. If our files aren't exactly what they should be,
when is the job
hopelessly lost? I know that's a lot to ask for in such
a forum as this, but
I know that a lot can be done on press. How do we know
when a pressman is
just being lazy and blaming the files? What should we
expect of him?
The pressman has final control of colour. They run
"to the numbers" (Standard Ink Density), but have a _lot_ of
control over the final output. A good pressman can save bad art (to some
extent but probably at the expense of something else on the sheet).
But there is a lot more to it than just setting ink
densities. A lot of issues arise from what else is on the sheet around the
images - like large areas of solid colour with a picture in the middle (do
you want to match that 4 colour build of a Pantone colour or do you want
the picture to look good?) - and where the images are on the sheet in
relation to sheet travel through the press - what is before and after the
picture and how much ink the press has to carry.
And, of course, every press is different with different
capabilities and deficiencies. It all boils down to mechanics and physics.
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:36:28 EST
From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Re: Apology
Howard Smith writes,
Is there any possibility of your telling us when to
expect publication of
your new edition?
My current plans are to have a book on the uses of LAB
in the second half of 2005, and a new edition of Professional Photoshop
sometime in 2006.
Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:34:41 EST
From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Re: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
Jono writes,
As an aside, does anyone know what sort of settings the
Adobe profiles
use for black generation, etc?
The black is slightly darker than the Light GCR setting
in Custom CMYK, and has a maximum value of 90%.
Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:21:02 -0500
From: "Gene Palmiter"
Subject: Re: Apology
Good to know. I bought a copy off Amazon a couple of
months ago and could not tell which was the newest....and didn't get the
newest. But, as it's confounding me enough for now, I can wait a year for
the next version.
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:25:55 -0900
From: KmKm/Crystal Images
Subject: Custom CMYK
Thank you Stephen. This is helpful. I
believe these were the assumptions I was going on. Because I
inadvertently converted first with the Photoshop defaults (I wasn't even
aware of what they were or that they mattered), I believe I both converted
(from default CMYK to Kathleen's Custom CMYK with my changed settings) and
saved as embedded to update and hold settings through Pagemaker links and
transfer of project (seven CD's worth) to Hong Kong. In this way, I
hope to learn from results of wet proofs. Next time, I would approach
the project differently, getting my settings where I want them before
converting from RGB. What I want to avoid is muddy prints and washed
out highlights. We'll see. Kathleen
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:28:10 -0600
From: "drhobbes"
Subject: Re: Apology
On 12/14/04 Gene Palmiter wrote:
Good to know. I bought a copy off Amazon a couple of
months ago and could
not tell which was the newest....and didn't get the
newest. But, as it's
confounding me enough for now, I can wait a year for
the next version.
Gene,
Several days ago a lady on an elevator
noticed me carrying one of my many Photoshop books and commented on how
hard it is to learn. When I responded that she will not learn it from
a single book, she seemed disappointed. "So I guess Photoshop
for Dummies won't do it?" she asked.
No, Gene, there is no magic book on the
market. Dan's Professional Photoshop comes closer than anything I've
found. In the beginning it was like trying to learn Russian by
reading a Russian/English dictionary (I made his book my primary text when
I scarcely knew enough to be able to save an image file in Photoshop).
Now, in spite of the low opinion Dan must have of my current
knowledge of Photoshop from all my puzzled queries, reading it is almost
like reading a Reader's Digest article. You get from there to here by
reading. Over and over and over until the copy falls apart in your
hands (about six readings per volume). When you have no idea what
he's talking about, look up things like Apply Image and blending modes in
another Photoshop book (Professional Photoshop was never intended as a
first text). Then come back to Dan's book and read it some more. Ask
questions. Lots of questions, but only when you can't find the answer
in your books. If you just accept the fact that this is a difficult
program to learn when you're starting from scratch, and you refuse to give
up on it, you'll find yourself becoming pleasantly expert at it. When
you despair of gaining the knowledge exhibited by many of the respondents
on this forum, keep in mind that they are speaking from years of experience
coupled with attendance at and participation in national seminars, both
Photoshop seminars and those in the broad field of commercial printing.
You have to start before you can become that expert.
As for the book you've just bought--read
it. Every edition has things in it that you may not find in the
others. After studying Professional Photoshop for almost three years,
I learned still more by finally obtaining and reading a copy of his
original book (Makeready, I believe it was called). Had I not bought
and read all of his other editions, I would be searching from them now at
used book dealers.
Sincerely,
Howard Smith
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:23:14 -0000
From: "ken cavanagh"
Subject: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
If US Web Coated (SWOP) v2 is built with the settings
as Dan describes and 300% TAC, is this profile going to show a significant
improvement over similar custom cmyk settings?
I gather it is a more refined profile, but is it
difference that one would see in reproduction for a "typical"
image?
Thanks
Ken
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:53:03 -0500
From: Henry Davis
Subject: Re: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
That the press operator has "final control of
color" strikes me as one of those statements like "the pilot has
final control over the quality of the ride". In a way it is
true, because a press operator can mess up an otherwise well prepared job,
the same as a "lazy" pilot might not offer a pleasing ride
in smooth air. But the weather occasionally plays a role. Too
few designers however are concerned about basic print design, and the
points you present concerning the limits of on-press control should be
Designer 101. Never mind ghosting and other fun topics.
If the job looks different than expected, then all
factors are suspect. Looking at the beginning as well as at the end
of the process when troubleshooting is a realistic and expedient approach.
Sometimes print brokers and designers accept responsibility for a
botched job, but this usually happens when they are presented with all of
the facts. It may not occur to some of them how many times their
rears have been saved by pre press and press operators who quietly stepped
in and fixed their problems - without mention and for no fee. When
presented with facts that implicate poor design or image prep, it is
amazing how many refuse to accept responsibility. But then, it's less
amazing when one considers that designers may be under the misconception
that it has been their files that are actually used. This is one of
the "Catch 22's" of the print trade.
It will probably continue this way, because often times
it's so much easier to fix a customer's files than get into a long drawn
out dialogue that seldom produces anything but contempt for both parties.
Rarely, though, one does encounter customers that truly want to
learn, even when it is by their mistakes. How many of us really spend
much effort learning from a project that came off just right? Files
that are fixed on the qt by pre press or press operators are jobs that come
off just right, and the designer receives an award.
Henry Davis
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:37:48 EST
From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Re: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
Ken writes,
If US Web Coated (SWOP) v2 is built with the settings
as Dan describes below and 300% TAC, is this profile going to show a
significant improvement over similar custom cmyk settings?
If you're talking a straight Custom CMYK default, yes;
if a properly adjusted one, no.
I gather it is a more refined profile, but is it
difference that one would see in reproduction for a "typical"
image?
All conversion methods get slightly different results,
and will work well on certain images and less well on others.
Assuming that you're not planning to do much to the CMYK file after
conversions, Images with deep blues tend to get poorer results with
the SWOP v.2 profile than with a reasonable Custom CMYK, but
fleshtones are better, etc., etc.
If you are planning any significant work after the
conversion, SWOP v.2 is a poor choice because of somewhat excessive
black generation and because its shadows are too red. Plus, of course, you
can't override its black generation settings.
Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:12:04 -0000
From: "ken cavanagh"
Subject: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
Dan, thanks for your reply, which leads me to ask...by
"properly adjusted" you mean not the default custom cmyk, but
something similar to US web coated swop, like swop coated, light gcr, 90%
BIL and 300% TAC?
The fleshtones being better is something I will
experiment with. Are there other subjects, in your experience, that
have yielded a pro/con result from custom cmyk vs. web coated swop
v2? You hint that there are with "etc., etc."
Since my work involves a variety of photographic
subjects, (most of it is printed with web presses on textbook quality
stock), this is certainly of interest.
Thanks
Ken
Ken Cavanagh
Photographer
Macmillan/McGraw-Hill
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 12:29:25 -0500
From: Terry Wyse
Subject: "Custom CMYK" ideas (was: sheetfed
vs. web coated SWOP profiles)
Dan, since you seem to have the ear of Adobe, here's an
idea I have to get away from the "Custom CMYK" stuff (based on
sort of "mystery meat" press behavior) and towards customizable
profiles based on real press behavior:
Within the "Custom CMYK" engine, embed the
actual TR001 (Web/SWOP) and TR004 (commercial sheetfed) characterization
data and then build a custom profile based on this (yea, I know, CGATS or
whomever would probably want some kind of royalty for this but embed it in
such a way that it cannot be extracted). Why not go the whole nine yards
and include flexo and newsprint data? So you would simply choose the base
characterization data, much like you do now when choosing an ink set, set
your separation parameters and build yourself a custom TR00-whatever
profile. It would also be nice to select a custom paper white value to use
but that's more for proofing than actually producing a separation.
To prevent the casual user from doing something silly,
I'd also like to see a "flag" or warning if an end-user requests,
for example, a total ink limit that exceeds what's recommended by the
standards group that supplied the data, like choosing 360% for a
"SWOP" profile. UCR/UCA/GCR could be left totally at the user's
discretion but things like total ink limit/dot gain/K limit should throw up
a flag if mucked with beyond a certain threshold.
While were at it.....
When I'm doing custom press profiling for a customer, I
typically make them a small "set" of profiles with differing
amounts of UCR/GCR etc. that they can select from to tailor the separation
for certain types of images. Same colorimetric/measurement data but just
different separation parameters.
What drives me insane is that Photoshop will flash up
all kinds of warnings if they've used one of these profiles that doesn't
HAPPEN to be the standard one they've chosen as their default CMYK working
space even though all these profiles were made from the SAME colorimetric
data and will effectively return a soft-proof that's identical. Photoshop
thinks the profile is "different" when, from a certain point of
view, it's really not.
I can think of a couple of ways around this. One, have
as part of the standard ICC format the inclusion of the original
colorimetric data within the profile (GMB ProfileMaker already does this).
Photoshop could then quickly check the "colorimetric" tag and
realize that this profile is effectively the same profile with only the
separation parameters being different.
The other option would be for Photoshop to do quick
"profile round-trip" where they extract a small number of
"patches" by doing a CMYK->Lab transform and compare this data
between the two profiles (sort of like doing a checksum of the profile).
It's a quick thing to do for maybe 100-200 patches and possibly this data
could be cached in some way so it doesn't have to do this every time an
image with an embedded profile is opened.
I know this isn't exactly the forum for this sort of
thing but I thought I'd just throw it out there.
Calibrationist regards,
Terry
:-)
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 15:03:12 EST
From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Re: Re: sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles
Ken Cavanagh writes,
Dan, thanks for your reply, which leads me to ask...by
"properly adjusted" you mean not the default custom cmyk, but
something similar to US web coated swop, like swop coated, light gcr, 90%
BIL and 300% TAC?
Those are steps in the right direction. You'd also need
to adjust cyan dot gain down and black dot gain up, for starters, plus you
do not assume that the default 20% dot gain is correct.
Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 15:26:57 EST
From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Re: "Custom CMYK" ideas (was:
sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles)
Terry writes,
Dan, since you seem to have the ear of Adobe, here's an
idea I have to
get away from the "Custom CMYK" stuff (based
on sort of "mystery meat"
press behavior) and towards customizable profiles based
on real press
behavior:
I am getting ready to leave for the airport for ten
glorious days in the Puerto Rican sun, so I can't reply at the length that
the post deserves. Will do so either upon return or if I can tear myself
away from the beach and find a reliable dialup connection.
Briefly, though: the idea is commendable, but it
wouldn't work in real life. The Custom CMYK engine is so heavily kloodged
that if you enter correct colorimetric information for ink values you get a
separation that's too gray, among other problems. You have to change the
numbers to specify poorer-quality inks.
Also, there aren't enough data points in the Custom
CMYK setup to get much of a match with any other profile, although one
might come close.
Plus, you'd have to ask why you'd even want to. Custom
CMYK profiles don't support any of the nice soft-proofing features that are
a major attraction of third-party profiles.
More in a few days.
Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 09:58:49 -0500
From: Ric Cohn
Subject: Re: "Custom CMYK" ideas (was:
sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles)
Terry,
Perhaps you could post your request on the
"Feature Request" section of Adobe's Photoshop User Forum. I
believe if enough truly knowledgeable CMYK users posted their views that
Adobe might decide it was worth the time and expense of adding and updating
CMYK features. I can't think of any other area of Photoshop where there is
such a gap between the usability and understanding of the
"beginner" and the "advanced" use of a Photoshop
feature.
Ric Cohn
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 13:12:24 -0800
From: Peter Constable
Subject: RE: "Custom CMYK" ideas (was:
sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles)
Terry-
Don't users want to know if profiles are different with
respect to separation parameters like K generation? I see
difficulties here.
Example 1: Someone creates profiles using the same
colorimetric data but different software tools (and different gamut mapping
strategies). They may want to know which type of gamut
mapping/profile is associated with their image so they have the option of
reseparating using a different strategy/profile.
Example 2: Someone creates profiles using the same
colorimetric data but different K generation settings. They may want
to know which type of K generation is associated with their image so they
have the option of reseparating using a different K gen parameter.
Keying warning messages off colorimetric data used by
the profile may limit their usefulness?
_peter
Peter Constable
Adobe Systems, Inc.
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 15:16:29 EST
From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Re: "Custom CMYK" ideas (was:
sheetfed vs. web coated SWOP profiles)
Two weeks ago, Terry Wyse posted a lengthy commentary
addressed to me on editing of CMYK profiles. Because I was on my way to the
airport at the time, to a place where web access is difficult, I replied
only briefly and said that I would add more when I returned. Now that
I am properly suntanned and the island of Puerto Rico has been
substantially depleted of rum, I offer the following.
Dan, since you seem to have the ear of Adobe...
Yeah, the deaf one.
...here's an idea I have to get away from the
"Custom CMYK" stuff (based on
sort of "mystery meat" press behavior) and
towards customizable profiles
based on real press behavior: Within the "Custom
CMYK" engine, embed the actual
TR001 (Web/SWOP) and TR004 (commercial sheetfed)
characterization data and then
build a custom profile based on this (yea, I know,
CGATS or whomever would
probably want some kind of royalty for this but embed
it in such a way that it
cannot be extracted).
As I indicated in my first post, this wouldn't work,
because the Custom CMYK engine is so heavily kloodged that entering the
"correct" colorimetric values won't work. You can get good
profiles out of it but they have to be based on a "make the magenta
ink less vivid" approach rather than on measurements. That's fine with
me, because I've done so many profiles that way on so many different
platforms that it seems a lot more natural (not to mention quicker, and
higher quality) than doing it with a machine. However, it excludes anyone
who hasn't had that kind of experience, and anyone else who would prefer to
use machine measurements as a starting point.
Why not go the whole nine yards and include flexo and
newsprint data? So
you would simply choose the base characterization data,
much like you do now
when choosing an ink set, set your separation
parameters and build yourself a
custom TR00-whatever profile. It would also be nice to
select a custom paper
white value to use but that's more for proofing than
actually producing a
separation.
Sure. Presumably you would also want to add more
sampling points than Custom CMYK now has. That's what *should* have been
done in 1998 and at every point since. What you're describing is basically
a completely revamped version of Custom CMYK, incorporating all of the
advantages that are available with the ICC format, while not throwing away
the indispensable ability to edit.
UCR/UCA/GCR could be left totally at the user's
discretion but things like
total ink limit/dot gain/K limit should throw up a flag
if mucked with beyond
a certain threshold.
Fine with me. It would stop a lot of confusion about
the seemingly contradictory settings in the separation algorithm. Like, if
you are choosing a heavier GCR you are ipso facto specifying a lower total
ink, and if you nevertheless insert a higher total ink limit, it would
probably help to have the program warn you against it. Similarly, since
SWOP dictates an ink limit of 300%, if you put 360% in, it's not a
SWOP-compliant profile. So, the program could advise us of that.
While were at it.....When I'm doing custom press
profiling for a customer,
I typically make them a small "set" of
profiles with differing amounts of
UCR/GCR etc. that they can select from to tailor the
separation for certain types
of images. Same colorimetric/measurement data but just
different separation
parameters.
This is a great thing to do. The problems are, first,
that devices shift over time, and second, that the customer may agree that
your profiles are good but disagree that they are perfect.
What drives me insane is that Photoshop will flash up
all kinds of warnings
if they've used one of these profiles that doesn't
HAPPEN to be the standard
one they've chosen as their default CMYK working space
even though all these
profiles were made from the SAME colorimetric data and
will effectively return
a soft-proof that's identical. Photoshop thinks the
profile is "different"
when, from a certain point of view, it's really not.
This is simply a symptom of a much larger disease. The
idea of an alert when Photoshop encounters a nonstandard profile is a great
one; unfortunately the Photoshop interface is so lame that anybody who
takes in files from many different sources has to turn it off.
In a perfect world, I want to know whether a CMYK file
has been separated in an unusual way just as much as I want to know whether
an RGB file has an embedded profile. I don't guarantee to make use of
either piece of information but I would like to know about their existence.
Unfortunately, as you point out, if we leave the warning on we are rapidly
driven insane by interminable bogus alerts.
The obvious solution, as I've pointed out many times,
is to have an option in that alert box saying "Stop warning me about
this particular profile until the next time I quit Photoshop."
Thanks for a thoughtful post.
Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
Adobe Photoshop training classes are taught in the US by Sterling Ledet & Associates, Inc.
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
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
Copyright 2012. Sterling Ledet & Associates. All Rights Reserved.
Design by Digital Scientists, a Conversion Optimization Company.
