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 CMY