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