Date   

Seeking CM reference site

Dan Margulis <76270.1033@...>
 

Gordo writes,

Much has been written on this forum about the increasing adoption and
success of ICC color management among printers.>>

Much has been written about this increasing adoption and success for more
than five years now. Mysteriously, however, after this half-decade of
continually increasing adoption, none of these successful printers have
come forward in trade shows or in the press, or to advertise their success
with ICC methods to prospective clients.

The "ICC color management" being used by such printers as have been even
peripherally identified with the concept has, in all the cases I'm aware
of, amounted to either a) They will, if asked, honor an embedded tag in an
incoming client file, although they don't embed tags in their own; or b)
They have calibrated (or had someone calibrate for them) certain of their
devices, and it happens that this involves the use of third-party software
to create an ICC profile, IOW they are grafting an ICC profile onto
traditional methodology.

If any printers are doing more, I'd certainly love to hear about it from a
credible observer (i.e. not a vendor of color management services) and I
imagine that others in the group would feel the same way. So, if you should
encounter such a company, I know we'd like a report, even if the company
can't be named.

Dan Margulis


Re: By the numbersÅ ?

Chris Murphy <lists@...>
 

Short of
selecting each object with the wrong value is there another way, as I try to
use the magic wand as little as possible?
You can use selective color, or replace color to fix these areas.
Alternatively, the camera can be profiled. The resulting profile for the
digital camera isn't just based on curves, but is actually a table. This
table is capable of allowing conversions from cameraRGB to some other
space (either Adobe RGB or your preferred CMYK space) with color-in-color
moves similar to what selective color uses. That is magenta would be
reduced in skin tones and increased in wood (or whatever the issue is
with your specific digital camera).

The results I've had with Kodak Input Profile Builder are quite good, and
I think Andrew has had very good results with Gretag Macbeth's solution
for making digital camera profiles. While you can use a regular Color
Checker for making a good profile, I've seen anywhere from 5% to 30%
improvements (camera dependent) using the new Color Checker DC which was
specifically designed for profiling digital cameras.

Now what this is going to do is balance the image and get it as close to
the original scene as possible. It's not going to fix bad exposures, and
won't do color correction, sharpening or image enhancement. It'll just
significantly reduce the amount of "hassle color correction" that you use
to solve weird camera behavior problems mentioned as examples in two
previous posts on this subject.

I understand Pictographics has a new product called inCamera
Professional. I haven't had a chance to use it yet. Praxisoft also has a
digital camera product as well. Andrew?


Chris Murphy


Re: By the numbersÅ ?

Christine Holzmann <tekila@...>
 

With the advent and popularity of digital cameras in newspaper
photojournalism a new beast has really reared its head.
It seems that unlike film that absorbs light consistently across the
spectrum (at least in theory) the digital CCDs on some digital cameras
(specifically the Nikon D1) the absorption seems to inconsistent (i.e. skin
tones are absorbing more magenta than say wood).

I have jumped through some major hoops with the curves and a mixture of
plate blending in both RGB and CMYK with sometimes great results and
sometimes a horrific outcome.

Trying not to over explain but often time I have, say a jacket, with an
appropriate CMYK value and faces with way too much magenta. Short of
selecting each object with the wrong value is there another way, as I try to
use the magic wand as little as possible?

Thanks,
Joey Benton
I experience the exact same problem...on one of the digital cameras we use, skin tones seem to take on an excessive amount of cyan......it is very difficult to correct this without ruining the rest of the image, so I have to correct the different objects in the photo selectively.
Another digital camera makes the skin tones take on far too much yellow.
As you stated, these color casts are not consistent across the image, so correcting the image "universally" does not correct the skin tone.

Crissi
____________________________________
--
DIGITAL/GRAPHIC ARTIST
http://www.crissi.com

DESIGN EDITOR @ THE CITIZEN NEWS
http://www.thecitizennews.com


By the numbersÅ 

Joey Benton <jwbenton@...>
 

With the advent and popularity of digital cameras in newspaper
photojournalism a new beast has really reared its head.
It seems that unlike film that absorbs light consistently across the
spectrum (at least in theory) the digital CCDs on some digital cameras
(specifically the Nikon D1) the absorption seems to inconsistent (i.e. skin
tones are absorbing more magenta than say wood).

I have jumped through some major hoops with the curves and a mixture of
plate blending in both RGB and CMYK with sometimes great results and
sometimes a horrific outcome.

Trying not to over explain but often time I have, say a jacket, with an
appropriate CMYK value and faces with way too much magenta. Short of
selecting each object with the wrong value is there another way, as I try to
use the magic wand as little as possible?

Thanks,
Joey Benton


Re: Questions and grain

Gordon Pritchard <gordon_pritchard@...>
 

RE:
Thank you all for your constructive comments about my color settings.
Some of you mentioned "learning the numbers". I need to know what
this means. and is the subject covered in Dan's book Professional
Photoshop 6?>>
============================================

In the pre DTP days as well as the days before color monitors were
available, better printers would oftensupply creatives with swatch books of
all the combinations of CMYK -- effectively their printable gamut. The
creative could then simply look at the recipe for the color they wanted and
specify "by-the-numbers" It did not matter whether the color was in a scan
or a synthetic object (e.g. an Illustrator vector graphic) 50C35M --
whatever--was a universal language. In those days all art was basically
built in black and white -- specifying color by screen tint builds by the
numbers. The first time the creative would see color was on an overlay or
laminate proof. Prior to off press proofing the creative would only see
color on a press proof or when the actual job printed.
Scanner operators only recently have had color monitors at their scanner
station. The first time these guys would see color was when a proof was
pulled from the film that the scanner output. So all their color work had to
be done by the numbers.
It is a device dependent way of working in that a specified color would only
apply to that printer. In this workflow model, basically no color that is
seen prior to the contract proof was any particular validity. I.e. pretty
colors on and inkjet or on the monitor are ignored -- only the laminate
proof has validity.
With the advent of DTP and soft (monitor) proofing, many printers abandoned
the swatch books and instead told their customers that they warranted their
color as proofed by one of ther proofing media vendors (e.g. Imation, Fuji,
Dupont etc.) Specify your colors by the numbers and if you like how it
appears on the proof then they will "match" on press. This is still kinda
device dependent (ie must be Imation gamut) however you will theoretically
get the same color from every printer who says that they can match one
common proof media.


thx - gordo

Gordon Pritchard
Commercial Print Specialist
CreoScitex
Vancouver Canada
T: 604.451.2700 ext 2870
C: 604.351.2437
gordon_pritchard@creoscitex.com
http://www.creoscitex.com

Print, the original dot com<


Seeking CM reference site

Gordon Pritchard <gordon_pritchard@...>
 

Much has been written on this forum about the increasing adoption and
success of ICC color management among printers.

I would appreciate hearing from Chris M, Andrew R, or other consultants or
their clients regarding any reference site(s) that I could visit.

I would like to visit:
1) Commercial sheetfed shop -- any size
2) I would also like to visit and speak to one or more of their customers
3) Don't care if CTP or film
4) Don't care whose equipment they use.
5) Prefer a shop on the west coast (same time zone as me) Seattle to San
Diego and any point between

I am not in sales. I will not reveal any "secrets".

Please contact me on or off line to arrange.

thx, gordo


Gordon Pritchard
Commercial Print Specialist
CreoScitex
Vancouver Canada
T: 604.451.2700 ext 2870
C: 604.351.2437
gordon_pritchard@creoscitex.com
http://www.creoscitex.com

Print, the original dot com<


Questions and grain

Dan Margulis <76270.1033@...>
 

Gary writes,

Thank you all for your constructive comments about my color settings.
Some of you mentioned "learning the numbers". I need to know what
this means. and is the subject covered in Dan's book Professional
Photoshop 6?>>

"By the numbers" is the foundation for all successful color correction. In
its simplest form it implies setting an arbitrary light and dark point
somewhere in the image, and correcting all colors that one would expect to
be neutral to be neutral in fact. These are areas where the human visual
system is rather poor in evaluating what it sees, so the assistance of the
Info palette is necessary.

"Learning the numbers" is essentially a bogeyman erected by those who would
like to make successful color correction seem more difficult than it is.
You will hear people say things like, "that Dan Margulis, he can look at a
tree and know that it's supposed to be 53c18m75y. You'll never be able to
do that! What you really need is a calibrated monitor."

In reality, all that one needs to be able to do is to read a value and know
which color--RMBCGY--is being produced. When someone who knows what he's
doing sets a colored object to certain values, it's almost never because he
knows what values are correct, but rather because he's found values that
couldn't possibly be right and has decided to change them to ones that
conceivably could be.

In the example above, I might have originally found, say 40c30m80y. Now,
contrary to what you might hear, I have not memorized values for particular
trees. However, it's not too much of a stretch to insist that a tree should
be *green*. 40c30m80y is not, it's a greenish yellow. Therefore, it has to
change. 53c18m75y *is* a green. It might not be the right green for this
particular tree, but it has to be better than leaving it yellow.

I also recently had a costumer return a print I had enhance because
it was too grainy. The picture was shot on 800 speed film pushed to
1600. The mistake I made was to set the amount too high when I
unsharpened. Not only did the picture look grainy. ther was a color
shift in the grey horse that gave it a blue twinge.>>

If the picture looks grainy, then the mistake is too low of a Threshold,
not too high an Amount. If the Amount were too high, you'd see flecks of
white and black.

If there is a color shift as a result of sharpening, this can be avoided by
sharpening in the L channel of LAB, or, if working in RGB or CMYK, by using
Edit: Fade>Luminosity directly after applying the sharpening.

Dan Margulis


Re: color management & color correction,was: Color settings and upgrades

Dan Margulis <76270.1033@...>
 

Chris, James, Andrew,

While this thread has had valuable information it seems to have become
somewhat repetitive and unduly personal. I think the color settings thread
has played itself out. Gary was only asking how to make PS 5 behave like PS
4 and it turned into a referendum on color management. The thread on color
management and color correction may have some life left in it but I would
think that the three of you should withdraw for about 24 hours to let
things cool down. James, I don't see an objectionable personal tone in any
of Chris's posts.

I haven't participated in this one, largely because I believe the
conversation is academic, since the practical traditional side represented
by James has clearly won in the marketplace. It's worthy of note, however,
that Andrew and James basically agree on about 90% of what they are saying
and a lot of the arguments are really about semantics.

To respond briefly to the comments about my own practices: in color
correction, an overly precise knowledge of output conditions is not all
that big of an advantage. If a file is being prepared, say, for newspaper
reproduction, that's as accurate a description as is usually needed. IOW, I
would expect that having seen the actual printed product, at least 95% of
the time I wouldn't have corrected it any differently had I known more
about the specific newspaper.

Obviously, though, to cater to the <5%, it would be nice to do some kind of
finetuning. So, traditionally one edits CMYK Setup as one gains better
understanding of what the print conditions actually are. As to how many
passes are necessary to get that understanding, it wasn't clear whether
people were referring to a single image or to a group. When I calibrate to
some new condition I usually prefer a sheet of 12 or 15 typical images.
Typically I need to have that run three times before I am satisfied.
However, after two times I would certainly have a better profile than one
generated by machine.

If, however, we are discussing one image only, then I agree, after only two
passes I don't have enough to make more than a rough estimate of actual
conditions.

Dan Margulis


Re: listbot vs egroups

Dan Margulis <76270.1033@...>
 

Ron writes,

There was a message recently that said the list was being "moved".
I assumed that meant the old one would disappear and submissions
would be forwarded, but apparently not. Since both are supported
by advertising, I don't know if the people who own the servers
have any incentive to cooperate.<<

Sterling decided to move the list to egroups when listbot decided to place
the ads at the top of the messages. Also, egroups allows people to
subscribe in digest mode, which had been a major request from those who are
not interested in getting 12 messages a day whenever the subject of color
management crawls out from under its rock.

The listbot list still functions but we request that people change the
address for posting to colortheory@egroups.com. This is not just to avoid
the obnoxious advertising at top, but because messages posted to listbot
won't be included in the digests, and also because anyone who subscribed to
this group following the change (and there have been a lot) won't receive
messages addressed to listbot. Anybody who's subscribed to *either* list
will receive messages from egroups.

I assume that Sterling will close listbot completely in a few weeks once
it's become clear that everyone has switched over.

Dan Margulis


Questions and grain

gowens01@...
 

Thank you all for your constructive comments about my color settings.
Some of you mentioned "learning the numbers". I need to know what
this means. and is the subject covered in Dan's book Professional
Photoshop 6?

Because of weather conditions and low light situations I find myself
using more high speed film 800, 1600, etc. Because the faster films
tend to grainy I found this can create a problem when the negative is
scanned. For a regular 8x10 I usually set unsharp at amount 120;
radius 1.0; threshold 5. (I scan most negatives at 300 dpi). But when
you are using 800 or 1600 speed film the picture will be more
graining as the amount is raised. Then you get things like white
spots in dirt forgrounds. So the last time I used 800 speed film I
set the amount to 60 and got a better result.

Kodak has changed the Ektapress 800, 1600, and 3200 films to Supra
800. Accordding to the tech sheets the film has been engineered for
better scanning.

Recently I used this film on a really overcast day. For some reason I
messed up my framing and had to use the computer to rescue the orders
that came in. I scanned the pictures at 890%; 300 dpi and then
applied the unsharp mask at A-6-; R-1.0; T-5. the results were a
pretty good illusion of sharpness.

I also recently had a costumer return a print I had enhance because
it was too grainy. The picture was shot on 800 speed film pushed to
1600. The mistake I made was to set the amount too high when I
unsharpened. Not only did the picture look grainy. ther was a color
shift in the grey horse that gave it a blue twinge.

Now an aside for Dan regarding layers and file size. I learned a
couple of tricks the other day when I was working on a image with
about 16-18 layers. the first problem I encountered was trying to
save and then re-open the file. I only have 300 megs free on my hard
drive so I crashed.

So to work around these problems I merged down what layers I could.
Then after I saved I turned off all the layers but the background.
Then when I closed I had a smaller file that was easier to open and
all I had to do was turn the layers back on.

Gary Owens


Dans Book

Dan Margulis <76270.1033@...>
 

Todd writes,

Dan, when you show the CMYK color values with an image, what part of the
image are they referring to? To my fairly newbie eyes it doesn't always
seem
to be the area under the icon, or am I wrong about that?>>

It's not supposed to be the area below the icon. The icon just illustrates
one of the key colors of the image, and how it changes as a result of the
correction. The idea is to get readers accustomed to what certain CMYK
values produce.

Dan Margulis


Re: Color settings and upgrades

Bob Smith <rmsmith@...>
 

Chris Murphy wrote:

You want a new computer anyway. Anything you get today will come with Mac
OS 9, and run Photoshop 6 so much faster than the 7100 making it worth
it.
Just for example... I've spent the last couple of days moving from an aging
and heavily upgraded 7600 to a G4 with twin 450's. A 120MB CMYK layered
Photoshop file opened in 1 minute, 40 seconds on the G3 powered 7600. It
opens in a little under a minute on my 400mhz G3 Powerbook. It opens in 6
seconds on the G4. That's a pretty damn serious performance improvement for
about $2500.

Bob Smith


Dans Book

tflash <tflash@...>
 

Hi Folks,

I'm very new to this list and am just beginning the PS 6 book. So far I love
it - just up to chapter three. I feel very fortunate to find this list too.

Dan, when you show the CMYK color values with an image, what part of the
image are they referring to? To my fairly newbie eyes it doesn't always seem
to be the area under the icon, or am I wrong about that?

Todd


Color settings and upgrades

Dan Margulis <76270.1033@...>
 

Gary writes,

I just upgraded my Mac to OS 8.1 (I've hesitated upgrading to 8.6 and 9.0
because I read that there were conflicts with Photoshop). I have both 5.0
and 5.5 in the computer and have set them to emulate the color settings for
Photoshop 4.0. If I calibrate my monitor with Colorsync will I have a
conflict with my photoshop settings?>>

No, but your images won't look the way they used to on screen, if that
upsets you. That's true for PS 4 as well as PS 5. The program's
calculations aren't affected by what you may do to calibrate the monitor.

I've just read Mr. Margulis article in the December 2000 issue of
Electronic Publishing about upgrades. I would like to upgrade to
photoshop 6.0 but as I mentioned before I'm still operating on 8.1
and if I would upgrade to 9.0 come January it will be time to upgrade
to OS X. I'm running a 7100/80 Mac.>>

I think with a box that old your decision to avoid 8.5 and up is a smart
one. That rules out the use of Photoshop 6. When you buy a new Mac, then
you'll have a new OS, and you can decide where to take it from there.

Dan Margulis


Re: Dan's "Black Hole" image

Ron Bean <rbean@...>
 

Dan Margulis <76270.1033@compuserve.com> writes:

I'd like to see reviews of digital cameras (either in print or on
the web) that use images as challenging as this one.>>

Good luck. First of all, the technology is improving so rapidly that almost
any review is obsolete by the time it appears.
That's why I suggested a website.

Second, you don't often see
reviews of either cameras or scanners written by people who are
particularly knowledgeable about the subject.
True, but it only takes one...

Third, few if any reviewers
see these cheap digitals as the revolution that they are, and the rest
insist on comparing them to previous film-based products.
Well, there are a couple of magazines devoted to consumer-level
digital cameras, and they don't give a flip about film.
The photos they've published in the past aren't that impressive,
but that could change as the technology improves-- especially if
a few of them would read your book...


Color settings and upgrades

gowens01@...
 

I'll start with a question. I just upgraded my Mac to OS 8.1 (I've
hesitated upgrading to 8.6 and 9.0 because I read that there were
conflicts with Photoshop). I have both 5.0 and 5.5 in the computer
and have set them to emulate the color settings for Photoshop 4.0. If
I calibrate my monitor with Colorsync will I have a conflict with my
photoshop settings?

I've just read Mr. Margulis article in the December 2000 issue of
Electronic Publishing about upgrades. I would like to upgrade to
photoshop 6.0 but as I mentioned before I'm still operating on 8.1
and if I would upgrade to 9.0 come January it will be time to upgrade
to OS X. I'm running a 7100/80 Mac. I will have to buy a new computer
to use OS X. And if I upgrade to Photshop 6.0 it will not be native
to OS X. And Photoshop hasn't said anything about a native upgrade
for OS X.

Thank you for your articles in Electronic Publishing Mr. Margulis. I
did follow your instructions to get Photoshop 5.0 to emulate the 4.0
color setting.

Gary Owens


Dan's "Black Hole" image

Dan Margulis <76270.1033@...>
 

Ron writes,

I finally got a chance to see the digital photo of the "black hole" that
appears in Professional Photoshop 6. Interestingly, the "before" version
did *not* print as solid black-- if I hold the book at an angle to the
light (to avoid glare), I can actually see most of the detail that shows up
in the "after" version. It's very dark, but it's there.>>

Well, *something* has to be there; even I can't fix an image that's 0,0,0
throughout. But I thought that the result when the range was opened up was
astonishing. I expected it to be full of noise. In fact, the result was a
lot better than one would get with a drum scan of a similarly dark piece of
a film--the scanner would have latched onto the film grain.

That particular image really should give pause to people who are obsessed
with extra bits. It's quality, not quantity, of data, that counts. That
corrected image can be expressed in 5 bits per channel.

Could the original have been improved by using a longer exposure?
(And maybe a tripod to keep the camera steady?)>>

Certainly, but that wasn't the point of the exercise, which was to get
something nearly hopelessly black and see what was actually there.

I'd like to see reviews of digital cameras (either in print or on
the web) that use images as challenging as this one.>>

Good luck. First of all, the technology is improving so rapidly that almost
any review is obsolete by the time it appears. Second, you don't often see
reviews of either cameras or scanners written by people who are
particularly knowledgeable about the subject. Third, few if any reviewers
see these cheap digitals as the revolution that they are, and the rest
insist on comparing them to previous film-based products.

Dan Margulis


Dan's "Black Hole" image

Ron Bean <rbean@...>
 

I finally got a chance to see the digital photo of the "black
hole" that appears in Professional Photoshop 6. Interestingly,
the "before" version did *not* print as solid black-- if I hold
the book at an angle to the light (to avoid glare), I can
actually see most of the detail that shows up in the "after"
version. It's very dark, but it's there.

Could the original have been improved by using a longer exposure?
(And maybe a tripod to keep the camera steady?)

I'd like to see reviews of digital cameras (either in print or on
the web) that use images as challenging as this one.


List FAQ

Dan Margulis <76270.1033@...>
 

Folks,

We've gotten several requests for an Applied Color Theory list FAQ.
Sterling and I have agreed on the following as a start. We'll probably post
it monthly. Like any other FAQ, it will change, so comments and suggestions
are welcome--nothing's set in stone. If you'd like to comment, please do so
to me or to Sterling privately.

Dan Margulis

Frequently Asked Questions--Applied Color Theory list

OBJECTIVE
The objective of this list is to exchange information that may benefit
those who have taken or are considering taking my Applied Color Theory
courses, or who are interested in topics covered in my books, plus related
topics. This roughly comprises color correction and other methods that aim
at creating satisfactory images, normally for print purposes, occasionally
elsewhere.

NOT A CHAT GROUP
This group is for the rapid interchange of information. Posts that are
essentially chatting should be kept to a minimum.

AN INTERNATIONAL GROUP.
Many of the people subscribing to this list hail from regions where e-mail
service is unreliable and expensive. Also, English is not the first
language for many subscribers. Therefore, we request that you keep your
postings not just concise, but in simple and understandable language.

ANONYMITY.
Members of the list should not post anonymously. One's full correct name
should appear either in the return address or the sig line. The reason for
this requirement is to avoid irresponsible postings or attacks hidden
behind anonymity. There are, however, certain valid reasons why a list
member might wish to avoid signing his name. In such cases, please forward
the message to me and I will post it if appropriate. Obviously, I will not
post it if it contains personal attacks or other objectionable material.

REPLYING TO MESSAGES
Unlike many other lists, if you hit "reply" to a message, you will be
sending the reply only to the sender, not to the group as a whole. If you
wish the entire group to see the message, it has to be addressed to
colortheory@egroups.com.

UNSUBSCRIBING and POSTING DIFFICULTIES
Instructions on how to unsubscribe are given at the bottom of each post. If
you have any difficulty in either unsubscribing or in posting to the group,
consider the possibility that you are no longer posting or receiving under
the exact address with which you subscribed. If there are still
difficulties, contact the list administrator, Sterling Ledet,
sjledet@ledet.com.

CENSORSHIP
Unlike other lists, we do not censor material prior to posting it. However,
we do reserve the right to limit people's postings under several
circumstances, of which the following are examples.

1. If in my judgment, a thread is going on too long, I will post publicly
to the list and to all participants a request to bring it to a close. My
criteria in doing this may include: limited interest of the thread to the
vast majority of the group; repetition of the same points over and over; or
participation only by a few members.

2. If in my judgment, a list member is being unduly vituperative or
personal in posted comments, I will send that person a complaint in
private. If the posting is so grossly offensive that I feel the whole list
would thank us for bouncing the member immediately, I will recommend that
the administrator do that, and will post this publicly.

3. We reserve the right to limit the sheer volume of posting allowed by any
list member.

4. If in my judgment, a list member is posting material that is overly
commercial in nature, I will send that person a complaint in private.

5. Flagrantly off-topic posts, such as political statements, will result in
the sender being removed from the list immediately.

6. Members are reminded that, while general discussion of color management
is welcome, lengthy threads on color management esoterica belong on the
ColorSync users list. To subscribe to that list, visit
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users.

ADVERTISING and COMMERCIAL POSTS
Nobody wants this to become an advertising list, but In practice it is
difficult to draw a fine line between a comment and a product plug. Members
are requested to use restraint and to ask themselves whether what they are
posting is something that a significant number of readers would be
interested in. That said, brief plugs are permitted. Similarly, new product
announcements are permitted, but the preferred form is to announce briefly
and indicate to the list members where further information is available.

Repeated commercial posts are prohibited. Also, there will be little to no
tolerance for commercial posts from persons who are not otherwise
participating in the list.

Unnecessarily lengthy signature lines that advertise services are
discouraged.

AUTO-REPLIES
If you are planning to be out of the office for a while, please be sure
that you do NOT send auto-replies to the list.

QUESTIONS AS TO APPROPRIATENESS
If you have doubts as to the propriety of posting something, please feel
free to contact me directly.

ARCHIVING
From time to time, we post edited full threads at the web site,
www.ledet.com/margulis.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachments of any kind to files are prohibited.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Members are entitled to know if posters have commercial affiliations that
might affect their views as to the topics they post about. If you have such
an affiliation, you are expected to disclose it. This doesn't mean in every
post, but often enough so that the readers will be in no doubt as to what
your biases might be.

STERLING LEDET & ASSOCIATES
This list is sponsored by Sterling Ledet & Associates, an Internet and
graphic arts training company with facilities in the Atlanta, Chicago, New
Orleans, and San Diego areas. For further information concerning its
offerings, visit www.ledet.com or call 877-819-2665 (770-414-5007 from
outside U.S.)


Dan Margulis
DMargulis@aol.com
Last revised: 12/13/00


Re: Dan Margulis MADE me rad the User guide

jonathan clymer <jeclymer@...>
 

psthree@aol.com wrote:

In Dan's most recent Makeready column there is a screen shot of a repositon
and resize. I wanted to know where its was so bad, i ripped the shrink wrap
off the user guide and tried to look it up!
i rad this three times and couldn't figure it out! Is there an editor in the
house?

Jonathan Clymer

33181 - 33200 of 33214