Date   

Re: By the numbers ?

Dan Margulis <76270.1033@...>
 

Bob writes,

Its not a matter of being wider. Its a matter of matching what Nikon was
targeting their output to. Why, I don't know... but Nikon has said that
Nikon D1 in camera processing is done with output to NTSC rgb in mind. It
has to be going to some definition of RGB and that's what Nikon chose.>>

I have played with a D1 but don't claim any expertise in it. What I can say
for sure is, if the problem is that fleshtones are too magenta, then
assuming that the files are NTSC is going to make that problem worse, not
better.

But it really depends on the image. I've shot over ten thousand exposures
with lower-end Nikons and it's pretty clear that NTSC isn't the right RGB
for them, although it may be for the D1 for all I know. OTOH, I was in the
hardest-hit county of the northeast storm this Saturday and went out and
shot in it when the snow was at its heaviest. Those exposures would have
been better opened in NTSC. But the bottom line is that the quality of the
data was phenomenal and if I had to produce a printable picture of the
blizzard I'd prefer to start with that cheap capture than with a chrome and
a drum scan.

What's needed on the lower end cameras is an option to deliver raw files
for
those that want to milk these things for all they can do. Access to the raw
files allows a tremendous amount of control over what the image looks
like.>>

Agreed.

Dan Margulis


Re: By the numbers ?

Bob Smith <rmsmith@...>
 

Dan Margulis wrote:

Similarly, Bob's suggestion of using a wider-gamut RGB definition works
some of the time.
Its not a matter of being wider. Its a matter of matching what Nikon was
targeting their output to. Why, I don't know... but Nikon has said that
Nikon D1 in camera processing is done with output to NTSC rgb in mind. It
has to be going to some definition of RGB and that's what Nikon chose.
Kodak Pro cameras output RGB (via std acquire module processing) that very
closely approximates ColorMatch RGB. Pull Kodak files straight into
ColorMatch RGB and they'll need only minor color tweaking. Pull them into
something like Adobe RGB without compensation and you've got a whole
different task ahead of you. Even when the camera is set to deliver a
finished file, there's no profile embedded in the camera file to describe
its RGB space. Why write redundant data to every image when disk space and
write speed are at a premium?

Processing in a camera like the D1 is quite different from the auto
processing so prevalent in the lower end models. You can put a camera like
the D1 or the pro Kodaks into a condition where they auto-processes color,
but that's unusual and certainly not generally recommended.

What's needed on the lower end cameras is an option to deliver raw files for
those that want to milk these things for all they can do. Access to the raw
files allows a tremendous amount of control over what the image looks like.
I stayed with Kodak cameras and passed on the D1 mainly because it offered
such poor support for handling raw data files. Kodaks (the pro level
models) are built around the concept of having the camera deliver raw data
and then processing later. Its been fun to watch D1 shooters discover what
they can do with raw data. I've seen more than a few who were ready to
chunk the camera over color woes. Then they got hold of good piece of
software for handling raw data and thought they had a new camera. Raw data
files are now available on the new Olympus E-10... a sub $2k model. I bet
we see it on more even lower end models in the not too distant future.

Bob Smith


By the numbers ?

Dan Margulis <76270.1033@...>
 

Joey writes (and Crissy similarly),

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).>>

The problem seems to be not a defect in the camera itself, but rather that
in a lot of these cameras, and Nikon products in particular, there is some
very hamhanded, clumsy, and, of course, undocumented, automated color
correction going on before we even open the file. In the ones I've looked
at, there seems to be no way to defeat this automated "correction."

Much of the time, this "correction" does what it's supposed to. And for a
nonprofessional user who hopes to use the image without further correction,
it's probably a good idea. For us, however, it can be a real PITA.

In the Nikon case what is happening is that the capture software is forcing
a neutral black point to occur no matter what. The CCDs seem to be a lot
more sensitive to color in shadows than conventional film is. I will skip
the technical discussion but the bottom line is that when an image is
dominated by a single color in the shadow area this will often result in a
countercast in the midtones. If you are seeing skintones too magenta I'll
bet that a lot of these pictures are taken outdoors. Crissy, OTOH, sees
skintones too cyan, which suggest different backgrounds.

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?>>

Selecting is usually unnecessary. For this category of images ONLY, I find
that a preliminary use of Hue/Saturation in RGB can help, because it can
specify a particular shade and move that. In this case you would click on
the fleshtone and move it in the yellow Hue direction, plus possibly
desaturate it. Another alternative when the skintone is too magenta, again
in RGB, is to blend the red channel into the green, Lighten mode, at around
20% opacity.

Warning: don't try this with images shot conventionally. Using Hue/Sat
prematurely or channel blending to change color is ordinarily a good way to
mess things up beyond repair. It's only when you're trying to fix things
that have already been messed up by somebody else that the approach makes
sense.

The problem is, the preliminary "correction" these cameras make isn't
lighting-specific, it's image-specific, so doing something automated like
writing a curves script or trying to profile the camera, as Chris suggests
will work well with some images and make things worse with others.

Similarly, Bob's suggestion of using a wider-gamut RGB definition works
some of the time. It has the impact of making the image darker and more
vivid. That isn't likely to be right where the fleshtones are too magenta,
but it might be right if they are too cyan. My own experience is that Apple
RGB or sRGB is a better choice most of the time, but it really depends on
the character of the image.

I think that we're going to be hearing a lot more about this issue in the
future.

Dan Margulis


Re: By the numbers ?

jbmmmac@...
 

In a message dated 1/1/01 11:55:01 PM, 76270.1033@compuserve.com writes:

<< I have played with a D1 but don't claim any expertise in it. What I can say
for sure is, if the problem is that fleshtones are too magenta, then
assuming that the files are NTSC is going to make that problem worse, not
better. >>

Problem of bad fleshtones is called Magenta problem but in reality it is
problem of Reds having too much Magenta and Cyan and not enough Yellow (and
Yellows being contaminated with Cyan). The first step to correct this
problem is to pull red curve to reduce Cyan in midtones and next puling Green
curve to reduce magenta. Combined effect of pulling red and green curves
increase yellow and reduce cyan in skin tones, reds and yellows. Converting
from NTSC to ColorMatch is helpful to bring other colors and reducing overall
dullness due to different gamma of those color spaces. Whenever I tell D1
user he needs to make D1 image redder to make it better he thinks I am joking
but I really don't. It is too much CYAN and MAGENTA in flesh tones that make
it ugly and the only way to reduce Cyan is to make image temporary more red
untill puling green will reduce magenta and increase yellow.

Janusz


Seeking CM reference site

Gordon Pritchard <gordon_pritchard@...>
 

Whenever the question is asked at a GATF or GRACoL conference, that I have
attended in the past five years, about the usage of ICC color managed
workflows typically out of audiences of about 5-700 people less than 10
usually raise their hand. Most of those that do use it primarily fo manage
their color inkjet proofers.

I will try and track down the following reference sites of Chris and Andrew:

"A customer of mine, without my intervention, was encouraged to use and was
provided an ICC profile by their printer, Courier Printing, a book printer.
The profile made good separations, and is being used to produce in-house
soft proofs and hard proofs."

"There is a local company in Denver that reportedly uses ICC profiles,
although I'm not sure to what degree. The name of that printer is
Communigraphics."

"Courier Printing, a book printer."

"Bennett Graphics in Atlanta"

In the meanwhile, Chris or Andrew, or any other consultants on this
forum...do you have any printer customers clients yourselves that you have
set up with an ICC color managed workflow that I could visit?


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<


Re: Seeking CM reference site

Andrew Rodney <andrew@...>
 

on 1/1/01 2:21 PM, Dan Margulis at 76270.1033@compuserve.com wrote:

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.
That's just not so! Your buddy and mine, Herb Paynter wrote a very in-depth
article for the magazine GATF World (July/August 2000) about a printer
(Bennett Graphics in Atlanta) implementing ICC and what was required to do
so. Did you not see Herb's piece???

Andrew Rodney


Re: By the numbersŠ

Andrew Rodney <andrew@...>
 

on 1/1/01 1:49 PM, Chris Murphy at lists@... wrote:

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?


The stuff from Pictographics is pretty nice. I like how you can control the number of patches on the new Gretag target to avoid the gloss patches if you wish. They need to clean up the UI but the product seems to work well.

I’ve seen huge improvements in D1 capture by simply creating a custom profile and assigning it then converting to the Working Space. There is an example of some skin tone off a D1 with and without a profile at http://www.digitaldog.net on the tips page. It’s a small download and illustrates how the difference simply describing the color off the D1 (or any digital cameras) provides so much better results.

Andrew Rodney


Re: By the numbersŠ and the D1

Bob Smith <rmsmith@...>
 

Joey Benton wrote:

(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.
One of the biggest "problems" with the D1 is its choice of color space for
its internal processsing. If the photographer shoots with the D1 set to
make JPEGs in camera as opposed to shooting raw files... and most
photojournalists do because its so much faster and media efficient... then
the D1 produces files that should be assumed to be in NTSC RGB space. Since
NTSC is quite a bit different from the spaces that most will edit in, it
will yield somewhat unusual results if you don't compensate for it.
Assuming D1 files are in NTSC won't cure all of your problems, but it should
get you started from a better point.

If you haven't done so already, check out http://www.bibblelabs.com. Its a
program for processing D1 raw (NEF) files. It will also help with browsing
and color correcting D1 jpegs. Many regular D1 shooters heap loads of
praise on this over Nikon's offering. It started as a shareware piece
written by a D1 user who like many was not thrilled with the way Nikon
handled image processing.

Bob Smith


Re: confusing color management & color correction, was: Color settin gs and upgrades

Chris Murphy <lists@...>
 

Chris, It is possible to have a dot for dot digital proof in a filmless CTP
workflow (wherever there is a dot on plate there will be a dot on press
sheet).
Yes it is. Another benefit of digital proofs over analog proofs,
especially in CTP applications.


A transfer curve can effect a tonal match when presswork must match proofs
from different vendors. In so doing there will be an impact on color.
At least in SWOP applications, most of the variations between SWOP
Certified proofing systems are adjusted on press, not with transfer
curves. But, to get to that point at all, yes transfer curves are used so
that the press will exhibit ~18% dot gain in order to conform with SWOP.
Without the use of transfer curves (or rather, linear transfer curves),
the dot gain would be more like 9-11%.

(But we both know this already so it's mostly a conversation for the
benefit of others.)


However, it is unlikely that a transfer curve will be able to compensate for
the differences in hues of the base colorants of the different proofing
media. Hence it is unlikely that the presswork, no matter how much
"adjusted" will "match" conflicting original proofs.
Right. A digital proof would suffer the same problem. It needs to be
matched to an inkset. If rhodamine is being dumped into magenta for press
work without this being explicitely compensated for in the proof, no
amount of transfer curves will solve the resulting mismatch.

And once again I've used up my three allotted posts for the day.

Chris Murphy


Re: Seeking CM reference site

Chris Murphy <lists@...>
 

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.
I know this is not true off the top of my head. At Seybold Boston, Best
Practices Conference in a session called Cases in Outstanding Color
moderated by Don Carli, there was a speaker who did discuss their use of
ICC profiles. I'd have to log onto the Seybold web site to get the
transcript and find out who this was because I don't remember the speaker
or company.

Also, a customer of mine, without my intervention, was encouraged to use
and was provided an ICC profile by their printer, Courier Printing, a
book printer. The profile made good separations, and is being used to
produce in-house soft proofs and hard proofs.

There is a local company in Denver that reportedly uses ICC profiles,
although I'm not sure to what degree. The name of that printer is
Communigraphics.

I know that R.R. Donnelly is using ICC profiles to some degree, although
I don't know to what degree (I'm not their consultant unfortunately).

Everone who is using Photoshop 6 to make any kind of conversion is using
ICC profiles whether they want to or not because Photoshop 6 only uses
ICC profiles. The idea you can get away from this is ridiculous.


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.
So what's the point? That if they graft ICC profiles onto traditional
methodology that they aren't using ICC profiles? That they aren't using
color management? I don't understand what you're getting at Dan.

Look at every CTP implementation on the planet and you'll see they are
grafted onto traditional workflows as well. Does that mean these printers
aren't using CTP? Or they aren't real CTP workflow? What? Please clarify.


Chris Murphy


Re: By the numbers ?

jbmmmac@...
 

I know the problem you are talking about as I use D1 to shoot weddings and
"Magenta" problem is well known problem particulary to those shooting people
pictures. Part of bad skin tones color problem is due to making color
corections in wrong color space as in camera color processing use color space
close to NTSC characteristics and conversion to CMYK is done from let say
AdobeRGB/ColorMatch color spaces. Another problem with D1 files is that CCD
sensor has big sensitivity to Ultraviolet and Infrared light what makes
properly exposed files contain too much cyan in reds and yellows. If you add
not accurate White Ballance settings on some captures (auto WB is very bad so
try to set it manualy). As a experiment convert raw D1 file to CMYK from NTSC
color space and open the same file into your working space (without asigning
NTSC) and change mode to CMYK and you will see big difference beetween those
two CMYK files. The best way to deal with Nikon D1 files is to process them
by using Bibble or MacBibble software that was created for processing RAW Nef
D1 files (without need for expensive Nikon Capture software) but works great
with in camera processed JPGs or TIFs as well. For those processing in
Photoshop asigning NTSC color space and converting to working color space
plus pulling green and red curves can also do the trick. If anyone is using
ColorMacth I have to add that adjusting gamma is also neccesary as properly
exposed D1 file has gamma closer to 2.2 than native ColorMatch gamma 1.8
Properly adjusted D1 files can have beautiful color if you want to see sample
open this image below:
http://janusz.11net.com/D1/001a.jpg
Happy New Year
Janusz


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 numbersŠ?

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 numbersŠ?

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 numbersŠ

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

33161 - 33180 of 33205