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<


Dan Margulis <76270.1033@...>
 

Andrew writes,

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???>>

I must not have been clear with the phrase, "I'd certainly love to hear
about it from a credible observer (i.e. not a vendor of color management
services)". Apparently, you took this to be a request to hear about claims
made by other vendors of color management services.

As members of this group are painfully aware, there is no shortage of
people selling profiling services who are able to write at great length in
praise of their concepts. This is true even when they don't have sales of
an additional product to tack on, such as Herb's fine software package,
ScanPrepPro, which was a key ingredient for all players in his project.

Setting that aside, it's a good read, much to be recommended. Herb spent
several months at this site calibrating to a variety of different
conditions. There is no indication that they embed profiles or recommend
that their clients do so. There is no indication of "implementing ICC."
Herb basically ran a large number of tests, measured a lot of swatches by
machine, and generated a large number of profiles, just as might have been
done pre-ICC in a very small fraction of the time.

Herb indicated that anyone thinking of doing such a thing should hire not
just one, but a team of consultants. He asked rhetorically whether what he
had done was worth the effort and then conspicuously did not answer.

While one has to commend Herb for his determination to get his profiles to
work, I would think that any printer reading his story of what he went
through would want to stay as far away from similar experiences as
possible.

Dan Margulis


Dan Margulis <76270.1033@...>
 

Chris writes,

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 printer is to be commended for handing over to their client whatever
was in their own CMYK Setup. Intelligent printers have been doing this
since at least 1992. Nowadays, by definition, it will be an ICC profile,
but this is hardly "ICC color management."

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.>>

Go back a few years and the stated rationale for "ICC color management" was
that it would be a universal language of color, owing to the presence of
embedded tags and the ability to convert on the fly, and secondarily that
the use of "device-independent" RGB definitions was an enormous advantage
over the previous method.

So I think that a fair definition of a firm using "ICC color management"
would be, at an absolute minimum, one whose workflow depends on embedded
tags, or one that is deriving an incontestable benefit from
"device-independent" RGB that was not available in Photoshop 4.

Obviously, few if any such companies will be found. Gordo is correct in
stating that the small number of firms using third-party profiles at all
are as a rule doing so for inkjet printers.

These grandiose concepts have been utterly routed in the marketplace. Those
who were braying then about how necessary they were, and how this justified
all the disruption caused by their being shoved down everyone's throats
naturally need some way to save face. Particularly, since they have been
assuring us for several years that there is increasing adoption and
success of ICC color management among service providers.

And so, the preposterous claim that if an ICC profile appears anywhere in a
workflow, this is "ICC color management". How have the mighty fallen.

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.>>

Gordo's company presumably would like the world to believe that CTP is used
widely. Possibly they might consider creating a large number of platesetter
front panels which would fit over the front panels of various imagesetters,
and then persuade the imagesetter owners to mount the new front panel on
their devices. They could then suggest that these were CTP users, and be at
least as correct in saying so as the suggestion that firms who give out
their CMYK Setup are indulging in "ICC color management."

Dan Margulis


Andrew Rodney <andrew@...>
 

on 1/2/01 1:32 PM, Dan Margulis at 76270.1033@compuserve.com wrote:

Apparently, you took this to be a request to hear about claims
made by other vendors of color management services.
As far as I know, Herb is not a vendor of color management software.

Andrew Rodney


Chris Murphy <lists@...>
 

Nowadays, by definition, it will be an ICC profile,
but this is hardly "ICC color management."
Why not? The ICC does not define workflow of any kind. So what supposedly
defines "ICC color management" and who is defining it?


Go back a few years and the stated rationale for "ICC color management" was
that it would be a universal language of color, owing to the presence of
embedded tags and the ability to convert on the fly, and secondarily that
the use of "device-independent" RGB definitions was an enormous advantage
over the previous method.
Dan, I think it's time you stop living in the past on this subject. You
ask for non-vendors and consultants (as though they are incredible) to
provide their experience with ICC color management; and yet you quote
the vendor party line of idealized and glorified color management as
though what they think they are saying is legitimate.

Consumers have to be discriminating consumers, and not gullible. This is
no different in color mangement than it is when buying a car or a house
or a bag of potato chips. Just because a few years ago a vendor talked
about universal language of color does not make it true and does not make
it worth quoting forever and ever.

There are *nice* things about ICC based color management. This doesn't
mean that everyone must adopt it. It doesn't mean everyone should adopt
it. It doesn't mean that you're a nimrod for not adopting it. It doesn't
mean there is only one or two or 10 right ways to adopt it. But there are
*nice* things that it can help you do, and there isn't anyone in their
right mind that can say otherwise.

What you do have to be careful of is the idea of, without proper
planning, buying into some crazy idea of huge purchases in color
management. Responsible vendors and consultants will talk about analysis
and planning to make sure you're not spending money on unnecessary
software, hardware, and YES you can spend money on unnecessary training
that simply doesn't apply to your business.

But the idea that ICC color management is a farce because of how one or
two vendors define it is obsolete. I don't buy it and no one on the list
should buy it. You should be replacing your rhetoric which sounds like
an argument against anything ICC with a "buyer beware, be very aware"
against vendors and consultants. Some of them will sell you a
refrigerator even if you live in Alaska. So you do have to be a
discriminating consumer but this doesn't mean ICC color management as a
generic term isn't being adopted or doesn't work or doesn't exist.



So I think that a fair definition of a firm using "ICC color management"
would be, at an absolute minimum, one whose workflow depends on embedded
tags, or one that is deriving an incontestable benefit from
"device-independent" RGB that was not available in Photoshop 4.
Why? See I don't have such a limited concept of color management. Some
people aren't going to use embedded profiles, nor are they going to work
in RGB, yet they can derive benefit from aspects of what ICC technology
offers us. It's very company and workflow specific. But ICC is *NOT* a
workflow so I don't like your definition because your definition has a
specific workflow expectation.

It's like now that MOST people are using some form of ICC profile whether
they know it or not, since most people working with color are working
with Photoshop 5 or 6, that isn't enough to consider them using ICC color
management. Now the new definition (to make it sound like fewer people
are using the technology than actually are) is that you have to be
embedding profiles (intentionally) and/or using RGB as the primary
editing space.


These grandiose concepts have been utterly routed in the marketplace. Those
who were braying then about how necessary they were, and how this justified
all the disruption caused by their being shoved down everyone's throats
naturally need some way to save face.
Oh come on, that's what vendors do. And some have a more vigorous
(perhaps on the line of false advertising) marketing style than others.
Buyer BEWARE! But that does not mean "ignore this technology and
everything it has to offer you."


Particularly, since they have been
assuring us for several years that there is increasing adoption and
success of ICC color management among service providers.
NPES is doing a study on exactly this. I can't wait for it to come out
because I have no idea what the concensus opinion by print suppliers and
buyers are on color management. I only know what the people who come to
me think. I don't think anyone knows what the market as a whole really
thinks, or to what degree they are using some aspect of ICC technology.


And so, the preposterous claim that if an ICC profile appears anywhere in a
workflow, this is "ICC color management". How have the mighty fallen.
And so, the preposterous claim that unless RGB or embedded profiles are
being used, this is NOT ICC color management - oh how have the mighty
fallen.

You make ICC based color management out to be this substantially
different technology than what we've been using for the last eight years.
It isn't. It's the same thing that makes up separation tables in
Photoshop and various other forms of proprietary table based conversion
methods that hvae been used for a decade or more. The difference with ICC
is that it is *easier* and *cheaper* to build ICC profiles than it ever
was with proprietary solutions (like $300,000 drum scanners with
proprietary conversion technology), and they work with all of the major
desktop applications, UNLIKE proprietary technology. The differences are
academic, not as major as you make them out to be.



Chris Murphy