Re: ColorSync Workflow generic profiles (again)
Re: ColorSync Workflow generic profiles (again)
- Subject: Re: ColorSync Workflow generic profiles (again)
- From: John Gnaegy <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 23:34:05 -0800
Is it not possible to do redo the unity profiles
"Unity profile" ... uh, what is that? I don't remember seeing that term
in any of the Apple help files or documentation. They're the "generic
profiles". "Unity profiles" is a term you came up with Henrik, and
using this term on the list is most likely confusing to anyone who
hasn't followed your past critiques. I know you know what you're
talking about, and I'm glad, really glad, you bring your expertise to
the list. But that's not what they're called.
I've already had this discussion on the list previously, and no we're
not going to rename them because Henrik likes "unity" better. We didn't
randomly pick a word out of a hat. They're the generic profiles because
of everything that word implies... basically representative of a class,
probably good enough, not the ideal thing to use. If you're into
color, you know enough to change them. If you're not into color they're
a decent choice.
People keep whining that every application has their own default
profiles.
That's why we made the ColorSync settings available.
Very few (if any) apps use the working spaces set up in the ColorSync
control panel by default. The reason they don't is because the default
setting in ColorSync is to use the ludicrous "Generic CMYK Profile",
Really, that's the only reason? Not because apps might prefer local
settings first and inherited settings second?
You're right about the Generic CMYK profile, it's not ideal. But it is
small, and since ColorSync has to be able to create these things on the
fly (in case you tossed all your profiles) they all have to be stored
inside the ColorSync extension itself. I know what you're
thinking...you've got 512mb of memory, a 60gb drive and a 1.5mbps DSL
line at home, and you don't care about a meg here or there. Hey, I'm
right with you. Maybe we should use something bigger and better now as
the generic cmyk profile. Currently we ship the CS ColorMatch profile
as an alternative.
but only ColorSync autobuilds and autoinstalls undesirable
source color space specifications.
Undesirable? Wow, that makes them sound like criminals. I'm locking my
door now. But seriously Henrik, I think you're being too critical about
these. They're not supposed to be the ideal profiles to use. Come on,
it's a setting, there is no single ideal profile to set for any of these
popups, they're variable depending on what you're doing.
These people do not have the reproduction know-how. They look to you
for UI intelligence so they don't have to know, at least not for
decent results if not top of the line results.
I totally agree with you, but I don't think creating a different set of
profiles to use for the initial settings in the ColorSync control panel
is going to get us any closer to that place. Why? Because that's a
static model, and no matter what you choose for the initial settings
it's just not going to describe the user's current devices or behavior
or choices as accurately as a variable model. In order to reflect the
current situation, settings need to be modified, whether it's by the
user or automatically by the system. Install MacOSX and connect a
printer, and a profile that describes that printer gets created and
used. That's great for most users, they don't have intervene and the
setting has been modified to reflect the current situation. As far as
what offset printer you're going to use for your run, well that's
different because it's not hooked up to your mac, you're going to have
to make a choice there. And yes we'd be very interested to hear what
you all think would be a good choice for something like that. You think
the ISO 12647-2 would be good? Great, that's the kind of feedback
that's really useful.
---
John Gnaegy
email@hidden