Re: colorsync-users digest, Vol 3 #62 - 10 msgs
Re: colorsync-users digest, Vol 3 #62 - 10 msgs
- Subject: Re: colorsync-users digest, Vol 3 #62 - 10 msgs
- From: email@hidden (Bruce Fraser)
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:16:56 -0800
At 10:01 AM -0500 2/13/02, John wrote:
> Subject: Re: An Observation
As Bruce wrote in reply:
You simply don't have a setup capable of evaluating files that
originated outside your closed-loop workflow.
Good point Bruce. However, being in a position that we are, being provided
job after job, image after image, (hundereds per week), there is no set up
in existence that can help over half of them. No amount of profiling will
restore detail that was either blown away or was never there to start with
due to plethora of inexpensive capture devices, and lack of experience being
used in making the images to start with. Its got to be in the ballpark to be
able to help it. We run across clients trying there hand at profiling, and
blaming us when the stuff looks bad. I use the analogy of someone trying to
tune up a car thats not running to start with. It just can't be done. And
you can't tell them otherwise. You, and many of the posters in this group
seem to have the understanding, and grip, on what it takes to make it right.
Others do not.
Didn't mean for an instant to suggest that all your client-supplied
files were flawless -- I'm sure that like everyone else you get more
than your fair share of garbage (though I've never been sure how that
math worked).
But this isn't a problem that's going to go away anytime soon unless
your business plan includes not taking any client-supplied files
(which doesn't seem a viable option). Calibrating your monitor,
turning on Preserve Embedded Profiles in Photoshop Color Settings,
and learning to check LAB values as well as CMYK can help you deal
with the mystery meat your clients send you. Giving them your proofer
profile to use as their aim point would probably be a good idea too.
Long-term, you may want to consider encouraging your clients to send
you calibrated RGB so that you can control the separations. If you do
that and give them your proofer profile for preview purposes, they'll
already have seen the bad news as to what happens to that 0,0,255 RGB
blue, so the surprises should be minimal.
The point isn't that working by the numbers is wrong -- it isn't. But
everyone has their own set of numbers, and the people who create the
files that give you problems have likely been tasked with producing
final CMYK with no knowledge of the specific printing process --
hell, half the time the client hasn't even bought the paper yet. The
point is that your business has changed, and you really need a new
fork in the workflow to accomodate that new business.
Don't blame the capture devices -- something like the Nikon LS-4000
can quite seriously give any high-end scanner a run for it's money.
Is it as good as a Tango or Chromacom? No. Can you see the difference
in print? Almost certainly not, if, big if, the person who was
driving it knew what they were doing. Part of the knowing what they
were doing is in knowing how to edit images, but another big part is
knowing the printing conditions. The easiest way for you to
comunicate the printing conditions to clients is to give them a
profile representing same (which realistically should be your proofer
profile).
The process likely won't be painless, but it may be significantly
less painful than your current situation...
Bruce
--
email@hidden
_______________________________________________
colorsync-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.