untagged data [was Untagged RGB data]
untagged data [was Untagged RGB data]
- Subject: untagged data [was Untagged RGB data]
- From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:21:51 -0500
>
What I'm continually fighting is the rash assumption that because someone
>
has been able to get a file to print correctly with certain press conditions
>
(which are hidden and unknown to me - maybe even long forgotten), then I
>
should have no problem getting the same result from that file when I open
>
it. A profile (or any other way of passing on some knowledge about the file)
>
would surely simplify my life.
Indeed, it would simplify everbody's life. But embedding a profile in an
image is involving. It signifies to the whole world what colors you 'meant'
the image to portray. Unfortunately, very few people I know are willing to
take responsibilities for their action, for fear of revealing their
technical ignorance -- you can send that they prefer to pass the buck. In
color management terms, this translates to passing images without any
references along the chain. It may work but it's surely unpredictable.
>
My latest approach is to assume that unless someone can tell me otherwise,
>
all untagged CMYK files are "U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2", and if the color is
>
wacky, then they must want it that way. Is there anything wrong with this
>
approach?
I'd like to echo your words and add mine: call me foolish but I
systematically use US WebCoated (SWOP) v2 for anyone who asks me to supply
CMYK data because a) they are unable to supply me with a CMYK output
profile, b) they do not have a clue about what profiles are, c) they do not
want to take responsibility for carrying the separations at their end, e)
they try to make me believe that that all there is to separations is pull
down the Mode menu and select CMYK (in Photoshop). Of course, I should add
that I prefer to play it safe with those that tell me that they will be
converting to SWOP Coated 20% with Photoshop pre v6.
>
You're right, it's another discussion, but with such ignorance comes such
>
arrogance, and I never miss an opportunity to stress that more information
>
is better than less. That someone might act on it inappropriately shouldn't
>
be an excuse to provide less information about a file.
My view is that in the present stage of color management, more information
is better than less. And I agree that there are a host intervening
circumstances that vouch for attaching more or less information to a file.
But I hope someday, along the lines that was suggested repeatedly over the
course of the past few days, that there will be some central reliable
repository for profiles, where valid profile data could be kept. Until that
day, there is no substitute for communication among all those involved (or
those who don't want to get involved in the chain, it feels like, at times)
in the chain of production.
Fact is, there's just too much ignorance out there. And not enough good
will.
>
john castronovo
>
tech photo & imaging
Regards,
Roger Breton | Laval, Canada | email@hidden
http://pages.infinit.net/graxx
_______________________________________________
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.