Re(2): Comments on re-assigning profiles
Re(2): Comments on re-assigning profiles
- Subject: Re(2): Comments on re-assigning profiles
- From: Olaf Drümmer <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 23:14:50 +0100
At 3:02 PM +1100 12/31/03, Tom Beckenham wrote:
>
Regarding current and future ICC based color managed workflows, what are
>
the opinions regarding products allowing users to "re-assign" embedded
>
profiles. Given that the only practical occasion where one would want to
>
"change" the profile would be if an incorrect profile was initially
>
embedded, then this would indicate a problem earlier in the workflow that
>
should be addressed. Even if service providers are receiving work from
>
unknown sources, tagging a profile onto un-tagged or incorrectly tagged
>
images is really nothing short of educated guessing. Ideally the work should
>
be re-scanned or re-shot and the correct profiles associated with the
>
equipment and process should be embedded.
For me this amounts to the question "Do we (in principle) believe in the
viability of color management based production or not?" If the answer is
"No" - well, then that's not a problem I'd wish to address (neither here
nor anywhere else). If the answer is "Maybe" or "It depends" or "To a
certain degree" - well, what about being "pregnant to certain degree"? If
the answer is "Yes" - then let's take it as yes without attaching words
like 'but' and 'though'.
That lets me bring into play the concept of the 'original': the original
of what so ever digital visual content is _NOT_ some original scene. The
original simply is what the person responsible for that visual content
considers to be the original. You could easily have some crazy profile
attached to an image - if you like what a color managed print or proof
shows you, well, then everything is perfect.
Of course we still live in a world where far less than perfect equipment
is used and far less than perfect applications still abound. But if you
take a look at recent versions of the right mainstream applications - why
is it that the majority of the good ones are from Adobe? - already on
screen you get a pretty good indication of what the current status
(colorwise) is of your 'original'. Even if applications are used that
still have a long way to go in terms of color management technology -
just convert the respective content to PDF and use Adobe Acrobat
Professional, and you have a pretty powerful (and comparably inexpensive)
soft (and print) proofing tool.
Now let's look at people actually using all this equipment and these
applications, producing lots of more or less pleasant digital originals:
- the professionals usually aren't the problem
- the semi-professionals might be a big problem because they believe they
are real professionals and won't listen reasonably well to any advice. We
may have to make them commit to reproducible and repeatable ways of
taking responsibility for digital originals. either we force them to sign
off a proof we make for them, or educate them so they learn how to make a
good one themselves or to learn to use Acrobat Professional properly.
- the non-professionals (who never have pretended to be professionals
because they simply don't care or don't know any better or because
graphic arts/prepress production it's simply not part of their job
description): we will have to feed back to them (as a proof print or
maybe a look onto a decent soft proof monitor setup) what their original
will look like in a certain print process.
(Note: And to which category does each of us belong? ;-> At least we
should be aware and fair...)
So what's the conclusion of this lengthy reasoning (apologies if you
still haven't skipped this mail but feel somehow bored or bothered...):
- identify reproducible/repeatable means/procedures to display - soft
proof, proof print, sometimes non proof/full gamut print - the correct
(in terms of color) appearance of any original you have to deal with
- if a person has to take responsibility for the color appearance of an
original, but does not have the means to achieve an appropriate display
somebody else has to do it for him/her.
From my point of view this is the ONLY way to go. Trying to fix problems
by identifying 'wrong profiles' or by tracking histories of profile
assignments/conversion is curing symptoms. Instead let's focus on "How
can I get hold of and maintain a - print or screen based - visual display
setup that is reliable/repeatable enough so I or somebody else can judge
what the colors of a digital original actually look like?"
Happy New and Colorful Year!
Olaf Druemmer
PS: PDF/X is a good and comparably robust approach to deal with content
in its final (digital) form and avoid undesirable degrees of freedom but
instead ensure a reasonable degree of unambiguous assignment of
responsibilities.
_______________________________________________
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.