Image by image retouching - was RE: ImagePrint Answer
Image by image retouching - was RE: ImagePrint Answer
- Subject: Image by image retouching - was RE: ImagePrint Answer
- From: "Darrian Young" <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 09:53:58 +0100
Andrew Rodney wrote:
<Rendering intents alone is not the way to produce the best output. IF
you are in a workflow where you have no options but to convert and print,
fine. But if you think a profile alone and the right option of a rendering
intent is going to produce the best reproduction, you're dead wrong. I said
it once and I'll say it again. The profile knows NOTHING about the image. If
you really believe that one size fits all for conversions, we are in serious
disagreement on getting the best color from files.>
Chris Daniels wrote:
<< This is a case where a newbie reading our posts would wind up very
confused. I know that the profile knows nothing. But using your logic, if
you
preview an image with a not-so-hot profile and don't like the result, that
hammering the image into shape in Photoshop is going to allow me to get it
printing properly which is simply not true. If the profile determines that
print X can only print color X, you can't make the case that using Photoshop
I
can manipulate the image to print better reds for example. If the profile
sucks trash it. If the profile is excellent, an image that is properly
prepared shouldn't need any (or very minimal) work.>>
I think you have a good point here. A common assertion from most users is
that they want to see on screen what they are going to get in print. This
is simply NOT True. What they really want is to print what they see on
screen. As this is of course not possible for many colors, this is the
point at which the explanation of color spaces, rendering intents, etc.
usually comes in. I also agree with you that it is very important that
especially new users to color management understand this correctly. I think
that most commonly the problem is not so much bad profiles, but rather the
media involved, which you mentioned in an earlier post. Most people don't
want to fidget too much when they are using a profile for gloss paper or
other media with a good response. The problems sets in when they want to
use profiles for matte papers, etc. Nobody likes the preview they get when
these profiles are used, but no amount of tweaking will get the image to how
they saw it when they used the gloss profiles. Anyone who has done an
installation in a newspaper I am sure will have experienced this. The
minute you activate the softproof with a newspaper profile, take a look at
the operator's face - he looks as if his dog just died.
<<... The whole concept of calibrating and profiling is to
virtually eliminate playing with every file to get an acceptable print, so
altering each file to print is going backwards in the advancement of that
concept.>>
I think here is where you and Andrew are disagreeing but from my
perspective, I think both points are valid. Yes, the whole point is to get
an acceptable print in a more automatic way, and in practice, that is what
hwppens with color management and good profiles. That does not mean,
however, that it is the best possible print. Anything hand-done by a
knowledgeable operator (with or without color management) will usually be
better than a result completely automated. The question as I see it is
whether the automated result is good enough. For many applications it is,
but there are certain types of clients who spend days or weeks on a job in
order to get that extra punch out of their images.
<<I can't imagine doing an installation where you sell a customer on a
high-end
monitor, color management hardware/software, installation, training, get
their
equipment all calibrated and profiled, and tell them they need to screw with
every image that they create to get the best print after they drop $20,000.
A
completely calibrated and profiled system along with a consistant work
environment (lighting) should make high quality printing pretty simple, the
problem is getting the client to drop $20k to get there, people (an alarming
number of pros I might add) want to do it with an uncalibrated monitor,
ProfilerRGB and their TurboScan 2000 flatbed. >>
This type of install is uncommon but does exist. An example I have had was
a print shop that does reproductions of rare books. Each book was months of
work and each image had quite extensive treatment. The vast majority, in my
experience at least, are the type you mention - they are looking for
increased productivity and quality for the money they spent. A good
calibration, good profiles with some editing, and a well-managed workflow
will give very good prints and increase the productivity tremendously. My
.02?.
Regards.
Darrian Young
MGV
_______________________________________________
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.