Re: BEST v5
Re: BEST v5
- Subject: Re: BEST v5
- From: bruce fraser <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 15:00:27 -0700
At 11:18 PM +0200 10/12/03, Henrik Holmegaard wrote:
On Sunday, Oct 12, 2003, at 20:26 Europe/Copenhagen, bruce fraser wrote:
For those many photographers for whom the loose image IS the page,
a PDF/Postscript workflow is very counterproductive. It's slower,
more complicated, and it introduces many uncertainties in the
handling of resolution, color and tone. If you need Postscript, you
need Postscript. If you simply want to render photographic imagery
as well as the device will permit, Postscript is a hindrance, not a
help.
One does not publish loose images except on the web where they can't
be color managed.
Henrik, it's very rare that I get to say this, but you're talking
through your hat. Fine art photographers don't "publish" except on
rare occasions. They sell prints, often numbered and almost
invariably signed.
Loose images are placed in a page which is then published as color
managed. If the photographer is unable to receive a PDF from the
graphic designer and / or the press operator in order to take part
in the publishing process, but believes her job is done when she has
uploaded her TIFF images, then to be sure she may be able to take
part in some projects, but increasingly she will cut herself off
from work in which she cannot take part.
The photographer is compelled to create content afresh. If she does
not, she cannot charge for her content. She is also forced to invest
in hardware to the tune of thousands and thousands of dollars in
order to set up her studio. Therefore, the photographer has been
singled out by color management marketing strategies, because she is
the most likely to see the benefits of a late binding workflow for
running her business, and because she is accustomed to high levels
of investment.
For catalog work, advertising photography, and photojournalism this
is somewhat but by no means entirely true. For a great deal of other
photography, including fields as disparate as fine art and wedding
photography, it's solemn nonsense.
Before the digital darkroom, the photographer's product was the chrome.
I know many fine art photographers who would sooner stick their
tongue in a live lamp socket than shoot chromes.
A great deal of photography will never go anywhere near a prepress
workflow. That doesn't obviate the need for color management, but it
does obviate the need for Postscript.
If the scan did not match the chrome, the viewable graphic was the
bottom line. In the days after the digital darkroom, the
photographer's product is the edited image which she has created on
her monitor. And in the days after PDF has replaced native file
interchange, if she tries to sell the new viewable graphic, that is,
the device data with its CIE reference created on the monitor, the
way she sold the old viewable graphic which was a chrome, she will
cut herself out of the workflow.
PDF's are still built from native files/ PDF/X is a great convenience
to the print manufacturer, because it shoves all responsibility for
everything except putting ink on paper back up the production chain.
But at some point, someone will almost certainly place a
color-managed TIFF in a page layout application.
But none of this has anything to do with fine art photography, which
is an entirely different business than the ones in which you're
engaged.
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.
| References: | |
| | >Re: BEST v5 (From: Henrik Holmegaard <email@hidden>) |