Re: BEST v5 and others
Re: BEST v5 and others
- Subject: Re: BEST v5 and others
- From: Dennis Dunbar <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:52:19 -0700
This discussion hits on a very important topic. For photographers and digital artists there is a great deal of concern over what do we deliver to our clients and how do we demonstrate that we've done our jobs correctly. As Tyler points out a very large percentage of the clients and printers that we deal with are not even close to understanding what a good color managed workflow is, nor are they very aware of the benefits of it.
The difficulty is also that a great deal of the time the images that we create are going to be re-purposed and or sent to undetermined printers. What ever file format we deliver the file in, Tiff, EPS, PDF etc., there is a bigger question of what colorspace and form of proof do we deliver?
The answer to this is not necessarily tied to what makes sense from a color management/workflow view. If that were the case the answer would be easy, just deliver a tagged RGB file. But as many of you know so well there are subjective decisions to be made regarding which method of CMYK conversion looks best: which rendering intent?, how much GCR?, what to do about out of gamut colors?, etc. Many photographers and artists are not completely comfortable leaving these decisions totally up to the prepress/printer operator. And many times the client just says "give me CMYK".
This is where standards help, but again as you all know SWOP is a pretty loosely adhered to standard. And this is also a standard aimed at "average" conditions implying that it's very possible to get "better" results if you try. This is what I understand the emerging GRACOL standard (TR004) is supposed to aim for.
The bottom line is that there is a big need for dialogue among all the parties involved in the process. To this end the Advertising Photographers of America, (www.apanational.org), is working with several associations to further this dialogue. Some of the efforts are starting to show up, as in the DISC guidelines, (www.disc-info.org), these are aimed specifically at submissions for editorial content in magazines. And at the recent SPECTRUM conference there was the beginning of a discussion with the SWOP Committee about coming up with a method of grading proofs.
Whatever "standards" are created there needs to be a broad level of acceptance and education about what they are and how they benefit the industry. It's a long road, but we've started the journey.
Dennis Dunbar
APA Digital Committee Chair
>
>>From: Tyler Boley
<Snip>
Suppose a printer offered repeatability within dE 2-3. And suppose an
>
agency offered to contract with you for catalogue photography. The
>
requirement here might be PDF/X-3, with a specified spectrophotometer
>
(some give dE 10+ which is unacceptable) and calibration chart for
>
conformity. You would be able to discuss with the agency based on
>
remote proofs.
Absolutely, but currently none of the entities you mention have a clue
what you are talking about. Even though I might, I would not be welcomed
into this part of production, particularly if I choose to get paid for
my additional efforts and imply I know how they "should" be doing things.
Don't mean to draw this out, only attempting to communicate what we're
up against. Again, I realize there are some out there making all this
work, content provider-agency-printer.
<Snip>
Thanks to the others who have also commented on this topic.
Tyler<<<
_______________________________________________
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.