Re: colorsync-users digest, Vol 3 #1380 - 11 msgs
Re: colorsync-users digest, Vol 3 #1380 - 11 msgs
- Subject: Re: colorsync-users digest, Vol 3 #1380 - 11 msgs
- From: mo <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 18:35:01 -0400
- Organization: moing
>
Chris Murphy wrote:-
>
>
1. Good quality profiles are too large, who wants to increase file
>
sizes and then push them around a network all day?
It's really not an issue Chris. I do it. Others do it without knowing it. It gets
absorbed into the collective called a job.
>
Especially in prepress, print or any higher volume workflow.
I don't buy that Chris.
It's really not that big of a deal. We have SGI servers as well as MSW2000, whatever,
and people don't account for the time. It's a moot point when you are already pushing
large files.
>
>
>
2. Implementation in various applications makes it really easy for
>
unsuspecting users to get undesirable conversions, merely because a
>
profile is present in a CMYK file. Example: several images with
>
different amounts of black generation, with their respective profiles
>
embedded in them, preserved upon placing into either QuarkXPress or
>
InDesign, handoff to printer who uses SWOP v2 if they use color
>
management at all, these images get reseparated using the Kgen in the
>
SWOP v4 profile.
And SWOP v4 profile is what?
>
>
>
Both problems are important, and actually perhaps the second is more
>
important than the first, but for the moment I'd like to generate a
>
discussion about solving the first problem.
I'm listening....
>
It's clear people are not embedding profiles because they take up too much space, in
>
various
>
workflows.
I disagree. Hard drives are cheep as of now, and will be "the" solution to tape
archiving prior to solid state plug and play, high speed solutions.
We're already looking at dumping DLT and DDS as well as DAT as an archiving solution.
People don't embed profiles because they fear their own stupidity as well as others.
We need to change to thinking through a standard separation inception point. It doesn't
have to be the final, be all end all, perfect color space, but a standard just the same
that fingerprints our point in time. A history of reproduction in 2005 for our youth to
learn from. Who gives a shit if it's perfect or not. It's a starting point.
I'll tell you a really scary story some day Chris about the reason why no one in this
industry is calibrating to SWOP standards. At least on one that I speak with that has a
press or commercial prepress facility.
>
Even Bruce and I are not embedding profiles in our CMYK
>
images for RWCM because we'd be pushing almost an extra gig of data
>
around that was totally pointless and unhelpful. RGB images are tagged
>
of course, and we convert using custom press profiles, but we save the
>
images without embedding, and they get placed into a document that
>
assumes the press profile as source. So they are "tagged" but the
>
profile is not embedded.
Again, the tag is moot in the commercial sector. This opinion is based upon working for
one of the largest printers in Northern California, and the fact that, I've been in 4 of
the top 7 ad agency prepress facilities in San Francisco.
It's not that big of a deal.
>
>
>
I think we need a new means of embedding either subset CMYK profiles
>
(i.e. the AtoB1 tag + header only), or in the world of the internet, to
>
have URL-based profile embedding. Yes there are all sorts of issues
>
that arise from this but I think it needs to be discussed seriously
>
because embedding profiles in CMYK images is pretty much a completely
>
rejected concept, with exceptions fairly few and far between. Tagging
>
makes the image data MORE valuable, so it is necessary and helpful to
>
solve this problem.
>
>
Thoughts anyone?
prebinding
mo
_______________________________________________
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.