Re: Supplying colour-managed image files blindly
Re: Supplying colour-managed image files blindly
- Subject: Re: Supplying colour-managed image files blindly
- From: neil snape <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 23:22:37 +0200
on 22/05/2004 22:47, Megh Blackburn wrote :
>
She's asked me what the best way to supply the images (from a colour point
>
of view). My question for list members is, What is the most fool proof way
>
of properly conveying the correct colour meaning in the images? Many of the
>
users of these images may have no or little knowledge of colour management.
>
My concern is that people may not apply the proper profile.
Let's say there isn't any foolproof solution for getting good color from
images that have a source color but don't know where they are going!
A lot more users have become aware in the past few years and many
applications are really geared to helping along good color management
practices. Yet the divide between prepress and image creation still insists
there will be a lot more education needed for a harmonious workflow will be
achieved with "almost" foolproof methods.
It's not as much as the users of color management wouldn't be able to have
an on par workflow , rather those who don't will suffer the results of doing
without.
A long time ago when Stone (Getty) put forward the monumental effort to go
online and archive in rgb they faced the same questions that you're asking.
At that time the only sure thing was most people wouldn't use ICC CM so the
logical choice of a limited space that could include monitor colors but in
an independent color space would be needed for the worst case scenario. In
the end since the colors reproduced with CM are still high quality for
offset printing albeit slight clipping it was a safe way to go, and will
remain valid as long as the goal of selling images for offset publication
go.
I believe ImageBank (Getty) used to archive in Adobe 98. This is the most
widely used space by photographers and of is included in all recent releases
of Adobe imaging products.
The hard reality is that if misused it's going to produce very weak images
in the hands of non-ICC prepress folk >something you wouldn't want. IF
however your image bank will offer abundant PDF or other documents on
separations and or actual separations done then it's less of a risk to
produce good color. This also creates a new problem of responsibility of the
separations then.
>
That said, my take on it is to supply images in Adobe RGB (1998), with
>
embedded profile, and hope that most people simply use the embedded profile
>
and don't discard it. Would the consequences be less severe if the user
>
didn't use the embedded profile if the image data were in a smaller-gamut
>
space, like ColorMatch RGB?
Yes or sRGB. I would really like to see ECIrgb come about but it's not in
the Adobe standard color spaces, thus not on everyone's desktop or color
servers. If it does then this is an fine space for offset separations and
offers more or less something from anyone who knows nothing about rgb images
into a traditional workflow. The old ways are fading now as CTP's require
more unified control than the sometimes wrongly corrected image setters.
Neil Snape nsnape @ noos.fr neil_snape @ mac.com
http://mapage.noos.fr/nsnape
_______________________________________________
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.