• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag
 

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: British Publications & ISO Standards
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: British Publications & ISO Standards


  • Subject: Re: British Publications & ISO Standards
  • From: Martin Orpen <email@hidden>
  • Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:24:17 +0000

On 13 Feb 2007, at 10:43, Bob Marchant wrote:

It seems that it's not only the publications that don't seem to have noticed.

A large part of the community that managed to find the time to criticise the PPA approach to proofing and separation profiles haven't been as quick or vocal in their support for the move .

A shame that. And the reason that I thought I'd mention it. I've always been very vocal in my criticisms of "standards" that are guided by manufacturers like DuPont and Agfa et al - because they are very rarely beneficial to those of us who want openly understood quality standards.


I think that, outside of Proof4Press, the PPA did excellent work - especially those people (like you) who were prepared to represent the interests of creatives. Let's not kid ourselves, the industry players were there to maintain their dominance in prepress and press hardware/ software.

The documentation for Pass4Press and Pic4Press were excellent because they were clear, concise and provided relatively independent advice about production methods and concept of "best practice".

I wholeheartedly support the move to ISO and would also add my support to any further moves that increase the skills and knowledge of the people at the publications who deal with the data and proofs that we supply them. And support anything that moves them away from the "approval by logo recognition" that has dominated since people got fed up with fiddling about with Brunner strips on analogue Cromalin.

Or, in fact , to provide any support for what is essentially the only specific set of best practice guidelines for the majority of the magazine publishing industry in the UK . Much the same goes for those who supported the original status quo.

Maybe the publications would take more notice if more of the industry got off their collective backsides and did a little more for the benefit of the whole rather than the protection of the few :-) .

I can't see it happening any time soon. Ignorance is saving them money. They don't need to train their staff in colour management or press control. If somebody asks for a profile now they can mumble something about ISO before reading the bit from the card in front of them that says:


"And we'll need a Digital Cromalin proof on DP10G using the DP Euro offset gloss curve"

Best practice the DuPont way...

--
Martin Orpen
<http://www.idea-digital.com/>

_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list      (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden


  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: British Publications & ISO Standards
      • From: Bob Marchant <email@hidden>
References: 
 >British Publications & ISO Standards (From: Martin Orpen <email@hidden>)
 >Re: British Publications & ISO Standards (From: Bob Marchant <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Archiving Strategies
  • Next by Date: Banding on Apple 23" Cinema Display
  • Previous by thread: Re: British Publications & ISO Standards
  • Next by thread: Re: British Publications & ISO Standards
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread