Re: Who does the seperations?
Re: Who does the seperations?
- Subject: Re: Who does the seperations?
- From: "Richard Frederickson [Contr]" <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 17:43:25 -0500
Just a couple of thoughts to add to Ray's remarks:
1) You're making a big leap of faith assuming
photographers are the wellspring of all images.
I've seen a lot a very nice work coming from
designers and traditional media artists; and keep
in mind, the kids today have grown up with
digital and are well versed in the medium.
2) I was in a used bookstore the other day
perusing through some old books, then came home
and picked-up a "how-to" book my daughter checked
out of the library. Wow, what a difference! We've
come a long way since the "good ol' days."
3) For good or bad, the reality is that "the
prepress house and their highly skilled scanner
operators and separators" have gone the way of
the dodo and economic pressures have forced those
responsibilities upstream in the process. After
all, the public only sees the picture in print.
If it looks good and evokes the intended
reaction, then the photographer does good work.
If it looks bad, then it must have been done by a
poor photographer.
In an ideal world, the question really should be
"in light of the intent of the piece, who is in
the best position to make the decisions of what
compromises are acceptable to bring the image to
reality when expressed as ink on paper." I would
argue the producer of the image is--be they
photographer, designer, or artist. Only they know
the intent.
The corollary to this is "who has the most at
stake?" If it is the publisher, then they should
be willing to provide an imaging editor to
shepherd the project. If it is the ad agency,
then it is their best interest to insure the
piece prints well. And if it is the photographer,
then it is in his or her best interest to do the
task (or hire one of those out-of-work separators
to do it for them).
With this said, economics trump the ideal in just
about all cases--so in reality, it falls to the
source to provide a usable image for the "95%" of
applications (think stock photo). For the other
5%, somebody has to be willing to step up to the
plate and shell out the capital necessary to "to
do the job right."
Sincerely,
Richard
Karsten Krüger wrote:
The style of naming Klaus Karcher suggests will
work for closed environment productions. But
for industry wide standardization it is too
complicated and confusing. Just go and tell a
casual ad agency photoshopper to use 20
different ICC profiles to do his job and he
will kill you. He will just understand that the
production will be on coated or uncoated paper
or is a newspaper add. Sometimes he even does
not know this and has to make assumptions.
All of this discussion of naming CMYK separation
profiles brings up a underling problem in our
industry.
Let's go back to "the good ole days"...
A photographer shot a transparency.
A prepress house made separations (film and
proof) knowing the press and paper that was
going to be used.
The printer printed the job and matched the proof.
The Ideallience has set a standard for shipping
photographic files. It is RGB not CMYK.
The only person who can do a good separation is
the person who knows the characteristics of the
press, paper, and ink.
So I ask...Should the photographer make a separation?
When did it become the photographer's job to do separations?
Who has all the information to do a top notch
separation? Is it the photorgrapher or the
printer?
What happened to the prepress house and their
highly skilled scanner operators and separators?
What are your thoughts?
Ray Maxwell
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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