Re: Who does the seperations? (Re: Profile Names and other suggestions)
Re: Who does the seperations? (Re: Profile Names and other suggestions)
- Subject: Re: Who does the seperations? (Re: Profile Names and other suggestions)
- From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 19:16:40 -0700
- Thread-topic: Who does the seperations? (Re: Profile Names and other suggestions)
On 1/4/07 6:22 PM, "Lee Blevins" wrote:
>
> You're a photographer. You make photographs.
No he makes images that are reproduced on lots of different media but the
biggest bucks and most exposure to the art is on press.
> You should not make CMYK images.
Why be a color model bigot? Photographers have traditionally output files
to various media and today, the number of options are larger than ever. My
Epson printer is a CcMmYKk device and I try to be color model agnostic when
using it. My Pictrography is a true CMY printer (actually RGB since it's
using lasers). Like it just fine.
> That conversion should be done where the press is. At that location is
> where the people who are getting the minute to minute feedback on what's
> working and what isn't.
Wait, I've produced a signed off, color acceptable contract proof AND an in
house match on my Epson. I have to show up and talk with you guys to get the
press sheet to match? I thought that's why I paid for that expensive
contract proof. I'm not saying going to a press check isn't a useful
experience but required by the guy who shot the job, converted the image and
proofed it? Can't we send a monkey <g>.
> Unfortunately, there's a lot of dimwitted prepress workers who will
> butcher your RGB image
That scares me more than worrying about making a Sep with a good profile!
> The reason they stated for taking the class was they wanted to know why
> their image "died" after it was separated.
Part of it is their own fault. When I went to photography school in the
early 80's, we shot for a deep, rich transparency as viewed on the light
box. A transparency that would be a major bitch to scan let alone convert to
CMYK. Photographers who learned to scan their film became better at lighting
chrome's for repro. Photographers who convert their files to CMYK get even
better at this. When photographers graduated to shooting digital, the
process from pixel to print became even more clear.
> Photographers are photographers and prepress operators are prepress
> operators.
Photographers are becoming prepress operators. The opposite isn't something
I've encountered and don't expect to see as a growing trend.
Photographers and designers became typesetters in the 80's and the opposite
didn't happen either. There was and continues to be awful work done by some
but by and large, these groups were able to take over the roles reasonably
well, especially when provided the right tools and instructions. Sorry but
prepress isn't going to be any different.
> Digital photography more than anything has driven this debate to a new
> level.
Yup and it's not going away and will continue to grow. But I do recall the
old Photoshop 1 days when guys proud of their Scitex or Paintbox systems
liked to say all this desktop stuff was simply a trend that wouldn't last or
that no one could possibly produce good work on a toy like a Mac running
software you could buy at Egghead computer. You know where these guys and
their expensive toys are today...
> The advice I'd give photographers is stick to photography and find a
> good printer/separator.
The advise I give to photographers is to learn color management and prepress
and do as much of the work as they like, assuming they don't mind charging
for this and have the staff to do it (assuming they just want to be out
shooting). We're seeing photo lab's that used to process film go belly up as
more shooters are going digital and hiring young skilled people to actually
do the raw conversions for them in house. The same people can handle the
color work and the proofing while the head guy is shooting and make a lot of
money while retaining a lot more control over their imagery. That's why lots
of photographers had their staff print all their work in house instead of
sending the work to a lab. Printing Cibachrome has to be almost as hard as
printing on a press <g>.
> One of the problems photographers face when asking printers about their
> capabilities is that printers lie.
I agree. "Look at our nice new sheetfed press. What was that Mr.
Photographer? How should you convert to CMYK? Use SWOP". I hear that all the
time.
Andrew Rodney
http://www.digitaldog.net/
_______________________________________________
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