Who does the separations?
Who does the separations?
- Subject: Who does the separations?
- From: Richard Kenward <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 23:53:42 +0000
In his posting of Sun, 7 Jan 2007, writes email@hidden (Lee
Blevins)
I totally support the view that photographers who want to carry out
their own conversions should get out onto the print shop floor, and get
a good understanding of what goes on there. It's also a good education
to see jobs through from start to finish, including signing off on the
pass sheets, and being involved in the decisions leading up to that
point. I started doing this over twenty-five years ago, and would not
have any hesitation in pulling the plates on a job if I felt that the
results were not going to happen.
All that pre-supposes that the photographer is in fact in control of the
project and in communication with the final use of the image.
Dear Lee
And why on earth not. I got involved back in about 1978 because I got
sick to death of jobs I had worked hard at for perhaps weeks with
clients, that got spoilt later on. Getting stuck in was the obvious
answer and was the right answer for my business. In those days it was
restricted to working with plate makers and checking proofs, then seeing
the jobs though on press and then making sure the whole job was
consistent, etc.
An idea that is fading as fast as the scanner operator. Perhaps even
faster.
It may not be for everyone but perfectly possible, and where you have a
critical job and a receptive client, then it's a good way to work.
Today the majority of designers I come in contact with get their images
from online stock photo companies.
Ah, well there is always a market where the price is the main factor,
not where I am interested in operating to be honest.
Fewer and fewer images are being contracted directly to photographers.
As I said above, and whilst it's an interesting observation, it really
is rather straying from the points I was making.
And when they are, their final use is not known. The desinger has not
yet decided on a printer or the image will be used in a variety of print
conditions, some of which don't need a CMYK image at all such as large
format inkjet.
That's long been the case for a lot of print work. As regards the
second point, unfortunately there are many very misguided operators of
these printers who actually insist on being supplied CMYK (Swop of
course)....totally amazing. Had a call from the US a few weeks ago for
us to copy a number of oil paintings here in the UK on our large scan
back. What colour space do you want the files I asked? Oh you can
send them in Swop he said.....Oh said I, we would normally expect to
supply them in at least ARGB, but dependent on the gamut of the
originals. No he said, I find it is better to use a smaller space
because the monitor cannot show me all the colours anyhow. This guy
runs a so called Giclee fine art outfit supplying limited editions for a
posh sounding art company. And no he did not want guide prints, and
yes we declined to do the job.
I don't see any online stock photo companies supplying CMYK images.
Well not being in that market I really do not know.
For basically the same reasons that I don't think the photographer
should either.
Well that argument does not seem very logical to me, and certainly is no
reason for photographers to not manage their files as they or their
clients wish.
Remember Lee if our work looks like 'dogs doo' when it has been printed,
where is the finger pointed? Yes you've got it ....The photographer.
So really for many of us it's the safest option because so often our
reputation is at the mercy of the printer and whoever else has got at
the files we supplied.
I don't think the agencies or designers will want to keep going back to
the photographer for a new image each time they change printers.
You are taking what I said totally out of context, and using it for your
own discussion.....it's got to be a matter of horses for courses.
The world of electronic imaging is changing at a fast pace.
So what's your point here? If it is that we all have to learn and adapt
then I would agree. I have seen the posts of some here over the years,
not just here but elsewhere, and see how they have learnt new things
that a few years ago they were struggling with. We all have to learn or
expect to be overtaken by events.
More and more companies are shooting their own stuff inhouse and more
and more designers are using other sources of images.
It does not alter what I said in the post you are responding too, or
perhaps I have misunderstood you.
Not to take the wind out of your sails but I don't think the role of the
photographer is the commanding role you might portray here.
Perhaps you should go back and read again what I said, and then have
another go at this, because I neither said or inferred anything of the
kind.
The idea that it's the printer at fault for not providing a standardized
process that fits your predefined separation process just doesn't fly.
Did I really say that, I think not! Someone else's post I think you
will find.
Try running and ad in 5 different magazines and then go get them all and
see if they look the same.
That's perfectly understandable is it not? Just pick up a magazine from
the top of the pile and then pick one out from further down. I've done
that many times in newsagents and found the reproductions very, very
different....
They won't. There are far too many variables to printing that SWOP can
characterize. You'd need a profile for every ink/press/paper combination
and then there'd still be more conditions that would affect it.
Oh dear Lee, I think you have mixed my posting up with someone else's
<G>
For my money the process of color separating is moving to the prepress
department simply because they have the skills and equipment to do it.
I think this is wishful thinking or words of desperation.
I accept that as a photographer you might feel that you are in more
control if you make the separation yourself and have been the victim of
bad prepress departments who had little knowledge of ICC and butcured
your image.
Certainly being responsible for carrying out conversions, proofing,
selection of printers, and seeing the job through from start to finish
this is the case....also when working with outfits that can provide some
information of the printing conditions. In the later case a request for
information is often met with hostility, or blank faces.
But I have also been the victim of photographers who refuse to
understand that the hues of their image are outside the gamut of the
process and can't seem to accept that nobody did anything wrong.
The fact that you have found such a situation will be no surprise to
many here...what's new? The world is full of people who are still
learning the basics...we all have had to start somewhere, even you I
guess. In a world where changes are happening at a fast rate we all have
to learn more and more, even you pre-press boys.
Recently I had to deal with an agency who had an ad shot by a
photographer who chose a lavender background for their image. We tried
to explain to them that they couldn't have chosen a worse color for CMYK
reproduction.
So ignorance or lack of knowledge abounds, nothing new. Reminds me of
a conversation I had with a printer a couple of years ago. I asked how
he would like the files delivered....answer by e-mail. When put through
to the Pre-press 'expert' as he called him, he has no idea and then said
we just go to file/mode/cmyk. Lee you should realise that this is the
normal reaction over here in the UK. Perhaps things are more
enlightened in the US.
My point being that the photographer isn't being sought out by printers,
agencies and designers for advice on printing. You are not seen as the
consultant with all the answers.
And did I suggest that to be the case? What I said was that
photographers interested in doing their own conversions would do well to
get onto the print shop floor and get their hands dirty. That's totally
different.
You're a photographer. Your expertise is in taking pictures.
Not only a photographer Lee.
In the cases where you do make separations, I rarely see a proof
submitted.
We have that ability as I suspect do many other photographers. I would
not release a CMYK file without having checked it out by proofing
through our rip and made any adjustments needed.
If it's just a case of asigning a profile and selecting mode CMYK then
that is better done in the page layout application at print time. My own
preference is to let the page layout app do that now.
That is not how we work.
Indesign does a wonderful job of honoring emebdded profiles and dealing
with untagged images while converting to a destination space.
To be honest Lee why would we want to do this? Much better to work in P
shop.
That way the designer can place the RGB images and have their PDFX1A
created on the fly.
I am interested in having control over the images where possible.
In my opinion, that's the best workflow. It allows for re-purposing the
images for a variety of print conditions without creating a new copy of
the image.
I agree that if the end usage cannot be determined, then photographers
are best sending out tagged RGB files with covering information as to
that fact together with good aim prints.
But that workflow moves the separation process further downstream from
the photographer to either the designer or prepress department, where
IMHO it belongs.
There simply cannot be a one fit all as I hope you would agree.
I'm sure your business is safe if you put out good work at a price the
customers like, but if you are suggesting that all RGB to CMYK
conversions should be carried out by a shop like yours I suggest that is
totally unrealistic.
Cheers
Richard
--
Richard Kenward
_______________________________________________
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