Re: Designers, Color Management, and Xrite , some thoughts and comments.
Re: Designers, Color Management, and Xrite , some thoughts and comments.
- Subject: Re: Designers, Color Management, and Xrite , some thoughts and comments.
- From: "email@hidden" <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:54:28 -0400
Hi Andrew
"We could discuss what I think was a dangerous move on X-Rite's part instead,
by mucking around with Photoshop's defaults. I don't think its any more
appropriate for you guys to alter settings in an Adobe application as Adobe
has to alter your settings."
I AGREE COMPLETELY. I did object to this, but please keep in mind the whole print situation on the platforms. It is absolutely out of control .. In an effort to solve a customer's problem with print set up in various applications, we were forced to place a landmine on our own product path. As you might imagine, I was not neutral on this topic. I also objected to the absolute waste of labor to solve a problem which is a platform/application issue, but I don't get a vote. Keep in mind that this was trying to "push the envelope of ease of use for the market they were
targeting"
"
So I think we
should keep each topic separate; how damn complicated it is to print and how
X-Rite didn't push the envelope of ease of use for the market they were
targeting. "
This is an excellent point. But walk for a moment in my shoes. The other day Steve Rankin pokes his head over my cube and askes me if we should put a preference in to set the gamma to 1.8 in the CM software. Before ripping into him, I politely asked him why, if we were trying to make this easy for an end user, should we complicate it, by introducing a gross distortion into most standard non color managed workflows. He pointed out that a magizine review was going to give us "one star" for not complying with the Mac OS "requirement" of 1.8 . The reviewer pointed out that if a user calibrated his screen to a gamma of 2.2 the image from the DVD player on the Mac would appear incorrect because it did the gamma conversion . I did a little checking and sure enough, it's true. They also do this in all their motion applications. Here's the bottom line:
Apple natively converts the REC709 standard into their legacy workspace with no regard to the original intent of the medium. They do this with no indication, no choice, just blindly go ahead and make the change. Is that pushing the envelope for ease of use?
Now Andrew, who complicated that issue? We tried to do it correctly, and we paid the price. Do you honestly believe that a marketing executive is going to accept a one out five star review in a Mac magazine, simply because it might be in the best interests of the market we are trying to address with the product? If you understand that logic, you understand why colormanagement is in the state it is today.
I don't mind pushing the envelope, now if I could just find one to push...
Regards,
Tom
Andrew Rodney wrote:
On 4/18/08 3:30 PM, "email@hidden" wrote:
Print an
image from light room and save it as a tif file. Bring the tif file
into Photoshop and then print it.
Tom, I can print from Lightroom and Photoshop and both match exactly but
that's not always the case due to what driver you might be using (which may
be your point). Under Leopard, you must have Leopard drivers for this to
happen (so if your point is, there's a disconnect between the print path in
PS and LR, you're right and that's an issue). Its an issue Adobe is aware of
and working on.
From what I see as a consumer
who understands a bit about color management, they have successfully
undermined their own execellence and product interoperablity, by not
having a common print architecture between applications.
Not to defend Adobe, they too have to work with the print vendors and OS
vendors. But I'd agree, every Adobe application should treat the same RGB or
CMYK numbers identically.
Andrew, if our software is brain dead, it is because the patient's heart
has stopped pumping. Either of the two issues I mentioned above make it
difficult to provide a meaningful solution to the consumer.
My comments were not at all directed at printing. In fact, in the one
comment, it was about how I think X-Rite failed to do what it set out to do:
make color management easier for the end user by redressing i1 match, trying
to get consumers and designers to have to deal with something as unnecessary
and complex as picking a TRC gamma setting to calibrate their displays. That
has of course nothing to do with printing. I agree, printing is a mess.
Lightroom is a step in the right direction in that a print template can
store all kinds of useful info (including the output profile). So I think we
should keep each topic separate; how damn complicated it is to print and how
X-Rite didn't push the envelope of ease of use for the market they were
targeting.
We could discuss what I think was a dangerous move on X-Rite's part instead,
by mucking around with Photoshop's defaults. I don't think its any more
appropriate for you guys to alter settings in an Adobe application as Adobe
has to alter your settings. And the likelihood that every 18 months, what
you've done will likely break is an issue I suspect you'll face, an issue
that only negatively affects the customer. But that's yet another
discussion.
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
- Prev by Date:
Re: Designers, Color Management, and Xrite , some thoughts and comments.
- Next by Date:
Re: Designers, Color Management, and Xrite , some thoughts and comments.
- Previous by thread:
Re: Designers, Color Management, and Xrite , some thoughts and comments.
- Next by thread:
Re: Designers, Color Management, and Xrite , some thoughts and comments.
- Index(es):