Re: CM rant
Re: CM rant
- Subject: Re: CM rant
- From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 12:09:26 -0600
- Thread-topic: CM rant
On 6/3/08 11:44 AM, "John W Lund" wrote:
> Mr. Margulis is an accomplished practitioner/educator on color correction -
More like turd polishing. Its true there are some workflows where the most
awful rendered images imaginable need to be "fixed". There's no original
film or Raw to go back to. Short of that, I've never seen such awful image
examples he starts with, making the "after" corrections easily surpass the
"before". The question never asked is, where on earth did this butt ugly
images come from and can we get the Raw or original scan/film before we even
jump thorough a 38 step convoluted Photoshop process. GIGO:Garbage In
Garbage Out, isn't on his mind. That the idea of using a calibrated and
profiled display or sound color management practices are looked down upon so
severely on this list only makes one wonder about the practitioner and his
followers.
> he comes out of a printing & prepress background.
So he says, I'd love to know the details as his past, prior to being a
Photoshop guru is largely a mystery. Anyone ever employ him in their
prepress shop?
> He seems to enjoy being provocative. For decades
> now, he has been proclaiming that color management is a failed technology,
> promoted by "calibrationists" who promise perfect color with no skill
> required, etc.
There's also the famous and totally bogus 16-bit challenged. Our own Bruce
Lindbloom has devoted a page on his site to this and it sums up both the
controversy and the man behind it perfectly!
http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index.html?DanMargulis.html
Lastly, he's all over the "poor math" found in Adobe Camera Raw and
Lightroom, saying on his forums its unfit for professional use! He
recommends setting all sliders to zero then fixing the new turd in
Photoshop, the only tool he really understands. He's got this issue with
what he calls "master curves" in Photoshop which was nicely addressed and
dismissed by Mark Segal here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Curves.shtml
> Some interesting ideas get posted on Applied Color Theory, along with
> correction techniques that range from ingenious to bizarre. I find it
> valuable, but you do have to ignore the anti-color management rants...
I'd agree but rants on color management are not controversial enough so he
needs to invent others (and his own terms). Anyone outside that list every
hear of a "false profile"? Or "range-opening routines"? He likes to make up
terms. I tried often to remind him of an old Chinese proverb: The first step
towards genius is calling things by their proper name. That didn't fly.
On 6/3/08 11:49 AM, "Mike Ornellas" wrote:
> He can't seem to separate the
> difference between science and implementation
The problem with him is he's not at all interested in science as Bruce
discusses so well on his site. He's a flat earther. Attempting to discuss
empirical processes to back up a point isn't on his agenda and only causes
the person trying to attempt such positions to be ignored or banned. Again,
the Lindblooom page is spot on with respect to the mind set here. Best to
ignore Dan. Its just getting the minions to that's problematic.
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
| References: | |
| | >Re: CM rant (From: John W Lund <email@hidden>) |