Re: CM rant
Re: CM rant
- Subject: Re: CM rant
- From: "Millers' Photography L.L.C." <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 07:44:38 -0700
Hello Mo.
I have, for now, standardized on 16 bit, ProPhoto RGB, and the i1 Pro
with i1 Match.
Majority of my work is reproduction of other artists' original oil,
watercolors, pastels, and pencil drawings. Five clients have their
own PS, and I profile their monitor. Those with printers, I profile
them also using the 1728 patch target of Bill Atkinson. The same
1728 patch target I use for my canvas and fine art watercolor papers.
What's the point? The point is, what the client sees on their
monitor looks nearly the same as what I see on my monitors. And, if
they print an image for themselves to see what it will look like,
their image should look pretty much like what will come out of my
printer.
The client does have my own custom .icc printer/ink/substrate profile,
to use in their view>proof colors.
Cheers,
David
On Jun 4, 2008, at 11:44 PM, mo wrote:
Hello David -
I'm not sure what you mean. Open loop and closed loop.
What I'm referring to is what happens between individuals
controlling color vs. trying to control color from multiple
sourceless unknown origins. In other words Mystery Meat.
I was trained in "device independent color management? Several
courses, including at Ivey Seright, Seattle. Instructor eventually
went to Adobe.
That's great to hear that your instructor went to Adobe. It's a very
difficult job to take on such a feat of political, environmental as
well as mathematical headaches.
What I did learn, trial and error, is not all software and hardware
give the same results. No standard.
That is part of the problem. I have created profiles for the same
device with different targets that were "physically different" in
color swatch organization. Very frustrating and lots of tail
chasing to be honest. Been there done that. What I'm more
concerned with is the ability to have some sort of assurance of what
color space the capture or working space lives in or came from or
some color space of known origin regardless. Now we deal with blind
assign for untagged files and that just propagates crap. As one VERY
small example of the mess. It's part of Dan's turd polishing
frustrations because this is what he has to work with once the
majority of files are released to printers and the like = like him -
and we guess that none the same.
But my concern goes way beyond commercial printers and their
eccentric behaviors. This is more about image control or process
control at the file stage and not just dealing with input/output
devices and control said devices with color management. It's about a
default color space for a working space that can accommodate at
least 10 years or more of standards. That space is best described
as ProPhoto RGB 16 or L* RGB 16 color space. It's much wider then
Adobe RGB and can capture most if not all RGB ink jet printers color
space(s). It's also better described in gamma properties then Adobe
RGB. This would facilitate growth in a working space yet provide an
excellent color space container from = RAW or ACR or LR and will
also be an excellent description for cross renderings to a common
CMYK color space to compress or clip to. It's a win win situation
for all graphical requirements and provides a road map for back
tracking capture to output. What boggles my mind with Adobe products
is that EVERYONE is going to capture and print, but they just ignore
the relationships between the two and leave it up to the stupid user
to figure out. To me a process control system is a DAMN no brainer
to be quite frank and wonder why no one has implemented it as of
yet. Yes, there are some variables, but that is handled by a color
tweener for color matching from working space to "final" output.
Otherwise we get a generic destination color space = just like we
are getting now, but the source space is known - Unlike now.
In other words, we live in a mess where as we can't control the
image and we can't really control the output, but we try. If we can
control the image better, we can eliminate more variables as to what
is the problem with our color workflow system and point our efforts
more toward the output and not ponder what happened up stream. ie.
quicker evaluation and less user intervention. It's such a simple
stupid solution that it hurts me to continue to beat this into Adobe
at this point. Maybe they are beyond logic with their master plan of
screwing themselves into perpetual individualism with no reference
to guide by.
I eventually settled on i1 Pro with i1 Match.... I did try color
eyes pro with my i1 Pro. Still not same monitor results from one
software to the other. So.....i1 Match.
The i1 pro works fairly well, but considering the current
development of LCD and Diode based monitors - it's the luck of the
draw to get repeatable consistent color with fidelity detail without
emptying your pockets for a window into quality. IT's sad actually
where we stand as far as color evaluation on flat screens, but it's
getting better, but just not fast enough to clip pace with the
demise of a CRT.
Be well Dave.
mo
_______________________________________________
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