Re: Images for print
Re: Images for print
- Subject: Re: Images for print
- From: "edmund ronald" <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:19:39 +0200
Maybe they should have them colors.
I fully expect some active display technologies (eg. flexible oLed) to
take over the graphics world in a few years. Already now, people are
spending at least as much time reading from a computer screen as on
paper, and all these screens, phone screens etc are poised to go wide
gamut. In about 5 years we can expect everyone to have a larger
thinner iPhone with a wide-gamut display as a constant companion. And
we can expect broadcast TV to go wide gamut as well.
In the shorter term, it remains to be seen whether fast inkjet
technology couldn't allow special-run inserts in magazines.
CMYK is a historical accident. Like the horse driven carriage it does
get you places, but it stinks. I can't wait for it to be relegated to
the museum.
Edmund
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 11:07 AM, eric@poem <email@hidden> wrote:
> Given that the vast majority of commissioned photography is destined to be
> mass produced in CMYK, surely the point of any "repurposing" or
> "processing" of a file is to maintain the integrity of the message contained
> in that image in the target destination? If an image that was commissioned
> for print, i.e. someone paid someone to provide that image for a magazine
> spread and either at the point of capture or as a result of post processing,
> the file cannot satisfactorily be reproduced in CMYK, hasn't that someone
> been sold a pup?
>
> I've worked with unreproducible transparencies for years, and have been
> accused many times as being "negative" for pointing out to clients who have
> paid a fortune for these wonderful transparencies, "you just can't have them
> colours"... Like many on this list I have learnt so much over the last
> relatively few years. Now I have so many more explanations and scientific
> explanations as to why they can't have them colours... I just really
> wouldn't want to carry on in the same vein in the digital world.
>
> It seems to me that there is no excuse in this day and age for
> photographers, who after all are at the very start of our digital
> food-chain, to be paid to produce an image for print that cannot be
> satisfactorily and successfully reproduced, all the tools are there for them
> to ensure it can.
>
> All the talk of wide gamut containers, pushing and tweaking images et al,
> concerns me as someone who has to deal with the commercial aspect of
> managing expectations. I my view, commissioned photography is a commercial
> product, a means to an end. If the image looks great in RGB on a wide gamut
> display but looks crap in print, what's the point?
>
> And I do believe from my experience, publishers are getting wise to the fact
> that repurposing, retouching or tailoring these problem images costs them
> money, either directly at their reprohouse or in time internally, depending
> on their workflow. The more cost conscious will go where the product costs
> them less in the end.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
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