Re: CMYK spaces used for document creation
Re: CMYK spaces used for document creation
- Subject: Re: CMYK spaces used for document creation
- From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 14:32:37 -0700
On Nov 2, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Martin Orpen wrote:
And you tested the same device link in CS4?
Don't see the point?
Of course you don’t. Its this long rabbit hole you’ve taken us down.
Lets look at the paper trail you’ve provided:
On 1 Nov 2009, at 23:20, Andrew Rodney wrote:
Until then, users have to take responsibly for setting the correct
profile in the Color Settings or when using the Convert to Profile
command and unless they know what to select, any default or other
setting is a giant crap shoot.
You write:
Convert to Profile?
I think we all know that Image => Mode => CMYK is the way that this
is done by the majority of Photoshop users.
Simplifies the process...
OK, nothing about device links, just a comment that Mode Change
simplifies things.
I reply that Convert to Profile is a far preferable way to handle such
conversions for many reasons. And its been around for 11 years so of
you are not teaching folks that Mode Change isn’t anywhere as useful
or powerful, well we’ll hold you responsible for that. I don’t know
any respectable color geek who finds Mode change in any way preferable
nor more simple than Convert to Profile where you can actually pick
any profile you wish, see a soft proof and deal with keeping color
appearance with layered images.
The next day, you’re off on what at the time didn’t appear to be a
tangent but of course is:
Personally, I'd rather stick needles in my eyes than let Photoshop
handle something as important as a colour conversion.
And not just RGB to CMYK either. I ran some tests printing directly
from CS4 to an Epson 9880 using Premium Lustre Photo paper last
week. Converting from working space to printer profile outside of
Photoshop and then sending the image to the printer with colour
management switched off gives a better result than letting Photoshop
do the same conversion on the fly.
So in your continuing need to vilify Adobe, you say you’d rather have
preform eye surgery on yourself and go completely off track about
conversions when the discussion was mode change and Convert to
profile. OK, I’ll bite, I ask you what’s so poor about conversions in
PS and what you did here.
You reply:
Mon, 2 Nov 2009 19:04:12 +0000:
I took a test target that is supposed to highlight problems with ICC
profiles and printer linearity/gamut.
I printed it from Photoshop and it was far more bandy than I'd have
expected from the profile that I'd built.
So I used Graeme's ArgyllCMS to convert a copy of the test image to
the same printer profile and then sent this from Photoshop to the
printer.
The results are significantly different.
The PS conversion is bandy and ugly looking. The Argyll version is
extremely smooth and sexy looking.
Ah, OK so ICC profiles are mentioned as expected. Chris and I are
wanting more details. How can the conversions be so different? CMM?
Bug? This shouldn’t be so.
Next post of yours:
I can't see what the problem is here? Are you unable to accept the
possibility that there are better methods of separating images than
using Photoshop?
Well it would be useful to know what you actually tested. But on face
value, no, I can’t see where the problem is.
Chris writes:
AFAIK there is no problem with ACE conversions, which have been
32bpc float for a few versions now. So there is no lacking in
precision for the conversions. Banding implies massive detail loss,
so again it's a bug or a procedural flaw.
Then you spring this on us:
On Nov 2, 2009, at 10:04 AM, Martin Orpen wrote:
The major difference between the two procedures is that the superior
proof was produced using a device link profile as well as a
different CMM.
Device Link? Where the hell did that come from, we (you) were talking
about ICC profiles in Photoshop (and mode change and Convert to
Profile). OK, so I ask, did you test the device link in CS4 (because
anything prior to CS4 didn’t support device links). You replied with
“I don’t see the point”.
Maybe English is your 2nd language. Maybe you’re just too involved in
knocking Adobe’s conversion methods among other functionality. But
coming full circle, your points about conversions at this point are
nonsensical, non scientific, misguide if not purposely a specious
series of posts that suggest once again that there’s some inferiority
in Photoshop’s color management and in fact, you’ve used an apples to
oranges “test” to prove this to yourself.
So you now have the nerve to ask why I’d want to know if the device
link you used and produced such superior results were also tested in
Photoshop CS4 and you don’t see the point?
Of course, you have to be consistently prissy and write:
Mon, 2 Nov 2009 19:46:25 +0000:
I would have expected a "colour management expert" to have a grasp
of the how device links work?
There's nothing "vague" about the differences.
New Mail rule, if sender contains Orpen, send to spam folder.
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