Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 12, Issue 28
Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 12, Issue 28
- Subject: Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 12, Issue 28
- From: John Lund <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 16:21:03 -0800
Roger wrote:
> John,
>
>> As an aside - how many designers & production people are even aware an AI file can be built in
>> RGB? And it's not just clients, I've seen production files from large print houses - RGB images placed in AI, which will output SWOP, of
>> course.
>
> Again, more proof that most users have no clue about color and that "SWOP" is meaningless to them -- they don't mean "SWOP", they mean "CMYK"? Photoshop > Image > Mode > CMYK, that's the end of their world.
> Why does anyone ever bother calibrating anything?
> What's the big fuss with ISO-15339, CGATS21, ISO-12647:20XX? Fogra39? 51? Certified proofing?
>
> / Roger
Hi Roger,
I feel your pain. In fact I share it!
1. the idea you describe of a synthetic, more inclusive (meaning color gamut & brightness range) CMYK profile sure sounds more appropriate for this millennium.
2. as for Andrew's concern about legacy CMYK files - that doesn't have to be a problem at all. If the PS default CMYK changed, SWOP can just stay SWOP. Think "safe CMYK" policy: if you really created/wanted SWOP, simply embed the profile, PS won't convert unless you want it to. But if you're creating a new CMYK file, a better CMYK default won't crunch your color so much - net result is better color from people who otherwise wouldn't know how to get there, for people who do know, no impact at all. (hmm, this sounds familiar - maybe a bit like RGB is handled currently?)
3. as for this exchange:
>>> And as for all those people, I just don't spend any time worrying about them, because they're not my clients. And for all these people, as far as I'm concerned,
>>> SWOPv2 is and ever will be a perfectly fine CMYK color space, if they feel they have to convert something to CMYK.
>>
>> No, SWOPv2 is *not* a perfectly correct CMYK color space. SWOPv2 is inherently yellow, whatever intent you throw at it, as it bears the mark of 89,0,4 substrate. I don't like my skin tones, my skys and foliage to be reproduced with more yellow than it needs.
>
> I didn't say it was "correct." I said it was "fine." And I didn't say it was fine for you. I said it was fine for them.
-- yes, I agree with how Mike describes the current situation. I'm asking why does it have to stay this way?
"fine for them" might result in much better color if they weren't producing SWOP color just because it's the default CMYK.
Finally, here's a question/speculation from way out in left field: I remember well all the angst at Photoshop 5's debut, with that mysterious "converting colors" message as it opened your existing RGB files. With all the flak that Adobe got for trying to introduce color management that way (even after v.5.5 smoothed out the convert-or-not scenario), I wonder - was that sufficiently traumatizing that they're simply unwilling to risk another such tempest by changing defaults again?
;-)
John
_______________________________________________
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