Re: SWOPv2 is dead
Re: SWOPv2 is dead
- Subject: Re: SWOPv2 is dead
- From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 12:06:54 -0700
> On Feb 28, 2015, at 11:35 AM, Roger Breton <email@hidden> wrote:
>
> Go to any self-respecting print shop today and see how everyone is pushing the envelope in an effort to better compete for jobs in the market.
I've been hearing this print shop group complain about (many) of their customers inability to provide data as they desire for years, decades. If the issue is the wrong flavor of CMYK, supply one. If they can't convert using the supplied profile/recipe, demand tagged RGB and convert and charge. It's always the 'customers fault' and now it's Adobe and the customer. No matter what default setting is magically supplied, it will not be correct for everyone. Take the responsibility and educate the customer base or be happy when they screw the color up by their own inabilities, charge them to fix the issue and move on.
This isn't a color issue, it's an issue of educating a customer to supply a big pile of 1's and zero's correctly. If I wanted a 8x11 full page cover for a glossy magazine printed and supplied a tagged RGB document that's 100x100 pixels with a JPEG qulaity setting of 2, it's going to look awful. Who's fault is it for suppling a tiny file for a big reproduction? Adobe for the JPEG setting last used being sticky? You got it, the customer. Deal with it or find another profession.
> Please, Mr. Adobe, take a good look at the print industry today and make a stand, the print world has come a long way from what it was in 1993 and become a lot better place for doing color business than it has ever been. And it's time for SWOPv2 to yield its place as "king of printing".
Please Mr. Print service provider, take some responsibility for accepting or denying the data your customer provides and help them provide what you want. You seem to be quite certain that every mangled image you get passed through the hands of Adobe Photoshop for one AND even if so (doubtful), man up and aid your customers in providing the data you need or reject it, or print it and blame them for sending you data that's unacceptable for output. Do something besides expect that a chagne in a default will slove any of the above issues.
My bkgnd is Photography. If I took my film for E6 processing which was under exposed by 2 stops and saw the dark results, the issue isn't the E6 process, it's my mistake. If the lab threw my E6 film into a C41 soup, I've got something to bitch about. Neither issue is/was Kodak's fault and blaming Kodak for dark images or no image in such a case is as ridiculous as blaming Adobe for a user converting to the wrong color space.
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