Re: Silly question department, Display Media White Point
Hi list, OK, coming out of lurk mode briefly - can't hold myself back any longer... Ernst wrote:
What about a complete new set of color spaces that have more relation to today's practices?
All this energy about updating color spaces makes me wonder (again), why are we still stuck with the infamous "U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2.icc" profile? I'm not disputing the need to define color in some legacy files. But why is a profile describing some imaginary printing condition from 30+ years ago, on cheap paper (I guess you could say both the printing technology & paper of that day no longer exist?) the *default CMYK working space in Photoshop (North America)? Of course, that makes it also the default CMYK for most RIP installations, the default for prepress (what remains of it) in even high-end print vendors, the default for even some reputedly "high-end" commercial graphics vendors. And we know how few people ever change default settings in any software! Many years ago, we learned to supply quality separations from digital captures, simply by targeting the printer's contract proofing system - I remember the prepress guy asking "how come you guys get better saturation [& color] than we do?", so how do you convert the capture file?, "oh, I go Mode>CMYK" (didn't have to guess what his CMYK Working Space was). Recently finished a huge project prepping large image files for grand format output at international trade show, and the supposedly "high-end" commercial print vendor doing these enormous inkjet output was driving the printer with Onyx RIP, set for - you guessed it - "SWOP". Will "U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2.icc" be the default CMYK space forever? Will Photoshop CC 2034 *still ship that way? ;-) Maybe the Adobe team got so traumatized by the reaction to Photoshop 5's intro of color management (remember the infamous "convert on opening" RGB default?) that they never again want to impose anything new in file handling? Who knows. I just wish someday to not have to spend (waste?) half my time trying to get clients & vendors to stop hosing color in image files. Wouldn't the world be a better place with more intelligent choices for both RGB and CMYK color spaces? Whew! Thanks for the lively information exchange here! John JWL Images Emeryville, CA
Did you ever consider emigrating to Europe? ;-) Olaf PS: Apologies, but I simply could not resist…. On 23 Feb 2015, at 19:06, John Lund <john@jwlimages.com> wrote:
Will "U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2.icc" be the default CMYK space forever? …
Wouldn't the world be a better place with more intelligent choices for both RGB and CMYK color spaces?
Ha Ha, yes! Interesting side note: on that recent job for the trade show prints, the Euro print vendor produced output decisively superior to that from the US vendor. The experience with the latter was a farce - they produced an icc profile for us to use, which turned out to be a "canned" manufacturer profile for a different inkjet printer using a different media, then when I attempted to target their specific RIP/printer/media, I discovered they overlooked steps as basic as linearization & ink-limiting. Sheesh! John On Feb 23, 2015, at 2:11 PM, Olaf Drümmer <olaflist@callassoftware.com> wrote:
Did you ever consider emigrating to Europe? ;-)
Olaf
PS: Apologies, but I simply could not resist….
On 23 Feb 2015, at 19:06, John Lund <john@jwlimages.com> wrote:
Will "U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2.icc" be the default CMYK space forever? …
Wouldn't the world be a better place with more intelligent choices for both RGB and CMYK color spaces?
Haven't most of the high end print shops been certified for GRACoL by now? I stopped using SWOP for CMYK conversions years ago. -----Original Message----- From: John Lund All this energy about updating color spaces makes me wonder (again), why are we still stuck with the infamous "U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2.icc" profile?
Wow! Yes, sure, why not? You tell me. Roger -----Original Message----- From: colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=videotron.ca@lists.apple.com [mailto:colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=videotron.ca@lists.apple.com] On Behalf Of John Castronovo Sent: 24 février 2015 14:31 To: John Lund; colorsync-users@lists.apple.com Subject: Re: Silly question department, Display Media White Point Haven't most of the high end print shops been certified for GRACoL by now? I stopped using SWOP for CMYK conversions years ago. -----Original Message----- From: John Lund All this energy about updating color spaces makes me wonder (again), why are we still stuck with the infamous "U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2.icc" profile? _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/graxx%40videotron.ca This email sent to graxx@videotron.ca
One would have thought so. I don't know. It's just amazing to me how universal that old profile seems to be. Not to drag this out, but I'm curious that there seems to be little or no interest in changing this default for CMYK, either inside Adobe or not. Seems to me that it creates a lot more havoc in real-world color repro than Adobe RGB. Kind of like the CMYK files I receive which are almost always tagged "SWOP", regardless of whatever output is intended. This would be more understandable if from low-end or unsophisticated clients, but no, this is coming from large corporations in the printing industry, their print vendors, etc. John On Feb 24, 2015, at 11:30 AM, "John Castronovo" <jc@technicalphoto.com> wrote:
Haven't most of the high end print shops been certified for GRACoL by now? I stopped using SWOP for CMYK conversions years ago.
-----Original Message----- From: John Lund All this energy about updating color spaces makes me wonder (again), why are we still stuck with the infamous "U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2.icc" profile?
On Feb 24, 2015, at 3:00 PM, John Lund <john@jwlimages.com> wrote:
I don't know. It's just amazing to me how universal that old profile seems to be.
It's based on TR001 which hasn't changed itself AFAIK. So why change the profile? A valid question might be, why set SWOPV2 as the default? Well something has to go there and we can change it. IF you are targeting output that confirms to the old TR001, SWOPV2 is going to be fine. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
In my experience and from what I've been told by those who know far more about it than I do, GRACoL conversions aren't so different from SWOP that they will produce less than ideal results in a shop that still uses SWOP, in fact the results will usually be better. So why continue to use SWOP at all? -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Rodney Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 5:12 PM To: ColorSync Subject: Re: Silly question department, Display Media White Point
On Feb 24, 2015, at 3:00 PM, John Lund <john@jwlimages.com> wrote:
I don't know. It's just amazing to me how universal that old profile seems to be.
It's based on TR001 which hasn't changed itself AFAIK. So why change the profile? A valid question might be, why set SWOPV2 as the default? Well something has to go there and we can change it. IF you are targeting output that confirms to the old TR001, SWOPV2 is going to be fine. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/ _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/jc%40technicalphoto.... This email sent to jc@technicalphoto.com
On Feb 25, 2015, at 5:43 AM, John Castronovo <jc@technicalphoto.com> wrote:
In my experience and from what I've been told by those who know far more about it than I do, GRACoL conversions aren't so different from SWOP that they will produce less than ideal results in a shop that still uses SWOP, in fact the results will usually be better. So why continue to use SWOP at all?
SWOP is a type of press, not a specific press behavior. SWOPV2 as I stated IS a specification for a type of press OUTPUT and behavior based on TR001. One can be running a SWOP press that exhibits TR001 qualities and the guy next store could have a SWOP press that isn't anything like it. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
Well, if they are running a "SWOP" press these days, under the G7 method, with SWOP2013-compliant inks colorimetry, the SWOPV2 "specification" isn't worth much anymore, Andrew? I think I'd rather go along with Terry Wyse's suggestion of adopting SWOP2006_C3 (now CGATS21-CRPC5) as the new default for North America in Photoshop than stay for ever with SWOPv2. See the latest Guide to print production 13.0 here http://www.idealliance.org/products/guide-print-production-13. It's money well invested. / Roger -----Original Message----- From: colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=videotron.ca@lists.apple.com [mailto:colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=videotron.ca@lists.apple.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Rodney Sent: 25 février 2015 09:10 To: John Castronovo; ColorSync Subject: Re: Silly question department, Display Media White Point
On Feb 25, 2015, at 5:43 AM, John Castronovo <jc@technicalphoto.com> wrote:
In my experience and from what I've been told by those who know far more about it than I do, GRACoL conversions aren't so different from SWOP that they will produce less than ideal results in a shop that still uses SWOP, in fact the results will usually be better. So why continue to use SWOP at all?
SWOP is a type of press, not a specific press behavior. SWOPV2 as I stated IS a specification for a type of press OUTPUT and behavior based on TR001. One can be running a SWOP press that exhibits TR001 qualities and the guy next store could have a SWOP press that isn't anything like it. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
On Feb 25, 2015, at 12:49 PM, Roger Breton <graxx@videotron.ca> wrote:
Well, if they are running a "SWOP" press these days, under the G7 method, with SWOP2013-compliant inks colorimetry, the SWOPV2 "specification" isn't worth much anymore, Andrew?
Of course not. Just as targering SWOPV2 and sending to an Web press! Or an Epson ink jet. Just because we have G7 doesn't mean everyone conforms to it. I seriously doubt that SWOPV2 behavior has gone the way of the dodo bird. If you need to target that specific press condition, my experience is SWOPV2 works very well. If the output doesn't confirm, the print will not either. Nothing new here. Are folks suggesting Adobe should removed SWOPV2? That would be a bad idea. Are people suggesting Adobe supply some G7 profile (they built?) and it's now the default? Doable, don't hold your breath. And if the G7 profile was setup as the default and a clueless user converted to that color space and sent the files to someone who really is confirming to TR001 (for whatever reason), the output will suffer.
I think I'd rather go along with Terry Wyse's suggestion of adopting SWOP2006_C3 (now CGATS21-CRPC5) as the new default for North America in Photoshop than stay for ever with SWOPv2.
Adopt any output color space you want. Just make sure the images go to that output device. Nothing stops us from doing this so I'm not sure what the debate is other than Photoshop's default. For RGB it's sRGB and for me, that's totally wrong, so I altered it. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
participants (5)
-
Andrew Rodney
-
John Castronovo
-
John Lund
-
Olaf Drümmer
-
Roger Breton