Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: Dinarius on September 01, 2008, 03:23:50 pm
-
I know there is an element of how long is a piece of string here, but I'm really pitching this at people who are delivering to designers/publishers.
My perference is to not make any decisions for the client. i.e. 16bit and no USM - except for a tiny amount during save out from Adobe Camera RAW or Flexcolor.
What do others do?
Give a reason if you wish, but I'm more interested in doing a kind of survey, so just say 8 or 16 and yes or no USM.
Thanks.
D.
-
I know there is an element of how long is a piece of string here, but I'm really pitching this at people who are delivering to designers/publishers.
My perference is to not make any decisions for the client. i.e. 16bit and no USM - except for a tiny amount during save out from Adobe Camera RAW or Flexcolor.
What do others do?
Give a reason if you wish, but I'm more interested in doing a kind of survey, so just say 8 or 16 and yes or no USM.
Thanks.
D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218745\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
8-bit, about 1/2 USM amounts.
(clients don't want, understand or need 16 bit files, and if you give them no USM they complain they look soft, full USM they invariably sharpen them again.)
I know you wanted no editorial comments. but I have to say, in my current "day job", I deal with a lot of designers and prepress guys... their response to any of these issues is, "it's the photographer/prepress guys job to give me good color... I don't want to deal with it."
As a photographer, then, I give them my final, processed files, and that is that.
-
If the destination of your images is not supposed to edit them, the image must be finished so the needed USM should be applied.
Moreover if no additional processing is needed, using 16 bits is wasting 8 bits, so 8 bits.
If the images have to de uploaded and size is important, JPEG is the option.
-
Ted,
Not sure what you mean by 1/2 USM amounts. Please clarify.
I take your point about complaints about softness. Hence my application of a little output sharpening.
GLuijk,
Gotta say I disagree unless you know the size the image is going to be used. I never do. Also, since USM is so subjective, I want the designer to do what he thinks is necessary.
Equally so on the point of 16 v. 8. If he feels that he'd like to tweak something, then I'd rather he was doing it in 16bit.
Just my tuppence worth.
D.
-
I deliver ready-to-print CMYK files (at the dimensions specified by the client) and a matching JPEG at 75 DPI in the same physical dimensions. Up until 2006 a printed proof was delivered with every file at an additional cost, but over the last two years designer & clients have declined these proofs, mostly because many files are delivered via the internet, not FedEx. However, color critical jobs are always proofed.
-
Ted,
Not sure what you mean by 1/2 USM amounts. Please clarify.
I take your point about complaints about softness. Hence my application of a little output sharpening.
GLuijk,
Gotta say I disagree unless you know the size the image is going to be used. I never do. Also, since USM is so subjective, I want the designer to do what he thinks is necessary.
Equally so on the point of 16 v. 8. If he feels that he'd like to tweak something, then I'd rather he was doing it in 16bit.
Just my tuppence worth.
D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218760\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well...
USM is cumulative. You can do 100%, or 50% + 50%, and it adds up to essentially the same thing.
So, making the assumption that you're going to do sharpening to make it look better than it would look as "soft", but not final sharpening (based on the final output useage), I try to split the difference and just do about half the sharpening I'd consider "final". Then they can go in and sharpen, and they're happy... and my file looks good, whether they decide to post sharpen or not...
As far as 16bit goes, every one of my clients has said, "Why are the files so big? I can't use such big files..."
Every time I've left final production steps to the designer or prepress guys, it either doesnt get done, or gets done wrong... and at this point, it's even the books I'm writing on how to do it right... heh. You just can't assume they know what to do.
-
I deliver whatever they like - I make sure to get full specs ahead of time and educate them if necessary.
-
In my experience, clients---even when they are professional graphics designers or layouters---have absolutely no clue how to handle unprocessed (unsharpened) RGB image files. Whenever I delivered unprocessed files they ended up being printed inadequately---which was embarrassing for me as the photographer every time. So unless I very absolutely positively KNOW that the client is competent in digital post-processing, I strictly refuse to deliver unprocessed files. Before handing them out (as RGB files in JPEG or 8-bit TIFF format and sRGB colour space), I will scale them, apply tone and colour corrections, and sharpen.
However I don't do the CMYK separation because that would make sense only when you know the minutiae of the printing process (which in 99 % of cases aren't known to your client, and much less to you). Usually it's better to deliver RGB files than CMYK files.
-- Olaf
-
I deliver ready-to-print CMYK files (at the dimensions specified by the client) and a matching JPEG at 75 DPI in the same physical dimensions. Up until 2006 a printed proof was delivered with every file at an additional cost, but over the last two years designer & clients have declined these proofs, mostly because many files are delivered via the internet, not FedEx. However, color critical jobs are always proofed.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218762\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry, this has been buggin me... the thread got a little quiet, so I hope you don't mind another bit of my, well, elaboration.
I know some photographers do deliver CMYK and have been very happy with that procedure, but there are a few notable problems with this practice.
If you've invested properly in both understanding how to convert to CMYK correctly, and can proof accurately, which it sounds like you guys have, Chris, then that's one thing. But just hitting the convert-to-CMYK button and leaving it at that, is very risky.
The biggest issue is that it so completely reduces the gamut of the image it leaves very very little for the prepress guys to work with if they do have do do any adjustments. Here's what it looks like... this is Generic CMYK compared to Adobe RGB:
[attachment=8187:attachment]
This is called "Early Binding" in color management process terms... and simply means you're committing to your color gamut early in the process. The photographer commits to the CMYK on delivery, everyone down the line works within what they get. "Late Binding" is where you keep as much as you can as long as you can, (Adobe RGB) presumably letting the prepress guys, who have the proofing and the press profiles make the final decisions.
Then, of course, is the issue of the liability... if the client comes back to you with the costs of the bounced job, and prepress fees, etc, as a result of bad conversions, what do you do? (This is not fiction... I have stories, I assure you.)
I'm not jumping on your process, Chris... just wanted to make it clear that this is something that carries a fair amount of overhead, and isn't as simple as it may seem. I have had clients ask specifically for CMYK, my response is a flat "no", with an explanation...
-
If you've invested properly in both understanding how to convert to CMYK correctly, and can proof accurately, which it sounds like you guys have, Chris, then that's one thing.
Yes, that is my thing. I've worked with the pre-press departments of Quebecor & Donnelley, in both a couple short run (~60,000) and long run (1,000,000+) plants to get accurate printing profiles of several of their presses. I've worked with over a dozen local and regional sheet-fed plants to get accurate color & proofs. In a several cases I've been asked to come in and assist their pre-press crew in understanding the ICC conversion process because, in their words, my proofs & color were so accurate they wanted to know what I was doing.
A couple of times these pre-press talks have resulted in getting some great work from a printer's client.
The foundation for everything I learned was from Dan Margulis (http://www.ledet.com/margulis/articles.html), his books and his workshops. The money I've spent on those educational items has paid off in spades. His material has allowed me to interact intelligently with some of the best pre-pressmen in the the mid-west. This better discourse provided me with critical information and access to their proofing equipment, which, in turn, allowed me to debug my process and get great results.
However, if anything is limiting, it's the designer and/or art director. Many times they don't have a clue how an image will be reproduced until late in a project's process. With clip-art (i.e., iStockPhoto) becoming the norm for acquiring a quick image, delivery of files in RGB with minimal sharpening is becoming more prevalent. With this trend comes a compromise in color because not all pre-press departments have the man-hours to hone a magazine or catalog with hundreds of images to their best look.
-
Then, of course, is the issue of the liability... if the client comes back to you with the costs of the bounced job, and prepress fees, etc, as a result of bad conversions, what do you do?
I had an interesting conversation with another photographer this weekend which addresses the liability of the reproduction of the image. He delivers 16-bit RGB files in the ProPhoto colorspace. I deliver 8-bit CMYK files in the colorspace of the designated press. We both print "proofs" of the images if the client will pay for them (which is becoming more rare as the years pass).
He believes what Ted is positing: if a photographer delivers a CMYK image that doesn't reproduce correctly, then he is liable.
I believe that if a photographer delivers an RGB image that doesn't reproduce correctly, then he is liable.
In my opinion, there is less room for error when an image is delivered in CMYK, and that a release should be signed by the client if they demand the images be delivered in RGB or Raw format because there is a much greater possibility for error on their part.
-
I had an interesting conversation with another photographer this weekend which addresses the liability of the reproduction of the image. He delivers 16-bit RGB files in the ProPhoto colorspace. I deliver 8-bit CMYK files in the colorspace of the designated press. We both print "proofs" of the images if the client will pay for them (which is becoming more rare as the years pass).
He believes what Ted is positing: if a photographer delivers a CMYK image that doesn't reproduce correctly, then he is liable.
I believe that if a photographer delivers an RGB image that doesn't reproduce correctly, then he is liable.
In my opinion, there is less room for error when an image is delivered in CMYK, and that a release should be signed by the client if they demand the images be delivered in RGB or Raw format because there is a much greater possibility for error on their part.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220034\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
...just to be clear. In terms of quantity of data, I advise delivering half-way between these extremes. 16-bit Prophoto RGB, or RAW files, is as far away from Adobe RGB as 8-bit Adboe RGB is from CMYK.
Adobe RGB allows enough room to edit, to bring files into printable gamut, without specific press profiling information. Prophoto RGB in 16 bit is more data than most photographers, nevermind prepress houses, can deal with. CMYK, without very specific press and paper information, limits the prepress process to a very small set of options, a limited gamut of colors, in working with files.
My only point is that CMYK is such a limited gamut the photographer must know precisely what they are doing before making the conversion. It is not simply a matter of pushing the button, and there is a liability involved.
Let's clarify the extent of liability, too... If you deliver AdobeRGB files you may be liable for re-processing "post" costs, at worst, depending on how unreasonable the client is, a reshoot. If you deliver a CMYK file with a "SWOP Certified" proof, you may be liable for press fees, pre-press fees, in addition to the photography end of the equation. This is a huge degree more exposure, for which you need to prepare accordingly (as Chris has shown above) and also charge accordingly. I've got to add, too... I've worked on press. I have seen the "trail of blame". The guy who gets the blame is the guy who is not there to protect him(her) self, and that is very often the photographer.
You've GOT to hear this story. I was called in as a color consultant on this particular catalog production job. Long LONG story short, my client (in-house photography studio) produced files, including the CMYK on the press' recommendations, with some guide prints that were close, but not "signable". The prepress guys made press proofs, the client signed and approved them. Then the PRESS could not match their OWN PROOFS. Who did they blame? The photographer, naturally, contending that is where the CMYK came from. NO amount of reasoning would help the situation because the photographer simply did not have enough influence in the process.
Again, I'm only making this point because of the repeated misconception that I've heard from photographers... all it takes to make a CMYK conversion is pushing the button. I have literally heard people say, "look, every time I push that button, I make another $50". Chris very clearly dispels that above, and that is the only way I suggest doing CMYK.
-
Adobe RGB allows enough room to edit, to bring files into printable gamut, without specific press profiling information... CMYK, without very specific press and paper information, limits the prepress process to a very small set of options, a limited gamut of colors, in working with files.
But can you guarantee the RGB image will reproduce correctly?
The point I was trying to make to the other photographer was that you can't make this guarantee, and in addition he's requiring that the designer must continue to retouch, color & contrast correct the image to suit their needs. This begs the question: why would a person in business leave good money on the table?
-
But can you guarantee the RGB image will reproduce correctly?
The point I was trying to make to the other photographer was that you can't make this guarantee, and in addition he's requiring that the designer must continue to retouch, color & contrast correct the image to suit their needs. This begs the question: why would a person in business leave good money on the table?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220102\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
...see additions to my post above.
No, I would say that the only people who can guarantee accurate reproduction are the guys running the press. And again, I'm not saying necessarily to not do this, I'm saying if you are going to do it, do it right, whcih you are.
As far as money on the table, it's a basic business decision. Do you want to make money doing prepress, or shooting? I've seen studios go both ways with that question, and very successfully.
My job, I feel, is to give the client a good quality product, just like when I gave them well exposed film. AdobeRGB on a color managed system is that product, for me.
-
No, I would say that the only people who can guarantee accurate reproduction are the guys running the press.
So it's okay to deliver a file with colors that are impossible to print accurately and hope that the pre-press company and/or client will not accuse you of "bad color"? If that's true, it makes good business sense to have your client sign a release of liability because if there's a struggle in the press room and you're not there, you're going to take the fall.
As far as money on the table, it's a basic business decision. Do you want to make money doing prepress, or shooting?
Yes.
My job, I feel, is to give the client a good quality product, just like when I gave them well exposed film. AdobeRGB on a color managed system is that product, for me.
In the early 1990's we began scanning and retouching in-house, competing against a couple of color houses that provided complete page make-up services and stored large catalogs of images on-line for their various clients. We stepped into the fray for two reasons: 1) the film was rarely returned to our studio (i.e., "lost") and 2) we felt we could produce better photographic results for our clients. Within one year we were scanning films & retouching images for entire projects, not just our own photography. Our net income more than doubled. Our client relationships improved and strengthened. We became partners in our clients' marketing plans.
The only downside to this is that the increased responsibility requires constant learning and testing. Not a bad trade-off for good money.
When photographers forego the submission of final files, the design community expects RGB files and does all the retouching and pre-press themselves. The trend is moving this way with the help of online stock images.
I've personally experienced this: a client's designer requesting the raw files or the basic image files in RGB, unsharpened. I suspected the only reason they wanted the images in that form was for the additional billable hours. I asked the client for a comparison of proofs. I provided three raw images to the designer and he provided us with a description & layout of how the images would be used. In two days we each provided prints to the client showing our work. We easily provided better results, and our prints were CMYK proofs, his were not.
The client was surprised, which surprised me. Why wouldn't a photographer and his retoucher provide better results? We are immersed in photography all the time. We study it, we research it, we try things out, we test methods. Our primary concern is the image and its reproduction. With the tools at hand photographers have the ability to control how an image looks down to the dot. To let go of this only invites the collective degradation of our profession, eventually relegating us to simply adjusting a light and pushing a button.
-
8-bit, about 1/2 USM amounts.
(clients don't want, understand or need 16 bit files, and if you give them no USM they complain they look soft, full USM they invariably sharpen them again.)
I know you wanted no editorial comments. but I have to say, in my current "day job", I deal with a lot of designers and prepress guys... their response to any of these issues is, "it's the photographer/prepress guys job to give me good color... I don't want to deal with it."
As a photographer, then, I give them my final, processed files, and that is that.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=218753\")
This [a href=\"http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_reproprep.pdf]White Paper[/url] by Jeff Schewe on the Adobe web site discusses many of these considerations.
Bill
-
This White Paper (http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_reproprep.pdf) by Jeff Schewe on the Adobe web site discusses many of these considerations.
Bill
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220138\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
perfect! thanks...
-
My job, I feel, is to give the client a good quality product, just like when I gave them well exposed film.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220103\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, the industry simply isn't the same as it was back then. Back then a piece of film could be scanned by well trained scanner operators whose job it was to convert to CMYK while also doing on the fly automated sharpening for the press at the final placed size.
Delivering a native resolution file in Adobe RGB is nothing like delivering a piece of film. Somebody, somewhere must know what to do with the digital file and the odds are _REAL_ good it won't be the designer nor the printer nor even the client. If YOU don't know what to do with the file then you are really hanging your client out to dry. There are very few printers who can accept RGB and do a really good job dealing with the conversion and sharpening for the press. They are out there, but the odds of them getting a low bid for a cheap client is minimal.
Back when I was delivering files for clients, I made them put, on the P.O., the exact proofing device that the first CMYK proof would be made from. I also had really good profiles for all the proofing devices used here in the US. Once I got the confirmation of the proof being used, I used the ICC CMYK profile for that device and only showed my clients what the image would look like, in CMYK. To show them what it looks like in RGB is to have them fall in love with something they'll NEVER get on press.
After doing all the work on the image in RGB with CMYK soft proofing on, I then converted from ProPhoto RGB (my working space) to the CMYK proof profile. Once I converted to CMYK I then reconverted the CMYK to RGB in either sRGB or Adobe RGB. Then I delivered both the CMYK and the RGB files made from them. Why? Because if I gave them RGB that was made from the CMYK then nobody down the line could screw up the conversion. If somebody took the RGB file I gave them and did their own CMYK separation, the odds are REAL GOOD they would be very close to the CMYK I gave them.
I also padded the file resolution by about 20% but did final output sharpening prior to the CMYK conversion. I told the clients that they could go up or down 20% and expect reasonable results but if they when up or down more that 20% of the original, the results would be inferior because the output would be "ruined" (sometimes it's good to engage in "white lies" in order to keep clients from doing the wrong things).
If you know what you are doing, the odds are really good you will be the only one who does at this point in the industry. If the jobs you do go well and the clients are happy, they will keep coming back for your knowledge. If you just give clients what they think they want, the odds are also pretty good that somebody down the line will screw things up and guess who gets the blame?
-
Well, the industry simply isn't the same as it was back then. Back then a piece of film could be scanned by well trained scanner operators whose job it was to convert to CMYK while also doing on the fly automated sharpening for the press at the final placed size.
Ah, I was talking before scanning, actually...
hmmm. before faxes. woah. even before, like, cell phones and FedEx. dammit. we made separations with a frikkin CAMera back then... (THAT job sucked. It was what drove me to commercial photography, actually...)
Jeff, the white paper linked above is great... and for the record, I'm in pretty much total agreement with what you're saying there. Thanks for that, it represents a whole lot of work!
-
So, here's a little bedtime story...
We had a major retailer come to us for color management consulting. They do 4 big print catalogs a year, huge. Plus website stuff, etc. They use 6 photography studios, all over the place. Each studio uses a couple of different cameras. They also use uh, was it 4, prepress/offset catalog houses. As you'd guess, the problem was consistency and standardization of files, because for each catalog run they were spending over 600 hours of photoshop time in post, for color adjusting.
I should add they sell gems and jewelry... stuff where color matching is so critical that a piece of really nice stuff can look like costume jewelry really really easy.
They had 3 problems, basically. First, they weren't getting consistent photography "product" from their studios, even within a studio, because of the processing variations. Second, they had different instructions for each prepress group, a big issue because one image may go to several uses. Third, and a result of this all, they just didn't even know what to tell everyone they needed.
Our first step was to get everyone into the same room. All day. We had everything but beer there... (thinking back, that might have made it even easier... note to self...) It really was quite remarkable to have so many people, really good at what they do, trying to answer the same question we're asking here. How should we deliver files?
The prepress guys talked about what they were getting, and what was a problem. The designers and production guys explained their issues, and likewise the photographers. It was really great, and my job was to sit back and let them work it out... herding them towards a solution.
Based on that, our second step was to offer file quality standards, based on what the prepress guys asked for. Those standards are not really rocket science. I'll detail them below.
Our last step was the interesting one. Rather than do a conventional camera profiling process (a notoriously unreliable effort in an open environment like this...) we tried to "characterize" the individual camera processing. Here's the problem... they had Sinar, Phase and Leaf digital backs, with a few assorted brands of lenses and lighting kits to boot. They also has some DSLR cameras, including a Nikon D200 for the web work, and occasional thumbnails in the catalogs. Every camera manufacturer has a slightly different take on how files need to look, and many actually have different "looks" within the software.
Because I had experience with all the software systems, I could go in and standardize how the processor was going to map the colors. This was nothing more, really, than make sure they all were aiming towards a similar contrast, saturation and color "interpretation". (For example, the D200 likes to saturate the red a bit. We just made a processing preset that turned that down a bit.) Even the difference between the colors in Leaf software, between the Valeo and the Aptus needed to be tightened up.
It's a little like dealing with a job, back in the day, where every photographer was using a different film emulsion. Get them all using the same film, and you've saved yourself a bunch of work.
The standards the prepress guys settled on were this:
Calibrated, color accurate display
Adobe RGB 8 bit
Sized to 120% of layout size, if provided. If not, native resolution.
No sharpening (they were emphatic about this, across the board)
Black point for areas that need to hold detail - no lower than 10,10,10
White point for areas that need to hold detail - no higher than 245, 245, 245
It's really basic stuff... but they felt that if the various photographers delivered files that met these, they had enough to work with to make the CMYK, and guarantee color matching on-press. They felt that if we could standardize the look of the different camera platforms, all the better, and that would kick into serious time saving.
We reckon, after all was said and done, and a little fine-tuning and processing education, we saved the client around 300 hours per run. How much is post time running these days?
OK, that's my story. It was a remarkable chance to take the prepress guys, who were saying "we can't work with what you're giving us", and photographers who were saying "just tell us what you want" and a client who was desperate to open up the lines of communication and solve the problem.
-
Would those parameters work with any offset printing outfit or just the ones in your situation?
Or are you emphasizing the necessity for a clear line of communication with all parties involved through the entire workflow process?
-
Would those parameters work with any offset printing outfit or just the ones in your situation?
Or are you emphasizing the necessity for a clear line of communication with all parties involved through the entire workflow process?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220448\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you are delivering files in RGB, then, yes... those parameters are what I would consider as close to a workable industry standard, with the exception of the fact that I apply about half USM, as I said above. "Good product" as I've said above.
And yes... the key is communication, ironically, what our industry is all about, right? I see this constantly, and Chris demonstrates it in his practices too. Photographers are constantly asking "what should I give the client?". Well, ask the client... ask the prepress guys. Chris has done an incredible amount of background work to assure he is delivering what his client needs, by communicating with them...
Here I do take issue with what Jeff said, that if you know what you're doing then you're likely the only one who does.
That certainly was true even up to a few years ago, my experience is it's changing rapidly. The pre-press guys I've worked with are the some of the best color management professionals I can imagine, and necessarily so. They are responsible for a press that chews up a photographer's day-rate in dollars by the minute. They have to be able to take almost anything they get, and make the client happy. 600 hours of post time doesn't make anybody happy, really.
There was a very tough period, starting in the mid '90s, where the prepress guys were getting crap "product" from digital capture, and losing huge amounts of money by loss of scanning income, when the scanners were $50K investments. This set up an adversarial relationship between digital photographers and prepress, where a lot of prepress houses just said, we're not responsible for what comes out if we don't do the prep.
My experience is that today, if a prepress house is good, they welcome the communication because it's going to make everyone look good. Chris' experience demonstrates that... the presses he was working with invited him in to work out a process. If they don't, they're not good, and no amount of "cya" will protect anyone in the production line from their screw-ups. (see my story above about the guys that couldn't even match their own proofs.) The people with the least influence will suffer the most blame.
-
If you are delivering files in RGB, then, yes... those parameters are what I would consider as close to a workable industry standard, with the exception of the fact that I apply about half USM, as I said above. "Good product" as I've said above.
And yes... the key is communication, ironically, what our industry is all about, right? I see this constantly, and Chris demonstrates it in his practices too. Photographers are constantly asking "what should I give the client?". Well, ask the client... ask the prepress guys. Chris has done an incredible amount of background work to assure he is delivering what his client needs, by communicating with them...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220461\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have taken a slightly different approach with excellent resutls. I shoot marine and rv interiors which contain lots of wood and fabrics. Color is always an issue. I have found the best solution FOR MY SITUATION was to start calibrating and profiling my monitor at D50 and to work in colormatch colorspace.
Since moving to this system a few years ago my delivery problems have just about dissapeared.
When I can deliver to a specfic flavor of cmyk the pre-press and press guys are very happy. When I am required to deliver in rgb again prepress is happy because the conversions happen with limited color shifts.
I know colormatch rgb goes against the current grain but it is working very well in my application.
YMMV
-
I have taken a slightly different approach with excellent resutls. I shoot marine and rv interiors which contain lots of wood and fabrics. Color is always an issue. I have found the best solution FOR MY SITUATION was to start calibrating and profiling my monitor at D50 and to work in colormatch colorspace.
Since moving to this system a few years ago my delivery problems have just about dissapeared.
When I can deliver to a specfic flavor of cmyk the pre-press and press guys are very happy. When I am required to deliver in rgb again prepress is happy because the conversions happen with limited color shifts.
I know colormatch rgb goes against the current grain but it is working very well in my application.
YMMV
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220473\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've heard this approach somewhere before but can't recollect where. For the life of me I can't understand how an RGB working space could make a difference when converting to CMYK since color management prevents this from occurring.
I wish someone could show me sample CMYK comparison prints showing two copies of the same image each with different RGB source working spaces causing a difference in the final prints.
-
I've heard this approach somewhere before but can't recollect where. For the life of me I can't understand how an RGB working space could make a difference when converting to CMYK since color management prevents this from occurring.
I wish someone could show me sample CMYK comparison prints showing two copies of the same image each with different RGB source working spaces causing a difference in the final prints.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220475\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is probably better addressed, if it hasn't been already, in the Color Management forum, but here's a quick answer. It's about efficiency, first, and second, some of it is just letting the system make the edit for you.
The process is about taking colors and mapping them into the smaller gamut of the device making the print. If you start with a huge amount of colors, as Jeff does in ProPhotoRGB, you have a lot of control, but have a lot of work mapping down to a tiny space like CMYK. (Jeff's Whitepaper, linked above, gives a great walk-through on the process from ProPhotoRGB, but can be used from any RGB space too...)
If you start with a smaller space like ColorMatchRGB (around the same "size" as sRGB, a little smaller than AdobeRGB) you've let the system, using the "Rendering Intent" you've set, map the colors using whatever logic the intent uses. You're giving some of the control to the system, and limiting your gamut in the interest of ease of editing.
Honestly the end result, if you do it correctly, should be identical, so the prints you're asking for should be the same. It's how you get there... the "handles" you're using. (Unless you do a bad job... in which case you've cut the necessary colors out too early, in your RGB phase.)
This actually is the core idea of the Color Pipeline book I have coming out in January... using gamut mapping in ColorThink, I'm actually watching the "path" of your colors from capture to print, and looking at what you can do, where, and the ultimate effect.
-
crap. I have another story... I know, I know. It's a short one though.
I assisted for a short time for Nick Wheeler, noted architecture photographer. I got more out of it than he did, asking constant questions about "the business". At one point I had a client ask for the color negatives, I always delivered chromes. I asked Nick what to do.
Nick said "Clients don't get negatives. They don't know what to do with negatives. Negatives to them are funny orange things that photographers use magically to make pretty colors. It's your job, as a photographer, to work with the negative and give the client the colors they need."
Substitute "ProPhotoRGB" and "RAW files" for "negatives" and I think that's where we are today. There is just too much information to interpret, and too much room for error in those file formats, which Chris has mentioned above. My feeling is that Adobe RGB on a color managed system is a happy medium... enough color for the prepress guys, but not so much that it's unmanageable, and dangerous in the wrong hands.
See? It wasn't that long at all...
-
I've heard this approach somewhere before but can't recollect where. For the life of me I can't understand how an RGB working space could make a difference when converting to CMYK since color management prevents this from occurring.
I wish someone could show me sample CMYK comparison prints showing two copies of the same image each with different RGB source working spaces causing a difference in the final prints.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220475\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I doubt you would see much of a difference between the two cmyk prints, but thats not the real reason behind my use of colormatch.
I don't see a lot of difference between the cmyk and colormatch verisons of the same image and neither do the agency people and the prepress guys. If you give them an Adobe98 image and they convert to cmyk they DO see a difference between the two. Thats the problem I'm trying to eliminate. Sure the good agency people know the color changes from Adobe to cmyk and know how to deal with it. But not everyone is "good".
So I make my edits and deilver my final file in colormatch, mostly to eliminate that call that says, "Why does my blue fabric look so different in your file than it does in my catalog"? I can get to this place by other methods but this one is easy and quick, which is a good thing when you produce lots of images going to press.
If is similar to Jeff making a cmyk converson and then converting BACK to Adobe and saving that as his rgb file.
Now granted I started doing this about 6 years ago when I was the only guy doing digital in my area and the pre-press guys were not that keen on digital...and the thought of their drum scanners sitting idle. To say there was pushback is putting it mildly.
The agencies were no better and were a very hard sell to digital. The switch to colormatch really changed the game for me.
Now things are different. Everyone is digital and there are no drum scanners left here. Prepress undertstand digital and A98. So do most of the agencies. I think I could send A98 now without fear or problem.
But I still hear that my files are the easiest to convert and require the least amount of pre-press intervention. So it saves the client money in the end, and today thats a really big deal....
-
That certainly was true even up to a few years ago, my experience is it's changing rapidly. The pre-press guys I've worked with are the some of the best color management professionals I can imagine, and necessarily so.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220461\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, I certainly wouldn't go into a project presuming that the prepress people knew what they were doing. I would go into a project presuming they DIDN'T and then be pleasantly surprised if they did.
I should really state here that there are three different types of printing industries here...there are magazine printers whose goal it is to match the SWOP standard on web presses and sheetfed printers that are doing lower run printing for higher amounts of money with better more talented people then there are the bottom feeders who will do ANYTHING to keep their presses running and all they care about is "will the client accept the job".
Doing seps for magazine work is really pretty simple. Photoshop's SWOP Coated ICC profile is based on the SWOP TR001 spec and pretty much any web press running up to SWOP can match it. The big problem here is that you still have only a small subset of colors that CMYK can reproduce and if you are working in Adobe RGB (or PP RGB) and NOT soft proofing, the client will be seeing something that will never be able to be achieved on press.
In the case of a really good short-run sheedfed printer, I agree that many of them are very, very good and capable of far better repro than SWOP. If you are on a 6 color press, they can throw in special colors and substantially extend the limited gamut of SWOP CMYK. But, these guys are not usually the guys that get the job if it is a client that is looking for the lowest bid.
It's really the low bid, do anything to get the job sort of printer (and unfortunately, these are the most common types) that will screw up a job and blame it on anybody or everybody upstream from them–primarily the photographer or designer...
But I will stand by my approach of presuming that I'm the one person in the whole chain that does know what they are doing right up to the point where somebody proves to me that I'm not. So far, that has rarely, if ever happened.
-
Once I converted to CMYK I then reconverted the CMYK to RGB in either sRGB or Adobe RGB. Then I delivered both the CMYK and the RGB files made from them. Why? Because if I gave them RGB that was made from the CMYK then nobody down the line could screw up the conversion.
I think this is brilliant. Thanks, Jeff.
-
I think this is brilliant. Thanks, Jeff.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220686\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yeah, it's pretty sneaky :~)
But it means that the RGB _WILL_ match the CMYK (which is why I first started doing it this way) and then discovered that as long as the colors in the RGB file are already gamut limited to what will print in CMYK, the question of the seps looking like what the client and i saw when CMYK soft proofing becomes moot.
But this really only works when you are supplying final selected and sized art...
-
Give the designer 8 bit 1/2 sharpened RGB, unless they plan on doing some serious curve adjustments (which you should know about in advance) they don't need 16 bit.
Most (99%) of the designers out there don't know how to properly adjust a file for output. I've been doing design for over 20 years and taking photos just as long, and know only a couple designers that can deliver a proper image to print. These designers just happen to do photography as well. Of course, I always ask for 16bit unsharpened RBG, because I assume most photographers don't know what they are doing.
Let the press/prepress folks do the CMYK conversions since they will have their workflow calibrated to the press/output device. (OK, so I work with mostly hi-end printers that know what they are doing as well)
If you want to do it all, as others in this thread have, you must build in meeting time with photographer/designer/prepress/printer. I do this for all my large jobs like annual reports and packaging projects. Know who will deliver what before you even shoot the job if possible. Tell the designer that this will save money in the long run (because it will), just the thought of saving money will get them listening.
Ultimately, it's the designers responsibility for the final product to their client. If the designer doesn't tell you what they need, ask them to ask their prepress/printer contact. I would love it, as a designer, if a photographer gave me a sheet to fill out with specs to be delivered and defined what those specs mean. That would show to me that they know what they are doing and want me as a long term client.
-
I have found that UPDIG has been quite useful in the past for reference.
If there was ever a need for an industry standard for certain situations this is it.
On all my quotations I state that I deliver the file in 16bit tiff in adobeRGB unless otherwise advised, what the client/designer chooses to do after that is out of my control.
-
Of course, I always ask for 16bit unsharpened RBG, because I assume most photographers don't know what they are doing.
Are you actually hiring these kinds of photographers?
-
I have found that UPDIG has been quite useful in the past for reference.
If there was ever a need for an industry standard for certain situations this is it.
On all my quotations I state that I deliver the file in 16bit tiff in adobeRGB unless otherwise advised, what the client/designer chooses to do after that is out of my control.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220782\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Is this what you deliver even if a bit part of the project includes 25 2" square feature shots?
The people I work with would scream at the file size if I delivered 16 bits....
-
Is this what you deliver even if a bit part of the project includes 25 2" square feature shots?
The people I work with would scream at the file size if I delivered 16 bits....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220986\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
On all my quotations I state that I deliver the file in 16bit tiff in adobeRGB unless otherwise advised, what the client/designer chooses to do after that is out of my control.
-
On all my quotations I state that I deliver the file in 16bit tiff in adobeRGB unless otherwise advised, what the client/designer chooses to do after that is out of my control.
So you are not concerned if the images print poorly? Are you concerned, as Ted & I discussed, about the liabilities of images that cannot print accurately?
How about this question: Would you like to earn a several hundred or several thousand dollars each job by delivering files that can print accurately?
-
So you are not concerned if the images print poorly? Are you concerned, as Ted & I discussed, about the liabilities of images that cannot print accurately?
How about this question: Would you like to earn a several hundred or several thousand dollars each job by delivering files that can print accurately?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220997\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Of course I am concerned about my images being reproduced correctly, when have I said anything about not being?
I simply have stated the way I work, you seem to be indicating that you dont think that is correct, well thats up to you.
When I used to shoot film I never made the scans and never got into organising them, that is something my clients always done, so in my opinion nothing really has changed. The images leave me in the best possible state.
Have a good day!
Oh and with regards to the extra money, money isnt everything, to me time is more important.
-
Oh and with regards to the extra money, money isnt everything, to me time is more important.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221001\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yeah, let's talk about the money.
From a business standpoint, it's about focus, (forgive the pun), and the various segments of your business. To simply say (or imply) that this is money you're turning your back on I think is a bit misleading... it's more about what you put your resources into and what you feel will give the best return. None of us have unlimited resources, do we?
Is it a more profitable model to do the prepress work, with all the associated overhead, or to focus on more and better volume of shooting? I don't think there is a right answer of course, and so much of it depends on your personal goals... and this business in particular is not completely about dollars and cents, is it...
This goes back to my basic point of doing your homework, and understanding the implications. If it was merely a case of quickly and easily generating another product and billing thousands more, that would certainly be a different story, but this a different business model built on a different set of assumptions and overhead.
For me, personally, I prefer to shoot. This involves handing off the process after the RGB is delivered, which I have found to be more successful. The time I'd be spending on the CMYK overhead I prefer to shooting more, and getting more to shoot. It's a simple as that.
Well, I like to write books too...
-
On all my quotations I state that I deliver the file in 16bit tiff in adobeRGB unless otherwise advised, what the client/designer chooses to do after that is out of my control.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220988\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No one complains when you give then gigs and gigs of data and they only need 12mb or less files? Do you deliver via ftp? or 500gb hds via fedex?
-
I always deliver what I consider to be a finished photo, unless clearly instructed otherwise. Usually, but not always, 16Bit TIFF full resolution files, even when the image ends up printed in a 1"x2" space in a magazine page. I used to send on the Adobe RGB profile, but now I'm starting to send as Pro Photo, and no complaints this far. I'm warning them about the change in the profiling ( the DVD cover usually tells which specific settings were used ). I don't send them as CYMK, because I don't have, and don't want to, have this kind of control over the final printed output. They'll have specialized people with good knowhow, handle it on the other hand ( or they should ), and they'll be more than capable of converting better than I would right now.
But again, it depends on the client. If the client wants the RAW unprocessed files, I deliver DNG photos. I do my selection, and my basic Camera Raw adjustments, and sent the DNG files. Usually, the reason being "I have people here specialized on processing the way I need". Ok then, I won't give my camera output format, nor embed it, but it's a raw file.
Some clients complained that 16Bit TIFF files are too heavy and too big for them to work with, so, I just send 8Bit JPEG files.
All I all, I try to come to a middle ground between what the client needs, and what I consider to be a good quality for that. If not negotiated, I go for what I consider a standard format for me, 16Bit TIFF, with sharpening, a finished product, the image I had in mind when I pressed the shutter.
-
Of course, I always ask for 16bit unsharpened RBG, because I assume most photographers don't know what they are doing
Are you actually hiring these kinds of photographers?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220931\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Poor wording on my part, I should have said I assume I know more about my file needs than they do. Of course they know what they are doing, I wouldn't have hired them in the first place. One thing I wanted to point out here is that, unless the client (designer, etc.) states otherwise, I would give them the file type with the most flexibility. The largest color gamut, bit and file size you have and let them and their prepress folks deal with what to do with it.
-
I don't think you can come up with a standard policy but have to feel out each situation. I've experienced "stay out of it sonny boy, you have no idea about our world" all the way to being at the printers with the client and the designer making ink choices and seeing proofs. Many photographers I know have disappointing and adversarial experiences with the reproduction of their work, probably more in publication editorial work than I have done. I have been very very fortunate in annual report work to see my efforts reproduced so far beyond my expectations, and getting occasional Black Book AR100 awards for the printing, that I happily step back and acknowledge the skill of these people, who have as much sweat and tears into their craft as I have mine, also the designers and clients who push for that level of craft.
It's not that hard with a little conversation to find the level required for each project. If it's clear that no one knows what they are talking about, and/or will not give you access to those that do, you have to take the safe routes discussed here and step out. There are many many issues at play beyond the reproduction quality of your work in the piece. It's important to let people do their jobs and give them their due.
When someone like Doug requests the files as he says he does, it's immediately apparent he knows what he's doing down the line with the work. But generally, if I am confident they will go to CMYK in a manner best suited to all of their concerns, I prefer to deliver in RGB, oversized as others have stated, marginally sharpened, 8 bit, and colors brought into reasonable conversion range.
Proofs also, if there's any budget room for them, "ideal" and press simulated. Interestingly they often don't know really what that means and don't "like" the press simulations...
I understand publication work often requires a different approach, more likely CMYK delivery than my world... my point is, feel it out, then apply your knowledge and diplomacy, it's not about rules.
Tyler
-
If I can get a good CMYK profile from the printer, then I do the conversions. Fortunately my two biggest magazine clients use the same large press in Denver. With that press and those two magazines, I essentially get 50 images a month of feedback on my conversions. For all others, I do as Tyler suggests, minimal sharpening, RGB, oversized and roughly soft proofed.
-
No one complains when you give then gigs and gigs of data and they only need 12mb or less files? Do you deliver via ftp? or 500gb hds via fedex?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221025\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What part do I need to explain?
The client says "I need a A4 image at 300dpi in jpg format" I give it to them, they want a 20"x16" 16bit tiff at 300dpi I supply them with it. If they don't express a preference I send them the best image I can be it 1 image on cd or many on dvd or hundreds on HDD? At least then I know when the image leaves me it has the maximum resolution and the most information contained in it, they can allways reduce the size.
I have no interest in providing images in CMYK as I dont have the time or inclination to make sure I have the correct profiles etc from each printer.
-
What part do I need to explain?
The client says "I need a A4 image at 300dpi in jpg format" I give it to them, they want a 20"x16" 16bit tiff at 300dpi I supply them with it. If they don't express a preference I send them the best image I can be it 1 image on cd or many on dvd or hundreds on HDD? At least then I know when the image leaves me it has the maximum resolution and the most information contained in it, they can allways reduce the size.
I have no interest in providing images in CMYK as I dont have the time or inclination to make sure I have the correct profiles etc from each printer.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221215\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I guess I must communicate a bit better with my clients.
-
So, I'm curious... there's been a lot of good information here. A lot of well informed, experienced pros with specific ideas about what they do and why.
Do you think we can reach a consensus? Dare we try to put together a "Luminous Landscape Forum Guidelines for Digital Photo Standards"?
The LL community numbers around 30,000 members doesn't it? Just imagine...
OK... coming in for a landing now...
-
I have found that UPDIG has been quite useful in the past for reference.
If there was ever a need for an industry standard for certain situations this is it.
On all my quotations I state that I deliver the file in 16bit tiff in adobeRGB unless otherwise advised, what the client/designer chooses to do after that is out of my control.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=220782\")
fyi, UPDIG:
( [a href=\"http://www.updig.org/guidelines/index.php]The Universal Photographic Digital Imaging Guidelines[/url] )
-
8bit, sharpened, jpgs at 11 or 12.
-
Do you think we can reach a consensus?
-
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221316\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Oh c'mon now! So cynical for such a young man...
Let me start:
Luminous Landscape Guidelines for File Delivery
Step 1: Workstation setup and standards
Good color-accurate calibrated display
General purpose calibration settings: 6500K, 2.2 Gamma, Luminance ~140
Step 2: Communication with client
Determine client use and preferences for file delivery
Negotiate fees for preparation to those requests
Step 3: Determine processing "mode", ie, "Early Binding" or "Late Binding".
Early Binding- Files are processed for specific use as specified by client.
Examples: Offset printing, web/multimedia, fine reproduction
Late Binding- Files are processed to accommodate reasonable forseeable usage, allowing editing in post for specific applications.
Suggested procedures: (all presuming "unless otherwise requested by client")
Early Binding: ... (Jeff? Chris?)
Communication with Prepress is a prerequisite.
Obtain profile for proofing device
Adjust RGB to fit within proofing gamut and convert to CMYK under strict parameters of prepress requirements.
Include RGB files with CMYK as well as a "readme" explaining parameters of conversion.
(RGB should be "backwards converted", that is, converted to RGB from the CMYK to assure displayed colors can be printed.)
Files are delivered at final size with USM applied as per the prepress request.
SWOP certified proofs accompany image files, signed by client.
Inclusion of "Limits of Liability" in contract, or with "readme" on disk.
Late Binding:
Files are adjusted and "soft proofed" to keep within gamut for forseeable usage
Files are delivered in AdobeRGB in 8-bit
Files are delivered in native resolution.
(alt: Files are delivered sized to 120% of native resolution)
Files are "pre-sharpened", but not "final-sharpened".
Where applicable files are delivered with sample "Colorchecker target" image prepped to the same standards.
Guidelines and instructions are included with files in "readme" attachment.
Come on... how 'm I doin? If they can do it on Wikipedia we can do it here.
-
Oh c'mon now! So cynical for such a young man...
Let me start:
Luminous Landscape Guidelines for File Delivery
Step 1: Workstation setup and standards
Good color-accurate calibrated display
General purpose calibration settings: 6500K, 2.2 Gamma, Luminance ~180
Step 2: Communication with client
Determine client use and preferences for file delivery
Negotiate fees for preparation to those requests
Step 3: Determine processing "mode", ie, "Early Binding" or "Late Binding".
Early Binding- Files are processed for specific use as specified by client.
Examples: Offset printing, web/multimedia, fine reproduction
Late Binding- Files are processed to accommodate reasonable forseeable usage, allowing editing in post for specific applications.
Suggested procedures: (all presuming "unless otherwise requested by client")
Early Binding: ... (Jeff? Chris?)
Web/Multimedia: sRGB, 8-bit JPEG sized and sharpened
(how to check for "web safe" gamut?)
Late Binding:
Files are adjusted and "soft proofed" to keep within gamut for forseeable usage
Files are delivered in AdobeRGB in 8-bit TIFF
(alt: 16-bit?)
Files are delivered in native resolution.
(alt: Files are delivered sized to 120% of native resolution)
Files are "pre-sharpened", but not "final-sharpened".
Where applicable files are delivered with sample "Colorchecker target" image prepped to the same standards.
Guidelines and instructions are included with files in "readme" attachment.
Come on... how 'm I doin? If they can do it on Wikipedia we can do it here.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221355\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Luminous Landscape Guidelines for File Delivery
Step 1: Workstation setup and standards
Good color-accurate calibrated display
General purpose calibration settings: 6500K, 2.2 Gamma, Luminance ~180
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=221355\")
Now those settings could start an entire debate of their own!
[a href=\"http://www.updig.org/guidelines/calibration.php]http://www.updig.org/guidelines/calibration.php[/url]
Luminance ~180? Really?
D.
-
Now those settings could start an entire debate of their own!
http://www.updig.org/guidelines/calibration.php (http://www.updig.org/guidelines/calibration.php)
Luminance ~180? Really?
D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221507\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I know, right? (or as my 14 yr old says, IKR?)
Yes, I go with 180, but, for instance in i1, I'd settle for "default" luminance...
-
I know, right? (or as my 14 yr old says, IKR?)
Yes, I go with 180, but, for instance in i1, I'd settle for "default" luminance...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221521\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
crap i've lost my mind. 140. luminance 140. (assuming LCD display)
-
nuthin'?
OK I added this, see above:
Early Binding: ... (Jeff? Chris?)
Communication with Prepress is a prerequisite.
Obtain profile for proofing device
Adjust RGB to fit within proofing gamut and convert to CMYK under strict parameters of prepress requirements.
Include RGB files with CMYK as well as a "readme" explaining parameters of conversion.
(RGB should be "backwards converted", that is, converted to RGB from the CMYK to assure displayed colors can be printed.)
Files are delivered at final size with USM applied as per the prepress request.
SWOP certified proofs accompany image files, signed by client.
Inclusion of "Limits of Liability" in contract, or with "readme" on disk.
-
well, you had your chance...
Although I enjoy the discussion, I really feel the point is to hammer out some mutual understanding... some common ground, in this case that being some guidelines. To that end, I've read through most of what has been posted here and fleshed out a list.
I ran those by some of the people I've worked with in photography, prepress, print and web production and design, and the consensus is that this seems to be a useful list. It's specific enough to have meaning, and flexible enough to adapt to different philosophies.
Above all, the key is to take responsibility for what you deliver, and communicate with your client, and their team.
For those interested, I've posted my final edits on my site, here:
http://www.teddillard.com/2008/09/file-del...s-proposal.html (http://www.teddillard.com/2008/09/file-delivery-standards-proposal.html)
-
Ted,
Thanks for going to the trouble to put down your thoughts in writing.
On the subject of calibration..........
I calibrate using Color Solutions basICColor Display.
I use their "Photography" preset calibration.
This calibrates to the following parameters:
White Point: D50
Tonal response curve (gamma, if you like): L*
White max and black min: This usually gives me 250/0.20.
Contrast ratio comes out at about 1300:1 on my screen.
They also have a "Pre-press" preset which is D50, L* and Luminance of 130. I find this to dark for day to day work.
I am aware that if I want to match the "Photography" calibration in a proof print, I will have to brighten the image a bit more than what I see on the screen. But, usually, a levels adjustment layer with both the highlight and shadow sliders moved into the toe of the histogram gives me a near exact match on my Epson R2400.
Since, in the end, most of us need to output to print in some form, I feel that this is just as important an area of discussion.
For the record, I print proofs on Epson Lustre with the following settings in CS3:
Color Handling: Photoshop Manages Colors
Printer Profile: SPR2400 PremLuster BstPhoto.icc
Rendering Intent: Absolute Colorimetric
Printing Preferences:
Quality Option: Best Photo
Paper Options: Ultra Premium Photo Paper Luster
Advanced Printing Preferences:
Color Management: ICM
Off (No Color Management): Box ticked.
This gives me a really close match to what I'm seeing on the screen, as long as I adjust for the greater brightness of the screen as stated above.
That said, if anyone can suggest improvements, I'm all ears!
D.
-
Ted,
Thanks for going to the trouble to put down your thoughts in writing.
On the subject of calibration..........
I calibrate using Color Solutions basICColor Display.
I use their "Photography" preset calibration.
This calibrates to the following parameters:
White Point: D50
Tonal response curve (gamma, if you like): L*
White max and black min: This usually gives me 250/0.20.
Contrast ratio comes out at about 1300:1 on my screen.
They also have a "Pre-press" preset which is D50, L* and Luminance of 130. I find this to dark for day to day work.
I am aware that if I want to match the "Photography" calibration in a proof print, I will have to brighten the image a bit more than what I see on the screen. But, usually, a levels adjustment layer with both the highlight and shadow sliders moved into the toe of the histogram gives me a near exact match on my Epson R2400.
Since, in the end, most of us need to output to print in some form, I feel that this is just as important an area of discussion.
For the record, I print proofs on Epson Lustre with the following settings in CS3:
Color Handling: Photoshop Manages Colors
Printer Profile: SPR2400 PremLuster BstPhoto.icc
Rendering Intent: Absolute Colorimetric
Printing Preferences:
Quality Option: Best Photo
Paper Options: Ultra Premium Photo Paper Luster
Advanced Printing Preferences:
Color Management: ICM
Off (No Color Management): Box ticked.
This gives me a really close match to what I'm seeing on the screen, as long as I adjust for the greater brightness of the screen as stated above.
That said, if anyone can suggest improvements, I'm all ears!
D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224572\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well... I'm a little confused. I thought we were talking about delivering files to clients, not prepping files for your printer. It's a crucial difference... you're working in a "closed loop", where you have control over every step, delivering files to clients is an "open loop", where the files leave your control. The only photo applications for a closed-loop system are when you have a start-to-finish in-house production.
That said, I have some issues with your "print-path"... but that's another thread.
Ted
-
Ted,
You're right. I did stray off topic. Apologies.
However, my points re calibration are relevant to the thread, I believe.
That said, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on my print path, as you put it. A PM would be appreciated.
D.
-
That is why there are service beuro's....If you don't provide a CONTRACT certified SWOP PROOF in CMYK, then get a service beuro to do it.
Every magazine I know for advert work requires CMYK file along with a proof. They want a real proof, out of a real rip so they can loop it and see dots. Otherwise they will require it and make one for you and charge you.
That is most of the publishers. but I know Hearst pub recently has changing to RGB Adobe managed color. I still provide them a Contract CMYK file...If the client cant afford an extra ~$50/120 fullpage/spread, then they better sign off something. 8bit, CMYK, PDFx1a, no issues. For those clicking to CMYK need to invest in a Pantone book, cus that violet richness you worked so hard to tweak...good bye...no matter what format you supplied the press.