Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: ivan muller on May 30, 2007, 03:11:00 am
-
hi All
I presented my portfolio some time ago to an international magazines local decor edition. Yesterday I got a very complimentary e-mail asking for my rates etc but also asking if I still deal with film.
I haven't dealt with mainstream mags for a while and I am really puzzled by the question. A few weeks ago I passed by my old film lab and they also told me that there has been a resurgence of film and that lots of magazines have gone back to film again.
My question is, is there any advantage from a publishing/magazine point of view regarding film vs digital?
Can it be or is it just a quirk of the South African industry? I havent shot film for 2 1/2 years!
Regards
Ivan
-
This is a very interesting topic.
Photographers working with 4 colour press as their final destination need to learn and get a handle on colour management, gamut limiting, soft proofing, and CMYK conversion. Unfortunately most don't, and thus end up sending a ProPhoto RGB or Adobe RGB file to the printer that has out of gamut colours, and which provides the operator with a huge headache and sometimes poor results.
Pre-press technicians know how to scan film and correct the output for their presses, but many have yet to learn how to take a wide gamut digital file and convert it appropriately. It's less work than scanning film, but film is something they've done for years vs digital files which are something they may still be unfamilar with. So they tell their bosses that digital can't produce as good results on press as does film.
And on the photographer side of the equation with more photographers taking charge of pre-press file preparation who don't really understand what's required of them, you end up with unhappy clients.
The problem to my mind isn't the technology, it's people.
Michael
-
I couldn't agree more, and was being I thought, diplomatic in not saying anything about people telling their bosses such, as I have personally experienced that exact situation. I shoot commercially now, but spent 5 years as a professional retoucher and know this happens regularly.
I am very pro digital and was simply relaying my experience.
A little surprised to be deleted.
This is a very interesting topic.
Photographers working with 4 colour press as their final destination need to learn and get a handle on colour management, gamut limiting, soft proofing, and CMYK conversion. Unfortunately most don't, and thus end up sending a ProPhoto RGB or Adobe RGB file to the printer that has out of gamut colours, and which provides the operator with a huge headache and sometimes poor results.
Pre-press technicians know how to scan film and correct the output for their presses, but many have yet to learn how to take a wide gamut digital file and convert it appropriately. It's less work than scanning film, but film is something they've done for years vs digital files which are something they may still be unfamilar with. So they tell their bosses that digital can't produce as good results on press as does film.
And on the photographer side of the equation with more photographers taking charge of pre-press file preparation who don't really understand what's required of them, you end up with unhappy clients.
The problem to my mind isn't the technology, it's people.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120198\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I agree with Michael. The only thing chrome brings to the party is a true reference (not of the scene mind you, but of the film itself). Then you have someone else in the foodchain scan and convert to CMYK for the mag, as was done for a very long time. There's nothing stopping a photographer from producing superb conversions and in house proofs but money and learning how to do so. IOW, the technology is here for us to handle all this.
I'll submit that this is one of the final frontiers photographers have in billing for new services where the 'rules' haven't be hosed by too many other photographers. I recall, a good 8-10 years ago when just a few shooters where dropping $30K plus for digital backs, saving their clients money on scans, plus film, Polaroid and processing. Did they up their fees to reflect this and the cost of the new technology? By and large, no. Now clients expect all this. Prepress in the photo studio could be a new avenue of billable services IF photographers learn to do it well, make themselves more valuable to their clients and bill for the work like crazy!
-
I agree with Michael. The only thing chrome brings to the party is a true reference (not of the scene mind you, but of the film itself). Then you have someone else in the foodchain scan and convert to CMYK for the mag, as was done for a very long time. There's nothing stopping a photographer from producing superb conversions and in house proofs but money and learning how to do so. IOW, the technology is here for us to handle all this.
I'll submit that this is one of the final frontiers photographers have in billing for new services where the 'rules' haven't be hosed by too many other photographers. I recall, a good 8-10 years ago when just a few shooters where dropping $30K plus for digital backs, saving their clients money on scans, plus film, Polaroid and processing. Did they up their fees to reflect this and the cost of the new technology? By and large, no. Now clients expect all this. Prepress in the photo studio could be a new avenue of billable services IF photographers learn to do it well, make themselves more valuable to their clients and bill for the work like crazy!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120208\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I do work for a printer, they test every digital back and camera on the market and they have their own drum scanners. They also spend a lot on profiling the system from start to finnish. They insist on MF or LF film, because they say the quality is much better. They also say it tends to show mostly when the actual litho printing is done for real, at proof stage it's not so noticable.
I have also come to the conclusion that my scanned MF even at thumbnal size looks nicer than my 1DsmkII files do, no matter what I do to curves and saturation.
I've just bought a 612 and a 5x4 because of this.
Kevin.
-
They insist on MF or LF film, because they say the quality is much better. They also say it tends to show mostly when the actual litho printing is done for real, at proof stage it's not so noticable.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=120250\")
Sounds like nonsense to me. I've output both to far, far more demanding output devices, true contone printers where there's not halftone dot to obscure a heck of a lot of detail. But the point is too vague to blame just the digital capture device. Could be the conversions, the sharpening or some other process that gives them this impression. It certainly isn't shared by a huge majority of image creators or publishers.
It would be quite easy to show the differences of each if well executed from capture to output.
Its easy to show the differences in film drum scanned and a pretty old, digital back:
[a href=\"http://digitaldog.net/files/FilmVsDigital.jpg]http://digitaldog.net/files/FilmVsDigital.jpg[/url]
This btw is a four year old comparison of a PhaseOne back, I suspect we'd see even better qualities today. Film was scanned on a ScanMate 5000.
-
Sounds like nonsense to me. I've output both to far, far more demanding output devices, true contone printers where there's not halftone dot to obscure a heck of a lot of detail. But the point is too vague to blame just the digital capture device. Could be the conversions, the sharpening or some other process that gives them this impression. It certainly isn't shared by a huge majority of image creators or publishers.
It would be quite easy to show the differences of each if well executed from capture to output.
Its easy to show the differences in film drum scanned and a pretty old, digital back:
http://digitaldog.net/files/FilmVsDigital.jpg (http://digitaldog.net/files/FilmVsDigital.jpg)
This btw is a four year old comparison of a PhaseOne back, I suspect we'd see even better qualities today. Film was scanned on a ScanMate 5000.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120254\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I know they are old backs, but I much prefer the look of the film, there is more depth and the colours just look better. If it's a resolution comparisson the digital looks good, but overall I like the film version.
I can't wait to get the spare part for my drum and get scanning the 612 Velvia and Provia's.
Cheers,
Kevin.
-
This is a very interesting topic.
Photographers working with 4 colour press as their final destination need to learn and get a handle on colour management, gamut limiting, soft proofing, and CMYK conversion. Unfortunately most don't, and thus end up sending a ProPhoto RGB or Adobe RGB file to the printer that has out of gamut colours, and which provides the operator with a huge headache and sometimes poor results.
I was looking at a holiday brochure at the weekend, my first thought was "there's a designer that likes the saturation slider" must of looked great on the desk top, those blues and reds popping out of the screen. I bet though when the ink hit the paper the sh*t hitting the fan wasn't far behind.
Kevin.
-
the retouchers i use (probably the best in new zealand) still swear that film is best to retouch. they retouch a few leaf and a lot of phase files (p25 and p45). they say its the film grain that is better and the shadows. ive noticed the shadows are a real issue with my p25.
a lot of cars shoots still get sot on 5x4.
paul
-
If I have a client that wants film, I will give them film. It has not happened in at least 3 years. So until then I will stay with digital, it is just more convenient and does everything for me.
And a couple of weeks ago when I had a client call me with a "rush" ad shoot on a Wednesday that they needed by Friday morning, I got it done. Film would not have done it.
-
Yeah, I've tested a few backs recently and the shadows do seem weird. Specifically, the transitions from a dark color or dark grey to black are abrupt. And it doesn't appear to be an exposure problem. The shadows from my 5D seem better. But for now, I'll stick mostly to medium format film and some 4x5.
-
That's interesting. One of the major differences I've noticed between my P30 (now P30+) is that these transitions are better than any DSLR I've owned (and I've owned a lot of them).
Yeah, I've tested a few backs recently and the shadows do seem weird. Specifically, the transitions from a dark color or dark grey to black are abrupt. And it doesn't appear to be an exposure problem. The shadows from my 5D seem better. But for now, I'll stick mostly to medium format film and some 4x5.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120281\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I was against digital from the beginning...my wife and partner "told" me to switch to digital, because I didn't have to spend days in the darkroom and could work from home....and she also said digital was the future.
I played the good husband and professional partner bought a Nikon D100 (5 years ago) and hated every minute shooting with that "thing".....but liked the instant result. I kept on improving my retouching skills and kept on hating digital.
3 years ago I bought a Ds1 MarkII and what a difference!! But I hated the fact that you have a blank canvas when it comes to color correction/manipulation after the shoot is in the can (HD).
But I kept on trying and improving and really loved the instant gratification and so did and do my clients.
Photoshop kept improving and then came lightroom....I bought a Aptus 65 and got the epson 2400.
Now I can guarantee you that I can get you the same result from a analog frame as I can from a digital frame! En all the nonsense about shadows and dept etc....is nonsense...digital is better and if you know what you want colorwise you can get it! If you need grain you can create it.
And for the printers......they will always screw you colors up anyways...film or digital...and they will always have an excuse why they did!
-
I am retoucher and color specialist that has come full circle back to being a photog.
I have scanned, I've been on press, I've converted and color corrected to match film, product, color
palettes, etc, etc. 12 years in that business thru the transition from film to digital. I can tell you first hand you can get terrible results as well as brilliant results from either medium....
I am a photographer who routinely takes images all the way from capture thru prepress and we bill thru every stage...
-
hi All
Thanks for the feedback!
It would seem that digital can deliver the results if the knowledge is there every step of the way. I must confess I am rather ignorant when it comes to the 4colour printing side of photography. So far most of the photos I have done for agencies that were used as ads in magazines etc looked ok and some were even great. Proof that if the knowlege and quality control is there good printing results are possible.
Does anyone have recomendations regarding books, websites etc that will explain how to become an expert in file preperation for 4 colour printing? Also what software tools do I need for this?
Many thanks
Ivan
-
It would seem that digital can deliver the results if the knowledge is there every step of the way.
I must confess I am rather ignorant when it comes to the 4colour printing side of photography. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120368\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You dont know about printing 'part of photography' because it isnt 'part of photography'
Delivering to for print has been debated before no
Is it not simplest to stick with ADOBE 98 colour space and let the printer make their own conversion - some will be good and other clueless - thier fault
It is not your job to understand thier print process as you cannot know about thier indivudual machine
(just like if your camera happens to consistently under expose you will consistently correct that out - the printer wouldnt know or be expected to)
Getty Corbis etc deliver A98 and seem to do OK ??
I do tend to desaturate my images colourful hightlights a bit to minimise the 'gamut warning' though - is this wise ??
SMM
-
You dont know about printing 'part of photography' because it isnt 'part of photography'
Delivering to for print has been debated before no
Is it not simplest to stick with ADOBE 98 colour space and let the printer make their own conversion - some will be good and other clueless - thier fault
It is not your job to understand thier print process as you cannot know about thier indivudual machine
(just like if your camera happens to consistently under expose you will consistently correct that out - the printer wouldnt know or be expected to)
Getty Corbis etc deliver A98 and seem to do OK ??
I do tend to desaturate my images colourful hightlights a bit to minimise the 'gamut warning' though - is this wise ??
SMM
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120370\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
i need to down size images to submit to getty. they only accept 50mb
paul
-
I do agree with Michael's view and experienced this myself quite a few times: it is hapening like described in some other countries, where Pre-Press peple don't have a clue how to handle digital files or when photographers don't have the necessary knowledge to hand-over the right files: these people will all end-up telling how better film was, and that it is a mistake to go digital when this technology is not yet mature and good enough!
The worse on this is, that some are believing it. But knowledgeable people can easily overcome this.
So yes, the problem here is the people, certainly not the technology.
Thierry
This is a very interesting topic.
Photographers working with 4 colour press as their final destination need to learn and get a handle on colour management, gamut limiting, soft proofing, and CMYK conversion. Unfortunately most don't, and thus end up sending a ProPhoto RGB or Adobe RGB file to the printer that has out of gamut colours, and which provides the operator with a huge headache and sometimes poor results.
Pre-press technicians know how to scan film and correct the output for their presses, but many have yet to learn how to take a wide gamut digital file and convert it appropriately. It's less work than scanning film, but film is something they've done for years vs digital files which are something they may still be unfamilar with. So they tell their bosses that digital can't produce as good results on press as does film.
And on the photographer side of the equation with more photographers taking charge of pre-press file preparation who don't really understand what's required of them, you end up with unhappy clients.
The problem to my mind isn't the technology, it's people.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120198\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
so it is: a learning curve which takes its time!
Once you have the necessary experience and knwledge, digital will not only be the equal to film for you, but you will be convinced of its superiority in many aspects, if not in all.
Thierry
I was against digital from the beginning...my wife and partner "told" me to switch to digital, because I didn't have to spend days in the darkroom and could work from home....and she also said digital was the future.
I played the good husband and professional partner bought a Nikon D100 (5 years ago) and hated every minute shooting with that "thing".....but liked the instant result. I kept on improving my retouching skills and kept on hating digital.
3 years ago I bought a Ds1 MarkII and what a difference!! But I hated the fact that you have a blank canvas when it comes to color correction/manipulation after the shoot is in the can (HD).
But I kept on trying and improving and really loved the instant gratification and so did and do my clients.
Photoshop kept improving and then came lightroom....I bought a Aptus 65 and got the epson 2400.
Now I can guarantee you that I can get you the same result from a analog frame as I can from a digital frame! En all the nonsense about shadows and dept etc....is nonsense...digital is better and if you know what you want colorwise you can get it! If you need grain you can create it.
And for the printers......they will always screw you colors up anyways...film or digital...and they will always have an excuse why they did!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120297\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
If I were shooting fine art b &w's, I'd be shooting 4 x 5 film. Recently, I've been getting some crazy tight deadlines. It just would'nt be possible to do it with film. Not to mention when I go to show my portfolio, I'm always asked if I'm shooting digital. I doubt I'd be getting most of my jobs if I answered film. So as the British say, "horses for courses".
I will say that when I moved from MF w/ a P25 to a cambo and rodenstock lenses, the results are much more "film like". It has been a long, involved process, however, to come up with techniques that produce results I'm happy with. And I still work on and refine these techniques every shoot. The notion that one can go buy a MFDB and presto! The magic bullet! are nonsense. Like any complex tool, it takes time and experementation to achieve the optimum results.
-
hi All
Does anyone have recomendations regarding books, websites etc that will explain how to become an expert in file preperation for 4 colour printing? Also what software tools do I need for this?
Many thanks
Ivan
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120368\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Professional Photoshop5th edition by Dan Margulis has a lot of great info in it.
David
-
Professional Photoshop5th edition by Dan Margulis has a lot of great info in it.
David
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120634\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Dan doesn't have a friggin clue about raw processing! I've been on his so called color theory list for years and some of his recent rants are simply totally without merit, he thinks the U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2 profile which is based on TR001 always prints magenta to any printer (silly, if the device conforms to TR001, the profile works beautifully). He's all about fixing turds in Photoshop which I would expect are not being generated by the people here who understand proper capture techiques. If you want me to post some of the more ridiculousness posted by Dan here, I've got all kinds of ammo. Buy the book, it has some value. But its not going to teach you anything about CMYK prep from RGB (they guy thinks ProPhoto RGB is a dangerous space), using profiles for getting good conversions etc.
-
'I do tend to desaturate my images colourful hightlights a bit to minimise the 'gamut warning' though - is this wise ??
SMM
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120370\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I suppose desatuating your files yourself means that you are making the decision as to how to convert the out of gamut colours rather than leaving it up to the prepress operator. A good prepress opertor may do better than you, but the big question is the quality of the hands your file is passing onto. If your files are heading primarily to cmyk then I'd be getting the out of gammut colours into gammut as early as possible in processing rather than leaving it until the moment before conversion. Any other thoughts?
David
-
I understand that you and Dan seem to have opposing views Andrew. I have read his work and its seems logically and practically based, and has a lot of powerful technique. A lot of it does seem to be how to repair and correct poor images(of course we never make those ), but he does seem to have a large and respectful following, as you do. It would be good if you guys could see some middle ground, it aint easy for the students when the teachers are scrapping.
David
Dan doesn't have a friggin clue about raw processing! I've been on his so called color theory list for years and some of his recent rants are simply totally without merit, he thinks the U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2 profile which is based on TR001 always prints magenta to any printer (silly, if the device conforms to TR001, the profile works beautifully). He's all about fixing turds in Photoshop which I would expect are not being generated by the people here who understand proper capture techiques. If you want me to post some of the more ridiculousness posted by Dan here, I've got all kinds of ammo. Buy the book, it has some value. But its not going to teach you anything about CMYK prep from RGB (they guy thinks ProPhoto RGB is a dangerous space), using profiles for getting good conversions etc.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120639\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
For what it´s worth, I think this is a part of photography (today) which is serious enough to push photographers out of the business.
Yes, I guess that today´s guys have to learn about all the stuff which was NOT their concern when the job ended with handing the client your selection of the best of the shoot and sending in the invoice. And that´s a hell of a different ballgame. So different, in fact, that I am absolutely certain that there are photographers around who are very good and have had success in the job but who would not have dreamed of getting into the profession had the job not stopped where it used to. I am one such. I am not an idiot; I have had a technical education too and despite all that, gave it all up to follow the dream which was all about working with a camera. I worked in an industrial photo unit and for a commercial photographer before going out on my own; I did a lot of colour printing (C Types) those many years ago as well as a hell of a lot of black and white.
And the thing about it was this: it felt part of the creative, hands-on, seat of the pants thing which I had wanted to be a part of and even working through the night until the next day to meet a deadline was enjoyable. It all felt as if it were a product of my eyes, mind, hands and soul. Sadly, no such feeling comes to me working with PS. Yes, I can do things which were harder if not impossible in the wet, but somehow, this new power doesn´t feel photographic; it just feels technical and not really a part of me.
So, I feel that to want to be a potographer today, you have to be a rather different mental package to the one that went before. I have a feeling that this shows up in the different styles of photography which are on show in the world out there. Maybe things just look more clinical, more detached...
Ciao - Rob C
-
Life was indeed easier when all you had to supply to the client was a chrome anyone could look at and know the image was sound. That's not anywhere as easy when you're suppling a document made up of noting more than a big pile of 1's and Zero's.
-
The shame of it is that with the new skill set required there has not been a corresponding pay rise! Look at the kind of salaries being paid to web managers and developers, and even graphic designers.
Like many of you, I came out of analogue, yet have worked in digital now for ten years. I have developed a whole set of skills, accordingly. The lay person, however, thinks perfect digital pictures are magically produced by an infallible machine!
Similarly, in my job as a photographer at a large museum, I was among the lowest paid staff members at the institution - hell, the security guys got paid more. I discovered that this was because the photography award that I was paid against had not been revised since 1981, and it still hasn't! This despite my job description that called for B&W print and process, film scanning all formats, 4x5 film photography, studio capture on Sinar digital mfdb, images for powerpoint, photoshop retouching work, annual report and events shooting - all in any given week...
Interestingly, too, when I started out assisting an ad guy in the late 80's, he was getting $2,500 a day as a fee. I know that there are plenty of shooters out there now struggling to get that day rate...
-
I think you should take the handbags elsewhere, frankly.
Dan doesn't have a friggin clue about raw processing! I've been on his so called color theory list for years and some of his recent rants are simply totally without merit, he thinks the U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2 profile which is based on TR001 always prints magenta to any printer (silly, if the device conforms to TR001, the profile works beautifully). He's all about fixing turds in Photoshop which I would expect are not being generated by the people here who understand proper capture techiques. If you want me to post some of the more ridiculousness posted by Dan here, I've got all kinds of ammo. Buy the book, it has some value. But its not going to teach you anything about CMYK prep from RGB (they guy thinks ProPhoto RGB is a dangerous space), using profiles for getting good conversions etc.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120639\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
RE: Dan Margulis I've learned more stuff on color and editing in just one of his books than any of the two dozen others that I've read combined. He's a rebel perhaps but he knows more than most and this threatens the small fish into trashing him out of their own complete insecurity. His books are also peppered with little jokes and quips that make them quite entertaining to read. He's a genius IMHO.
-
When I shot film, I made sure that I delivered the best transparency I could. I exposed
it and one of the best labs in the country (newlab sf ) processed it, that was it, and it looked beautiful there on a macbeth light table..
With digital, I took over the processing responsibility and like the lab charge for it.
It requires that I caputure,process and proof for the best end result..an image which an equally professional 4/c printer can take and reproduce..I always provide adobe98 files which have been checked and adjusted for cmyk.. I can then be confident that the proof I provide is attainable for the client's future presswork..if the printer does their part to the full capabilities of the medium; converts the file to their cmyk, then it works well and the client and I are happy.
There is still a turf war out there,some printers think prepress is all in their court, an area where they billed their clients accordingly..some are still paying for the sytex machines no doubt, and their press press billings are taking a hit.
Ad and design print production managers get an earful from the printer... and you can bet that the printer sales reps are blaming photographers if any problem arises on the print job.
I can hear it now.." oh, it was the photographers crappy files they provided, if they would have
shot film.."
-
I always provide adobe98 files which have been checked and adjusted for cmyk..
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121552\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi, guys first post here...I've been reading a lot recently.
Paul, just curious how do you check and adjust your files for cmyk ?
Is it the "proof colors" & "gamut warning" in photoshop ?
Thanks,
-
First off, I'd be careful about providing files in Adobe RGB to press people who don't understand color management real well! They can hose the conversions. I'd provide the documents in ColorMatch RGB instead. The downside is very slight, a bit smaller color gamut than most SWOP like output devices but the 1.8 gamma and the way it was designed will be better for CMYK output.
Hi, guys first post here...I've been reading a lot recently.
Paul, just curious how do you check and adjust your files for cmyk ?
Is it the "proof colors" & "gamut warning" in photoshop ?
Thanks,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121585\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
With an RGB document or an existing CMYK document? One useful feature in the Proof Setup is the Preserve CMYK numbers check box IF you're viewing an existing CMYK file (you don't have access to the RGB original) and you want to see how it would appear going out to another CMYK device. The check box is telling Photoshop 'show me how this image would appear going to this output device if I do NOT convert'. In other words, I have a CMYK file for device A and I have a profile for device B. How will the numbers appear if I just send them to this device (? If they look awful, then you have to consider reseparating the data. Again, ideally you'd have the RGB data but that's not always possible.
The gamut warnings for viewing RGB (to CMYK) are pretty useless. Rather than viewing an ugly overlay, just pick the output profile and rendering intent and you'l see on screen what the effect of out of gamut colors will be (within the limitations of the display gamut. It should be able to show most colors aside from very saturated cyans you can produce on press).
-
RE: Dan Margulis I've learned more stuff on color and editing in just one of his books than any of the two dozen others that I've read combined. He's a rebel perhaps but he knows more than most and this threatens the small fish into trashing him out of their own complete insecurity. His books are also peppered with little jokes and quips that make them quite entertaining to read. He's a genius IMHO.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121539\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Who might have said this recently?:
It does, however, beg the question: if saving time is so important that
quality compromises need to be made, why is the raw format being used at all? With rare image-specific exceptions, essentially anybody who is not a beginner will get better final results by shooting JPEG and correcting in Photoshop than an expert can who shoots raw but is not allowed to do any manipulation outside of the acquisition module. And in less time, too. The idea of a raw module is to *empower* the image-manipulation program, not replace it.
OK, let's start shooting JPEG cause the man said so.
That's just one. I have plenty of others that make most computer savvy photographers fall on floor in laughter.
-
Who might have said this recently?:
OK, let's start shooting JPEG cause the man said so.
That's just one. I have plenty of others that make most computer savvy photographers fall on floor in laughter.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121594\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hmmm..... the bold part is a remark that would have some truth in it when you do not know how to process raw files, when your raw converter doesn't apply the tags the camera gives the raw file which would have given you the same result when shooting in JPG in the first place. Anybody who is not a beginner would know how to process a Raw file to get to the same result as the JPG without loosing a lot of time or putting in a lot of effort.
Only in very specific circumstances that remark would be true.
The last sentence I simply do not understand.
Anyway, digital processing, colorspaces and conversions do give many people a severe headache.
You advise providing Colormatch RGB, a smaller colorspace that looks more like a cmyk color space so there is less to go wrong?
Makes some sense although in many cases I find it very hard to find exactly where something has gone wrong. In many cases it is conversion but not always. The last problem we had was with a printer that had some issues with his yellow for some reason, this was a physical problem so didn't show when converting to their profiles either. It took us the better part of 6 months to get the problem out. Naturally the fingerpointing ended with me but when at least 6 people all with good calibrated screens don't notice a greenish/yellowish cast before it gets printed it probably is not in my files . Most magazines I work for prefer me to deliver 'plain' AdobeRGB and do conversions themselves.
Biggest problem I find is that people, when something goes wrong, aren't really willing to look where the problem is but much rather point outward.
I find I can do things with color and color fidelity that were virtually impossible in the time I used film.
-
ColorMatch has some advantages due to its gamma encoding for CMYK press work accounting for dot gain. Its also a lot closer to the native behavior of most displays (certainly those on the Mac). If you view a document in a non color managed application that's in Adobe RGB (1998) its going to look pretty ugly, where one in ColorMatch will look reasonable. Also, if the user doesn't have a clue about color management and they convert the data not understanding Adobe RGB as the source for the conversion, they will get poor results compared to a space that's closer to the native assumption of the display system. IF you know the people working with the RGB understand color management, them absolutely send Adobe RGB (1998), even ProPhoto. If not, its a bad idea to send images in these color spaces.
-
I'm thinking if it would not be better to supply a converted TIFF file tagged with the camera profile if the client wishes to do their own conversion? Since they know how to convert, they should be able to use as much data that the file is carrying? Am I wrong to think this way?
Henry
-
I've seen the use of sRGB being recommended to help guard against file profile mismanagement for files heading to offset presses. Given that sRGB is probably a more common profile in general use, would you see it a a more or less useful profile than Colormatch for this purpose?
ColorMatch has some advantages due to its gamma encoding for CMYK press work accounting for dot gain. Its also a lot closer to the native behavior of most displays (certainly those on the Mac). If you view a document in a non color managed application that's in Adobe RGB (1998) its going to look pretty ugly, where one in ColorMatch will look reasonable. Also, if the user doesn't have a clue about color management and they convert the data not understanding Adobe RGB as the source for the conversion, they will get poor results compared to a space that's closer to the native assumption of the display system. IF you know the people working with the RGB understand color management, them absolutely send Adobe RGB (1998), even ProPhoto. If not, its a bad idea to send images in these color spaces.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121601\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I'm thinking if it would not be better to supply a converted TIFF file tagged with the camera profile if the client wishes to do their own conversion? [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121610\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sounds dangerous to me. KISS.
-
Sounds dangerous to me. KISS.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121618\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Could you kindly explain why it is dangerous Andrew. Thanks.
Henry
-
I've seen the use of sRGB being recommended to help guard against file profile mismanagement for files heading to offset presses. Given that sRGB is probably a more common profile in general use, would you see it a a more or less useful profile than Colormatch for this purpose?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121613\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Using sRGB is going to be OK too. Its pretty similar to ColorMatch, slightly smaller gamut, different tone response curve (2.2). I'd go either sRGB or ColorMatch long before anything else if I suspected the person on the receiving end had color management incapabilities. ColorMatch would have a slight edge due to the 1.8 gamma encoding (in theory).
-
Could you kindly explain why it is dangerous Andrew. Thanks.
Henry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121619\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Its dangerous if the user isn't color management aware or savvy.
Do this, Assign various profiles other than sRGB to images and view them in say a web browser (other than Safari which is ICC aware).
In the old days, Photoshop 4 and earlier, the color space assumption for all files for conversions was the users display. This is how images are assumed to be outside ICC aware applications. The farther you are from sRGB or ColorMatch, two spaces that are pretty close to the behavior of a display (of which both spaces are based), the farther they will appear as desired. And this assumption, right or wrong is used for all conversions from color space to color space.
-
Its dangerous if the user isn't color management aware or savvy.
Do this, Assign various profiles other than sRGB to images and view them in say a web browser (other than Safari which is ICC aware).
In the old days, Photoshop 4 and earlier, the color space assumption for all files for conversions was the users display. This is how images are assumed to be outside ICC aware applications. The farther you are from sRGB or ColorMatch, two spaces that are pretty close to the behavior of a display (of which both spaces are based), the farther they will appear as desired. And this assumption, right or wrong is used for all conversions from color space to color space.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121621\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I understand Andrew but I did say if the client knows how to convert. Of course if the client is a layman who is going to hand the files over to his designer, I would rather give him a Colormatch tagged file or a sRGB file if he is going to the web. Back to my original thought, would that TIFF file tagged with my camera profile be a good bet for someone who is color-managed and knows how to convert files? Thanks again.
Henry
-
I understand Andrew but I did say if the client knows how to convert. Of course if the client is a layman who is going to hand the files over to his designer, I would rather give him a Colormatch tagged file or a sRGB file if he is going to the web. Back to my original thought, would that TIFF file tagged with my camera profile be a good bet for someone who is color-managed and knows how to convert files? Thanks again.
Henry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121622\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The main problem with input profiles and of course output profiles compared to working spaces is they are not well behaved such that a neutral can be defined as R=G=B. Also, the tone response curve may be less than desirable (ideally, when editing, 2.2 is pretty close to perceptually uniform).
Now if someone on the receiving end is both color management savvy and image editing savvy, by all means, supply the document with the input color space. Also useful for film scans (you know the person doing the scan actually did characterize their scanner). If you're working with a raw converter that uses custom or non working space profiles for encoding, sure, use them.
-
The main problem with input profiles and of course output profiles compared to working spaces is they are not well behaved such that a neutral can be defined as R=G=B. Also, the tone response curve may be less than desirable (ideally, when editing, 2.2 is pretty close to perceptually uniform).
Now if someone on the receiving end is both color management savvy and image editing savvy, by all means, supply the document with the input color space. Also useful for film scans (you know the person doing the scan actually did characterize their scanner). If you're working with a raw converter that uses custom or non working space profiles for encoding, sure, use them.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121624\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks Andrew.
Henry
-
going back to whence we came..I am sure it was frustrating for the clients and the printers to get my velvia+astia chromes...they would never be able to match it..it was out of the cmyk gammat- maybe it would have been safer to shoot E100...but they kept comming back for more.
The good printers didn't mind the bar set high, and did wonders with it.. why in the world would
anyone hand off a srgb file unless the end use was only for the web! I didn't know I was living so dangerously..
btw, my estimates clearly states my workflow in adobe98 and cmyk proofing..nobody has had a problem with it yet..3+ years running.
If you work toward the lowest common denoninator, the printers with the least knowledge about colour management, the safest route, then the work will look safe.