Why Adobe forgot to make x64bit Adobe ACE CMM?

[Tim Lookingbill]

Now that you've taken us down this silly Epson ICC camera profile rabbit hole, what's your point? It had something to do with how Apple isn't focused on color management? Because that's where we were before this silly digression you've designed.

Since you've dismissed my points as silly, I don't see any point talking to rabbits. You do seem to spend a lot of energy arguing over the same color management minutia over and over going on years now never adding any new information.

I decided to ask you something off your normal scripted answers that I do believe related to Apple's color management implementation seeing Epson would include ICC camera profiles. If Epson didn't think Apple would allow or support its color managed video system to integrate with these profiles, I wouldn't think Epson would have gone to the trouble of building and including them. That's my point.

If you plan on redirecting what I just said into some other dismissive "I don't think this is important to address" argument, don't bother answering. I'm no longer interested. Capiche?

[Schewe]

I'm no longer interested.

Promise?

[Tim Lookingbill]

Promise?

Promise!

[digitaldog]

Since you've dismissed my points as silly, I don't see any point talking to rabbits. You do seem to spend a lot of energy arguing over the same color management minutia over and over going on years now never adding any new information.

Based on the last few comments, I'm not the only one dismissing your comments which don't appear to have anything to do with the discussion (ether about an Adobe CMM or the state of color management).

I decided to ask you something off your normal scripted answers that I do believe related to Apple's color management implementation seeing Epson would include ICC camera profiles.

Start a new thread. Something like "I have this cheapo printer, it installed a pile of cameras profiles" (then ask the question). FWIW, the only question you asked are either obvious or you'll have to ask Epson:

Where did Epson get these camera specific ICC profiles from? Who built them? What target did they use?

Answer: Why does it matter where Epson got them or even if they made them? Equally unimportant is who built them (although if you spent a little time with your beloved ColorSync utility, you could gain some possibly useful info. Do you know how to read the tags?). What target did they use is equally unimportant but again, one might be able to decipher this reading the tags. But the real crux is this:

Why would Epson bother making camera profiles?

You seem to know that Epson made them from that statement and then you seem to think we should believe this has some bearing on the state of (or lack thereof) of color management and Apple. I'm not sure, as I said, you took us OT and down this rabbit hole. Did you even look at the dates some of the profiles where built? Did you think maybe you could supply the names of the cameras? Seems you're really not too interested in answers. But if you are, start a new post. Or geeze, maybe ask Epson. Would you like me to call up my friends there and ask for you?

Doesn't that indicate to you that these device manufacturers believe color management is a useful technology to go to that kind of trouble?

Not really. Those profiles could be 10 years old as far as I know. You've provided nothing useful in terms of what you have other than you got a pile of ICC camera profiles.

If Epson didn't think Apple would allow or support its color managed video system to integrate with these profiles, I wouldn't think Epson would have gone to the trouble of building and including them. That's my point.

You seem pretty sure of Epson's intent so why ask? And are you sure that these profiles are only available to people like yourself, on a Mac who buy a cheap printer? Because if your plan was to extrapolate the addition of camera profiles somehow proves Apple's commitment to color management (a stretch), I suspect your friends on Windows might think you've forgotten them. Kind of makes your assumption about Epson+Camera Profiles+Apple half baked.

If you plan on redirecting what I just said into some other dismissive "I don't think this is important to address" argument, don't bother answering. I'm no longer interested. Capiche?

I never said it wasn't important, I said it had nothing to do with the discussion here. And if anyone's been dismissive, it's you. The bit about you have no faith in something you know nothing about, is one of the sillier comments you've made in this post. Do you understand?

[Tim Lookingbill]

Epson built them. All 256 and they're cross platform compatible. They're copyright 2006-2009. Make of it what you wish.

I've been hearing you bad mouth Apple about their color management for years with no counter argument from anyone. And since you saw it was on topic to mention it again within this 64 bit CMM discussion, I decided to offer a counter POV by showing you something that isn't logical from a business sense why Epson would go to the trouble and expense of building 256 ICC profiles for a cheap printer. That's all.

[Schewe]

I've been hearing you bad mouth Apple about their color management for years with no counter argument from anyone.

There is no legit counter argument...Apple has screwed the pooch since they enforced some pretty serious fundamental changes on both application developers and printer companies. It seriously sucks to be a developer for the Mac–regardless of whether you are doing software or hardware.

So, let's see some of Apple's recent behavior;
Although the switch from 68K to PPC is old history, it was a seriously debilitating change forced on developers...
Then the switch from OS 9.x to OS X was a massive change...
Then Apple decides to switch to Intel cpus requiring even more changes...
Then Apple reneges on their promise for 64 bit Carbon libraries requiring software switch to Xcode and Cocoa APIs...
Then Apple switches to 64 bit only processors which means OS's (10.7.x and now 10.8.x) which will run on only a fraction of the hardware Apple has sold.
Then Apple started enforcing draconian conditions just to make certain folders visible–really, you need to run Terminal to make some folders visible? That's worse than MSFT.

Apple completely changed their printing pipeline requiring new app and print driver changes as well as changes to color management applications.

Look bud, Apple makes nice hardware...OS X is nice if you aren't a pro, but it seriously sucks to be a pro Apple user these days and has for several years. In point of fact, Andrew is privy to information he can't really talk about that would further castigate Apple's handling of various applications and hardware developers...

Apple could fix all this stuff if there was any desire on their part...there is no desire. Heck there's still isn't a ColorSync product manager (the last one broke out in a sweat at the very sight of Steve Jobs in the Apple Cafe–I was there and saw the pure panic in his eyes).

Andrew tends to say what he thinks and what he thinks is based upon years and years in the biz. Yes, he sometimes gets a bit strident, but that's ok, he knows this shit pretty well. Do you?

BTW, let us know when you decide to get a real printer...something that can make real prints. Then maybe you might have some useful comments. In the meantime, when you start posting anything about real printing, I tend to roll my eyes and discount anything you say.

[digitaldog]

Epson built them. All 256 and they're cross platform compatible. They're copyright 2006-2009. Make of it what you wish.

Great, 4-7 year old profiles. Salient. And of course they are cross platform! Which again flies in the face of your argument they somehow support Mac CMS.

I've been hearing you bad mouth Apple about their color management for years with no counter argument from anyone.

While an exaggeration it's telling, as it appears thus far, most are in agreement with me. Why don't you ask Chris Murphy who occasionally posts here if he agrees with you. And when you're ready for an actual counter arguments, we're all ears. You said you didn't have an issue with Safari and when I pointed out that it's assumption of untagged data was silly, you of course didn't have anything to say about it. All this nonsense about Epson camera profiles doesn't make a counter POV. Now what?

since you saw it was on topic to mention it again within this 64 bit CMM discussion, I decided to offer a counter POV by showing you something that isn't logical from a business sense why Epson would go to the trouble and expense of building 256 ICC profiles for a cheap printer. That's all.

In your mind it was a counter POV. Congratulations. That so far no one has agreed with you shouldn’t affect you from continuing down (your own please) the rabbit hole, just do it elsewhere. Ideally a new post. Perhaps on another web site?

Why don't you follow your own advise: I'll just find the answers somewhere else.

[Tim Lookingbill]

I take it you professionals are now doing all of your professional work on Windows systems exclusively and not on the Apple platform seeing all the Mac usability complaints you've listed.

If you are doing professional work on Apple computers, are you getting less ROI over working on Windows?

[digitaldog]

I decided to offer a counter POV by showing you something that isn't logical from a business sense why Epson would go to the trouble and expense of building 256 ICC profiles for a cheap printer. That's all.

Let's see, the so called logic of the rabbit hole digger is that Epson presumably feels that thanks (solely) to Apple's work with color management, they provided hundreds of camera profiles. But the last one's were made in 2009? The lack of newer profiles seems to shoot holes through that silly theory. How many digital cameras have been released since 2009?

Maybe Tim can tell us what hardware or software in the last 5 years Apple has introduced that show a commitment to color management. What new product, functionality or even bug fixes? We did get the recent bugs they introduced into 10.8 alone but just what actual accomplishments that aid those using color management. Nothing on the iPad or iPhone, there's no color management there.

In just the last year plus, Apple have screwed DDC/CI in 10.8.x and 10.7.5 such some of us have to now use a USB cable to communicate to our display systems and other's can't communicate with the smart display systems at all.

My upgrade to 10.8 shows a lovely non color managed Dock except for the Finder icon.

Keynote is screwed too since 10.8, the main images are not color managed (the little thumbails are). Yet Preview does it correctly. Add just those to the list of Jeff's.

[Schewe]

I take it you professionals are now doing all of your professional work on Windows systems exclusively and not on the Apple platform seeing all the Mac usability complaints you've listed.

I'm still using a 2009 MacPro Tower (running 10.6. which I would have upgraded last year (I upgrade every 3 years) but Apple offered nothing that was more than a tiny upgrade...no USB 3, no Thunderbolt...nothing but a retread of the existing cpus. If Apple doesn't get their shit together this year with a real hardware upgrade, I will be switching to Windows...I already run Windows 7 in Bootcamp as well as Parallels and Win 7 is decent (don't like Win .

[pfigen]

"Adobe's senior engineer on printing: "I can't provide one [a solution for printing targets], because Apple already has, and Microsoft is, cutting off the support in the OS for passing unmanaged color data to a printer." He explained to me that it's the OS's responsibility, not the application developers, to provide a No Color Management option. If the OS doesn't allow for this, then no application (Photoshop or not even the profile making software) can provide it! Even XRite, Datacolor etc are in trouble here! Apple and Microsoft used to provide a solid solution for OS driver level target printing (Quickdraw and GDI), but since Adobe new these technologies would be depreciated they have removed the "No Color Management" option so that people won't blame Adobe when it doesn't work!"

What's confusing to me is that earlier in this thread Andrew said:

 "Get over the fact that No CM is gone from Photoshop and isn't coming back. If you need to print this way, find another way."

Well, what's confusing is it seems that no matter what application you want to use to print your targets with, it won't matter because the OS will not allow it to be done properly. Given that, how does one find another way to do this? How do the printer manufacturers and paper makers deal with this? They must have the same constraints as everyone else, no?

It seems that the Adobe Color Printer Utility won't work past Mac OS 10.6.8, so that's out for anything more modern. The only solution I can see for the short term is using older operating systems and the ACPU, until someone can convince the powers that be to fix this problem. I mean, we all need good printer profile whether they're canned or custom. Hell, I still keep three old G4's around just to run my drum scanners because the best software only runs on 9.2.

[digitaldog]

It seems that the Adobe Color Printer Utility won't work past Mac OS 10.6.8, so that's out for anything more modern.

Runs fine for me under 10.8. And again (hopefully for the last time), the applications that build profiles and need no CMS printing should handle this. It is their requirement for output and measurement, not Adobe's.

[pfigen]

Okay. Upon further research, it appears that it does work, but the default privacy settings have to be changed to allow applications downloaded from anywhere to apply, in order for the app to run. So, one part of my question answered, but what happens in future OS iterations when these data paths are blocked, as Scott (Onsight) seems to suggest will be happening?

[digitaldog]

...it appears that it does work, but the default privacy settings have to be changed to allow applications downloaded from anywhere to apply, in order for the app to run.

What?

[Tim Lookingbill]

So what "Color Management OFF" target printing methods do the printer manufacturers use to build their canned profiles? Why not use whatever they use?

[digitaldog]

So what "Color Management OFF" target printing methods do the printer manufacturers use to build their canned profiles? Why not use whatever they use?

On Mac, they use what Adobe provides for free or what the profile application uses (which is the same and produces the same output).

[Tim Lookingbill]

On Mac, they use what Adobe provides for free or what the profile application uses (which is the same and produces the same output).

So where is the problem others are having doing this on the Mac? Now I'm confused.

[pfigen]

"What?"

Yes. That came off an Adobe blog regarding issues with Mac OSX 10.8 and ACPU, so I'm assuming if they're writing about it, they not only encountered it, but probably got a few complaints as well. So, we're all glad to know that ACPU works now.

[digitaldog]

So where is the problem others are having doing this on the Mac? Now I'm confused.

You'll have to ask them. ACPU works just fine printing untagged data with no CMS. As does i1Profiler (as it should).

[Scott Martin]

but what happens in future OS iterations when these data paths are blocked, as Scott (Onsight) seems to suggest will be happening?

Well that remains to be seen. Hopefully dialog between Adobe, Apple and Microsoft will be better than they have been in the past, so that they can all craft an elegant solution. If not, then even the ACPU could fail.

ACPU works just fine printing untagged data with no CMS. As does i1Profiler (as it should).

ACPU doesn't work with Postscript, CMYK, or Grayscale processes. And it sometimes scales targets. So it's pretty limited - albeit to the process that most consumers use - RGB inkjet. The way things are looking ACPU may not continue to function properly even with the one RGB path it supports if the OSes change the way they have indicated they will. There are reasons why ACPU is unsupported software.