James May I ask that don't reply to the list with the title left on (e.g.) <[PRODIG] Re: prodig-digest V1 #1886> as you did, it's a lot easier for we listees to follow threads if you use the original title.
1/11/03 1:59 pm James King-Holmes <james-at-kingholmes.com> wrote >Richard > >Not quite. 1994 Henshall wrote a piece about the Colortran & profiling, & >slightly more recently (don't have the reference to hand) he did a piece >about the EyeOne (I think) and neutral viewing conditions/lighting etc. I >recall that whichever hardware it was, it seemed awfully expensive >(GBP1800?) at the time, & thus a little bit of a luxury for my own business. there are very good solutions available for a lot less than that currently. http://www.colourmanagement.net/profilgear.html My favourite monitor calibration/profiling gear is currently color-solutions basICColor Display with either 1: iOne Monitor (550.00) or 2: basICColor Squid (210.00). >The current series is a direct transcript of Neil Barstow's web pages. is that a criticism? That's not quite a fair comment whatever you mean by it James: The second piece, <7 steps> was adapted from material on my site at the suggestion of your BIPP editor Steve Bavister, the first was especially written for the BIPP magazine and it took quite a few hours very late at night over a weekend as I was given only a few days notice that the article was needed. To suggest I pulled it all straight off the site is unfair IMO. Yours is the ONLY feedback I've had so I suspect I'll not be writing any more BIPP articles. You can take a horse to water - - . Hey, perhaps you think my work is junk, that would be your perogative, of course. Now, I have to admit that I can't know categorically what you read - because no one at BIPP has been kind enough to send me any magazines! Iv'e never seen the articles in print. > >Apart from that, I agree with all you say. > >The problem is that profiling occupies the same space in the digital armoury >as colour testing each film batch occupied in a pre-digital age. In other >words, if you were really serious and a lot of money was at stake on the >technical quality of your images, then you did it. If your attitude was more >casual, then you didn't & trusted the film manufacturers to get it right >most of the time. but you can't trust the digi manufacturers in the same way, a properly profiled workflow is like knowing the ASA and type of film before you load and expose the stock. A non profiled workflow is, at best, a risk, at worst, a black box of film, yes, you can test it, but why bother when profiles can describe your digital devices in the same way that a label on a film box tells us what to set the meter to?? I'm disappointed if you read my first BIPP article and still feel profiling is only for the anal retentives. >Either way, the point to bear in mind is that unless your >business is heavily involved with the technical or repro side then it is >the behind-the-camera making of images which turns most photographers on, >the rest is incidental. I can't agree here, nor will many of the listees I feel. Personally I do remember the days spent testing film batches with differing filtrations, especially back in the early 80's, film seemed to get a lot more consistent after that. But digital is potentially much different, if you read my first BIPP article I hope you understand that RGB and CMYK numbers are not unequivocal colour definitions, but that the real colour meanings are set ONLY by reference to a colour space. Even <without colour management> assumptions are being made about file content and screen - at a minimum. Let's take Epson inkjet printers as an example - we are often dealing with more than a small caste, using even original manufacturers materials a printer can sometimes be far enough off to take the fun out of printing. With a third party manufacturer's papers and/or inks the prints can be virtually irredeemable without a good profile. I guess it just depends on how much time and materials a user is willing to waste on test prints. With no film to send to the client it becomes imperative to have at least a calibrated/profiled screen and ideally a printer set up likewise, so that A: we know what we are doing when colour correcting, B: we can send client an aim print which actually represents file data. Even for those just printing a portfolio, is it worth accepting the possible compromise of mediocre prints? > >Or is this heresy on this forum? I don't think so, all views gratefully accepted IMHO. I certainly don't wish to sound strident, I do hope my views sound balanced? Regards, NeilB. Apple Solutions Expert colourmanagement.net :: Consulting in Imaging & Colour Management custom scanner and printer profiles, training on Imacon Scanning supply Gretag + eyeOne, ColorSoloutions basICColor : Display etc. XRite www.colourmanagement.net/ :: www.apple.com/uk/creative/neilbarstow/ =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
