Advice to pro photographers [Archive] - Desktop Publishing Forum

terrie

01-17-2006, 02:18 PM

peter: They are questions I want answers :-) in simple terms for them (bless them)Well...what are your printing specs?

How small or big can images be--as in pixel dimensions--so that they print properly?

Do you use color management and if so, do you have a profile you would prefer they use or should they embed their own working space profile and then you guys convert on the fly?

Do you care what image format they use--I can see someone sending you an jpg compressed to quality 1 with all sorts of artifacts and uglies expecting it to be printed full page glossy.

Unless you tell them, how are they to know what you want?

Tell me what your specs are and I'll come up with something...

Terrie

PeterArnel

01-17-2006, 02:31 PM

OK
this is what I think i know ( or gleaned)

if they look at pics the should always work in Adobe rgb 1998

if they retouch the image the should save it in CMYK (ISO coated for Europe)

Be wary of retouching using "Calibrated" Monitors as they show false readings

Images should be enlarged no more than 130%???? ( this was my tranny spec - how does this apply tro digital )

low Jpeg compression has little effect on quality

Where does RAW filoe format fit in

Peter
How do they calibrate the camera ????
Nite nite

terrie

01-17-2006, 03:19 PM

peter: if they look at pics the should always work in Adobe rgb 1998
Fairly standard...

>>if they retouch the image the should save it in CMYK (ISO coated for Europe)

Why? Why don't you guys do the conversion from RGB with the AdobeRGB98 profile embedded?

>>Be wary of retouching using "Calibrated" Monitors as they show false readings

False to whom? If you are using calibrated monitors, the image should look the same--at least in RGB...my experience with CMYK is very limited. The whole point of color management as it relates to monitors is that an image shown on a calibrated monitor should look the same across all calibrated monitors--otherwise what's the point?

Basically what you are doing when you use color management is creating a series of dictionary entries that allow the color management system to translate from one system to another.

>>Images should be enlarged no more than 130%???? ( this was my tranny spec - how does this apply tro digital )

130% of what???

>>low Jpeg compression has little effect on quality

Why not? If you are taking a low quality jpg at a low res value and trying to blow it up to higher res, how can you not have artifact problems? Or is it that the photographers are using decent (as in say at least 5mp) cameras? Or your final image size is very small???

>>Where does RAW filoe format fit in

RAW allows the photographer greater flexibility in terms of processed image both in size and image "quality" (for example, using RAW one can play with the white balance in the most amazing way).

>>How do they calibrate the camera ????

If they are shooting outdoors, it's my understanding that camera calibration is pretty useless--check the archives of the colorsync list for quite lengthy discussions on this. If doing a studio shoot, calibration can be useful because in a studio shoot one can control the lighting.

I saw your post on the colorsync list. You might ask this question there also...

Hope this helps...

Terrie

Ian Petersen

01-18-2006, 09:39 PM

if they look at pics the should always work in Adobe rgb 1998Adobe RGB is a good working space for print production, but not necessarily for a pro photographer. They may want to work in a wider gamut space which probably entails working in 16-bit/channel too. As long as they supply 8-bit RGB files tagged withthe correct profile.if they retouch the image the should save it in CMYK (ISO coated for Europe)Photographers should never ever, under any circumstances, convert anything to CMYK (IMHO).Be wary of retouching using "Calibrated" Monitors as they show false readingsEh? Only a calæibrated monitor has a chance of showing correct picture. But a calibrated workflow is only as good as its weakest link, so scanner, monitor and proof printer all need to be calibrated to the same standards.Images should be enlarged no more than 130%According to a photographer friend of mine digital photos (from a high-res pro camera) can be scaled far more aggressively (300% or more) than a comparably sized 'analogue' photo. Digital photos don't have 'grain', although other artifacts can appear if the CCD or lens is of less good quality or size.low Jpeg compression has little effect on qualityYes, as long as one does not repeatedly save as JPEG.Where does RAW filoe format fit in - How do they calibrate the cameraThe two are interconnected. The RAW file is simply 'what the ccd saw' with the camera's properties or calibration tagged on separately so when imported into Photoshop the conversion from raw pixel data to calibrated image is under control of the photographer rather than the camera's software.

terrie

01-19-2006, 09:08 AM

ian: Adobe RGB is a good working space for print production, but not necessarily for a pro photographer.I was thinking print production and didn't want to complicate matters figuring the photographer might do a conversion to AdobeRGB98 when sending to print...

>>Photographers should never ever, under any circumstances, convert anything to CMYK (IMHO).

That's what I've always read--I don't have any experience working with CMYK and until I gain some, I'd feel more comfortable providing profiled RGB files.

Terrie

Cristen Gillespie

01-19-2006, 03:28 PM

ProPhoto RGB is probably a bit too wide a space for CMYK conversion by Peter to print. But then sRGB is probably closer to CMYK printing than Adobe RGB. If the photog does color correction, perhaps he/she should send LAB and let Peter do the converting? Then there is no problem with the numbers, no matter how calibrated or not the monitors/cameras are? And no reason to expect a pro photographer to know how to properly make the CMYK conversion.

Ian Petersen

01-19-2006, 09:00 PM

But then sRGB is probably closer to CMYK printing than Adobe RGBPerhaps, but sRGB is a poor working space for print production and I've certainly never seen it recommended for such. However, it can be useful to convert PDFs and images to sRGB when sending to clients for proofing purposes as it is closer to the 'average' PC screen.If the photog does color correction, perhaps he/she should send LAB and let Peter do the converting? Then there is no problem with the numbers, no matter how calibrated or not the monitors/cameras are?If the photographer's screen isn't calibrated properly then he's still going to be sending wierd looking pictures whether in Lab or RGB. And if the designer/printer's screen is not calibrated then he's not going to know what he's converting from or to ...

Cristen Gillespie

01-20-2006, 08:24 AM

Perhaps, but sRGB is a poor working space for print production and I've certainly never seen it recommended for such. However, it can be useful to convert PDFs and images to sRGB when sending to clients for proofing purposes as it is closer to the 'average' PC screen.If the photographer's screen isn't calibrated properly then he's still going to be sending wierd looking pictures whether in Lab or RGB. And if the designer/printer's screen is not calibrated then he's not going to know what he's converting from or to ...

Actually, I have seen it recommended for print production on the colortheory list, but I have taken no stand on the matter. There's a lot of argument behind it, as well as against it. Colors are duller, the space more compressed, but that mimics the printing press.

I agree that photographers should calibrate their monitor, especially since many tend to work visually, rather than use any numbers. I tend to take calibration as a given. But if they have calibrated their monitors, then Lab might be safer for Peter and the photographer than their CMYK conversion. The conversion, then, is done by the printer for a known quality--press, paper and ink combined.

But again, I used a lot of question marks because while I've heard professionals discuss this, I haven't hear any consensus as to the best workflow in these situations.

terrie

01-20-2006, 11:59 AM

cristen: perhaps he/she should send LAB and let Peter do the converting?In all the discussions I've read on the ColorSync Users list, I've never, ever read of anyone suggesting that LAB files be sent to a printer.

The discussions revolve around some flavor of RGB or CMYK with RGB being the most common...

Hmmm...might be an interesting question to ask on the list...

Ok...just sent the following:

Does anyone think it would be a good idea to send LAB files for print production rather than what I take as the norm of some flavor of RGB (perhaps with an embedded profile) or CMYK.

Given my limited personal experience with color print production and from reading this list, an RGB file with an appropriate embedded profile to be converted by the production house seems to be more the norm ("better"). Is that accurate?

Might it depend on if you are in the US or Europe or Asia????

Or might it depend on whether the originator and/or the shop is color managed?

Will let you konw what sort of answers I get...

Terrie

PS...have you been spending too much time with Dan again...LOL!!!

terrie

01-20-2006, 01:08 PM

Ok...got one reply so far from the ColorSync list:

>>In a message dated 1/20/06 12:57 PM, t labarbera wrote:

> Does anyone think it would be a good idea to send LAB files for print
> production rather than what I take as the norm of some flavor of RGB (perhaps
> with an embedded profile) or CMYK.

Yes...if you like to live very dangerously. ;-)

In all seriousness, no, don't do it. Besides having no idea what to do with
it in most cases, they will think you are peculiar.

> Given my limited personal experience with color print production and from
> reading this list, an RGB file with an appropriate embedded profile to be
> converted by the production house seems to be more the norm ("better"). Is
> that accurate?

Yes. Very much so.

> Might it depend on if you are in the US or Europe or Asia????

A file delivered to a prepress house in Europe in, say, AdobeRGB format with
the profile embedded needs only an adequately-trained operator to translate
it into the proper format for localized printing. So you should make sure
that they know exactly how to deal with your file before you trust them to
do the right thing with it.

Of course, it helps if some sort of certified proof is given to the prepress
people along with the file to show them the final appearance expected when
the file is output on press. That would hold them to some sort of
established standard, instead of shooting in the dark, so to speak.

> Or might it depend on whether the originator and/or the shop is
> color managed?

That part of the job (converting the AdobeRGB file to a CMYK format
appropriate to the localized output) is best left to properly-trained
operators at the prepress house. The task is more problematic if the shop
has little experience, or none, with color-managed practices. In that case
my best advice is to find one that does, if at all possible.

Also, if you know exactly which CMYK color profile describes the press
conditions in that particular location, in that case you could perform the
CMYK conversion yourself, and then hand off the already-converted file. But
that requires very good communication with the other end, and confidence
that the file will be handled with the utmost care and the appropriate
procedures.

In any case, clear and open communication is of the utmost importance.<<

Terrie

Steve Rindsberg

01-20-2006, 02:47 PM

Peter, it sounds as though the client is an estate agent or the like and either you or they hire the photographers but ultimately you're responsible for producing a piece that makes the house look its best.

Is accurate color necessary or is attractive/pleasing color the goal (it being a sales sheet, after all)? If the latter, wouldn't you be best off getting raw files from the photographers (or the closest thing to unmanaged/unchanged files they can supply)?

Your staff will know your presses and will have calibrated equipment for manipulating the photos. Who better to do the tweaks and conversion to CMYK if needed?

michelen

01-20-2006, 06:47 PM

I need some help - I want to create a fact sheet to help the photographers who supply digital images of "POSH" houses to us
Peter

Here is my two cents' worth:

I shoot RAW files with my Nikon D70, but I process them myself. I never give a client a RAW file.

I work in the Colormatch RGB color space for digital photographs. If I know for certain that they will end up on press, I convert to CMYK before I deliver the final image.

I do all of my own color correction and retouching, and would not dream of doing it on an uncalibrated monitor

I provide my final images in uncompressed .tif format, unless otherwise requested. Jpeg is OK for final format. I always deliver a 300 dpi file unless otherwise specified. I do not deliver final images via e-mail. Not ever. Either ftp or snail mail on a CD.

I hope this helps.

Ian Petersen

01-21-2006, 01:14 AM

If I know for certain that they will end up on press, I convert to CMYK before I deliver the final image.Why? Do you know what sort of press the image will be printed on? What if the image is to be used in several different jobs? As designer/production person I don't want anything in CMYK until the last possible moment, i.e. when making the final high-res PDF to send to the printer.

Ian Petersen

01-21-2006, 02:20 AM

Colors are duller, the space more compressed, but that mimics the printing press.Yes, but it's not the same as a cmyk press, and in some areas quite a bit smaller than the cmyk gamut. So any editing in sRGB will inevitably compromise quality relative to cmyk. The working space must be larger (but not too much) than the target space if different. Obviously, using sRGB can work - that's basically what Photoshop up to v4.x (?) used - but I can't see why anyone would recommend it nowadays.

Lab might be saferI have a feeling that it wouldn't - or at least it would open up a whole different can of worms.

PeterArnel

01-21-2006, 02:16 PM

Steve Rindsberg

01-21-2006, 09:42 PM

>>THe problem we are all having is that photographers are now trying to compensate for poor images and manipulating them - we need some rules

One rule that works well is not to hire photographers who can't produce images that are up to spec. You may not have control over this, I realize. Pity. Nothing like a touch of the (economic) cat to get their attention.

Whether to permit the photographer to manipulate the images or insist on doing it yourslves in-house is up to you, but as has been suggested, I certainly wouldn't permit them to send CMYK images.

ktinkel

01-22-2006, 04:59 AM

What if the image is to be used in several different jobs? A professional photographer is likely to have granted rights for one use only; if more are needed, then additional images can be produced to suit.

But it sounds to me as if these are amateur photos we are talking about. In that case, the designer needs to get the least messed-with form available. But in my experience that is likely to be a textured silk print or its digital equivalent (mediocre JPEG).

Depressing as the thought is, I wonder if there is a solution to this. I doubt the general printing world is likely to go back to having commercially-shot photos (with experienced retouching and color correction) for ordinary work (which is how it was up to 1980-something). So it falls on designers or designers working closely with printers.

Problem is that we used to pay to get good printable photos. Since DTP software turned this business upside-down, designers rarely bill specifically for photo enhancement (any more than they bill for typesetting). Printers can (they used to), but I suspect they do not have line item charges for it either.

Ian Petersen

01-22-2006, 07:07 AM

A professional photographer is likely to have granted rights for one use onlyThat would be very unusual in my experience. For advertising work the photographer sells all rights to the ad agency for any use at the very least for the duration of a campaign period although more usually forever. If he doesn't, then he doesn't get the job! Not the most civilised situation, I agree, but nevertheless normal practice 'round these parts. designers rarely bill specifically for photo enhancementWe do.

Cristen Gillespie

01-22-2006, 10:34 AM

>
Yes...if you like to live very dangerously. ;-)

In all seriousness, no, don't do it. Besides having no idea what to do with
it in most cases, they will think you are peculiar.]

In this case, I was referring to Peter as the printer, exclusively. They're right that most people don't know what to do with Lab. That speaks volumes about the printers involved, though. They probably don't know what to do with anything they get. They're the ones who strip your profiles and apply their own, willy-nilly. Nothing you can do if you're sending blind to an unknown printer. Or run an RGB file direct to a CMYK press--yes, I've heard of that happening. No conversion! Amazing.

And of course, if you're the page designer, Lab really isn't an option for your images. Just for photos, and only if you know the printer knows what s/he is doing--not something to assume lightly.

And yes, I hang out with Margulis' crowd. The colortheory list IS Margulis, and those adamantly opposed to him. LOL It makes for some interesting reading, and a keen awareness that among top professionals, there is no concensus. Not on RGB space, conversion, CMYK profiling, anything.<sigh>

One thing they DO all agree upon--the world as she is in printing is a mess.

Cristen Gillespie

01-22-2006, 10:41 AM

Yes, but it's not the same as a cmyk press, and in some areas quite a bit smaller than the cmyk gamut. So any editing in sRGB will inevitably compromise quality relative to cmyk. The working space must be larger (but not too much) than the target space if different. Obviously, using sRGB can work - that's basically what Photoshop up to v4.x (?) used - but I can't see why anyone would recommend it nowadays.

I have a feeling that it wouldn't - or at least it would open up a whole different can of worms.

The reason some are going back to recommending sRGB, apart from it being the standard so many people have and so much equipment seems set to, is that for those who don't know what they're doing, it tends to be safer than Adobe RGB, and much safer than ProPhoto. It's not recommended for anyone who knows about color spaces. They're not recommending is as a better space. But you get someone who doesn't understand the first thing about print tweaking an Adobe RGB file, then screaming that their beautifully-saturated colors aren't in the final print, sRGB will at least spare the printer some agony.

Mind, *I'm* not recommending it. I refuse to recommend anything<G>

As for Lab, yes, it can open up a whole different can of worms, but as I said to Terrie, I was only talking about Peter. Not just any old printer. He can handle Lab. A printer you don't know should be asked first if he wants it. Probably doesn't, in the main, because so many have their own workflow, which isn't necessarily a good one, but it's theirs.

Ian Petersen

01-22-2006, 12:11 PM

He can handle LabWhat makes you think that? And if the Lab is coming from a photographer with a miscalibrated system then it's still going to be the wrong colour when printed ...

ktinkel

01-22-2006, 12:36 PM

That would be very unusual in my experience. For advertising work the photographer sells all rights to the ad agency for any use at the very least for the duration of a campaign period although more usually forever. I don’t have much experience with ad agencies; you may be right, these days.

In my experience, now quickly receding into the dark ages, photographers were tough about rights, never gave up negs (today I guess that would be original files). I always admired them for their tough-mindedness.

We do [bill specifically for photo enhancing and typesetting].I hope more American designers do, too, by now. But in the 1980s most leapt into DTP without considering the consequences of providing services they used to job out, and ended up giving them away.

Designers vary in their ability to handle photos. I was never good at it (and never in my life harbored even the remotest desire to be a retoucher). But the (evidently old-fashioned) printers I worked with would just as soon fix the images themselves, and preferred app files to .ps (or PDF). But we knew each other (usually) and shared a common notion of acceptable quality.

Anyway, I am just about an antique now, and most of the printers I once worked with have retired and moved to Florida.

One thing for sure, over all the quality of printed color (as well as typesetting) at the ordinary commercial level has not improved during the past couple of decades. But it certainly has become more “affordable.”

terrie

01-23-2006, 02:12 PM

cristen: One thing they DO all agree upon--the world as she is in printing is a mess.LOL!!!

I got another reply to my query from the colorsync list...I thought it was quite interesting:

>>t labarbera wrote:
> Does anyone think it would be a good idea to send LAB files for
> print production rather than what I take as the norm of some flavor of RGB (perhaps with an embedded
> profile) or CMYK.

One of the subtle issues at the moment with using LAB as a raster
encoding format, is that most current tools and workflows are set up to assume
colorspace gamuts (i.e. that images encoded in a particular colorspace are rendered
(optimized) for that colorspace, and that therefore the gamut of the colorspace can be
assumed to represent that of the images, and should be the one to use as the source during
a colorspace conversion.)

When you supply images encoded as LAB, there can be no such assumption, since
LAB doesn't have a gamut (not one that means anything, anyway.)

Given a set of images encoded as LAB, and the task of converting them to
CMYK, there are two possible conversion assumptions:

1) Make an assumption about the gamut of the images, ie. that they
are really sRGB gamut, or perhaps SWOP ? - random choice really,
and then convert to CMYK on the basis of that.

2) Build a gamut from the image content, and then use that as the basis
for colorspace conversion. Should each image be processed separately,
or should a combined gamut be used for the whole job ? - who knows.
Either way the exact color reproduction is not likely to be consistent,
which could be both an advantage (the color conversions are more optimized),
or a problem (if you want the gamut mapping to be consistent between images or
jobs.)

Either way, few of the color conversion toolsets are set up to really
deal with the above issues, and you have left a lot of things unspecified.

The technical solutions (as I see them), are:

1) Color toolsets need to have the facilities to deal with such issues.
2) LAB (and other device independent colorspace encodings) need to
have the facility to embed a gamut description along with the image(s).<<

Terrie

terrie

01-23-2006, 02:41 PM

peter: THe problem we are all having is that photographers are now trying to compensate for poor images and manipulating them - we need some rulesIt appears then, that the problem is that the photographers don't know what they are doing with the imaging software they are using and/or your requirements not being known...if that is the case, then:

If it's a matter of the photographers not using their imaging software properly, then it seems to me that the following rules might make your life easier:

1. Only original digital camera images are to be sent to you--no manipulation allowed otherwise images will not be accepted.

2. Your shop does any image correction--color, clean-up, sizing, etc--that is necessary to have the images print properly

An alternative would be to set up some sort of photographer certification course/class which would cover the basics of image manipulation as needed by your shop...

If it's a question of your specs not being known, then you need to identify them--I think, really, that this is your question and the problem is that you've not told us specifically what your needs are.

That is, in an ideal world what would be the best image you could receive:

1. What ppi/dpi?

2. Max and min image size (pixels and/or whatever is the appropriate unit of measure?

3. Embedded profile? If so, which one?

4. RGB or CMYK?

Terrie

Cristen Gillespie

01-23-2006, 02:50 PM

What makes you think that? And if the Lab is coming from a photographer with a miscalibrated system then it's still going to be the wrong colour when printed ...

An assumption that Peter is very inquisitive and would find out anything he needed to know about a subject that affected his printing<G>

It's completely true that a photographer with a mis- or uncalibrated system would produce the wrong color, especially if s/he didn't have a clue what the numbers mean. I think s/he probably would regardless of profile if s/he is relying on the image's appearance on the monitor to say what is red or grey or violet, and certainly could compound one error with another with a CMYK conversion. The printer, however, given no profile to "match" or, from what I read, more commonly "strip," would convert to the CMYK that works for the printer setup, and have the Lab values to back him/herself up when the photographer cried foul.

I don't think anyone has devised a perfect solution. Lab is just one possibility that some people in the business of either providing or receiving image files have been discussing. It's not without the potential for disaster for someone. The whole thing, regardless of profiles embedded or not, really only works when provider and printer understand each other. From the discussions on the list, it would appear that there is more trouble than solution in color management at the present time. That's not to say it won't take hold and start to work. Just that it hasn't taken hold reliably yet.

Cristen Gillespie

01-23-2006, 02:59 PM

> Either way, few of the color conversion toolsets are set up to really
deal with the above issues, and you have left a lot of things unspecified.

I rather thought that toolsets, or workflows, aren't set up to deal with Lab. OTOH, some providers, Margulis included, have said that if the printer is a known quantity, Lab can be a successful mode. I have to defer to their greater knowledge of the issue than I have. They have a lot more real world experience. I don't understand fully how they handle a workflow with Lab as the hand-off colorspace, but they must understand it since they have proposed it, even said they use it. I can see advantages to it if everyone is on the same page. I can convert RGB to Lab to CMYK and at least by my monitor, so long as my RGB wasn't so far out of gamut that it couldn't be printed, I see a CMYK that looks like my RGB. I can't experiment with a printing press<G> Presumably printable. But then, I also watch CMYK gamut while working in ProPhoto or Adobe RGB.

PeterArnel

01-24-2006, 05:52 AM

I don’t have much experience with ad agencies; you may be right, these days.

In my experience, now quickly receding into the dark ages, photographers were tough about rights, never gave up negs (today I guess that would be original files). I always admired them for their tough-mindedness.

I hope more American designers do, too, by now. But in the 1980s most leapt into DTP without considering the consequences of providing services they used to job out, and ended up giving them away.

Designers vary in their ability to handle photos. I was never good at it (and never in my life harbored even the remotest desire to be a retoucher). But the (evidently old-fashioned) printers I worked with would just as soon fix the images themselves, and preferred app files to .ps (or PDF). But we knew each other (usually) and shared a common notion of acceptable quality.

Anyway, I am just about an antique now, and most of the printers I once worked with have retired and moved to Florida.

One thing for sure, over all the quality of printed color (as well as typesetting) at the ordinary commercial level has not improved during the past couple of decades. But it certainly has become more “affordable.”
Kathleen I am not sure about the US but in the UK quality has improved considerably . CTP has meant jobs fit , coaters have taken away marking - using RO units to control our water has enable inks to be more stable.etc
Peter

ktinkel

01-24-2006, 06:23 AM

Kathleen I am not sure about the US but in the UK quality has improved considerably.Hmmm. Well, I base my comment on what I receive in the mail. Very expensive ads — on gorgeous paper, with diecuts, foldouts, full bleed everywhere, and so on, are technically good.

But the general run-of-the-mill printing, including many slick magazines, all local advertising, and, of course, newspaper work is generally bad. They seem to use color to distract us from the middling (or worse) overall quality.

I do realize that these classes of work were never of the highest quality, but in the old days enough experienced eyes and hands were involved that the very worst problems were avoided. No longer.

Coca-Cola, which used to be a dragon, insisting on faithful reproduction of its red color in any context, must be overwhelmed. I have seen many, many shades of red lately.

Robin Springall

01-24-2006, 02:05 PM

I think the photographer should do the CMYK conversion, in an ideal world, as it's then it's up to him or her to get the image looking right, and the printer's ICC profile should be tagged.

Fat chance, I reckon!

Ian Petersen

01-24-2006, 10:41 PM

photographers were tough about rightsI have a feeling that press photographers or those doing magazine/book work get better treatment. They still at least get an attribution. But advertising photographers have always given up negs, diapositives and essentially all rights to their pix for as long as I can remember (15+ years). over all the quality of printed color (as well as typesetting) at the ordinary commercial level has not improved during the past couple of decades.I don't know about that. I almost never see decidedly bad colour nowadays, which I seem to remember 10 or 20 years ago. And there's a lot more of it now. I'd say ordinary everyday commercial printing is better now than it ever has been, but there are certainly quality control issues still. Proofreading seems to be a thing of the past. If it's done at all it's not done very well. Spelling and punctuation mistakes are common, as are missing lines, wrong captions, wrong or lowres images etc.

Ian Petersen

01-24-2006, 10:54 PM

I think the photographer should do the CMYK conversionWhatever for? That would mean the photographer would need to know where and on what his pictures are to be printed. And he would need to be versed in the mysteries of CMYK printing. Niether are things photographers normally need to know anything about. In an ideal world CMYK conversion should happen in the RIP on the way to the platesetter, and be performed by the one person who knows the characteristics of the press and paper the job is to be printed on: namely the printer himself.and the printer's ICC profile should be tagged.Eh?

PeterArnel

01-29-2006, 12:47 PM

And he would need to be versed in the mysteries of CMYK printing. Niether are things photographers normally need to know anything about. In an ideal world CMYK conversion should happen in the RIP on the way to the platesetter, and be performed by the one person who knows the characteristics of the press and paper the job is to be printed on: namely the printer himself.
Ian
As printers we can do CMYK conversion - but nowadays clients are looking for consistency among printers accross the world and they would never acheive it .

Steve Rindsberg

01-29-2006, 01:50 PM

They'd be far less likely to achieve it with X printers and X,000 different photographers feeding them who knows what flavor of CMYK.

Ian Petersen

01-29-2006, 09:39 PM

nowadays clients are looking for consistency among printers accross the world and they would never acheive it.I don't see how else they would achieve it. Obviously, the printer can only do a reliable conversion if he is using colour manement properly and can supply profiles to his clients or work to a known standard (ISO). Conversely, clients can only expect consistent colour among different printers (or even the same printer) if they themselves use a fully colour-managed workflow and can deliver reliable tagged RGB documents. Anything else is guesswork and luck.