How to get optimum results from Frontier machines?

Normal proceedure (as if anything to do with photography could be normal) is to edit your images with colour management turned off. When you are satisfied with the results… Apply the profile of your output devise. You might see some colour shift in the applied image but it will reverse itself on the output devise. This is the colsest to a ‘tutorial’ I can offer.

Doug
—————————–
"OT" wrote in message

I’ve never been especially happy with prints done at Costco or Sams, they always seem to lack the snap that I achieve without difficulty when printing at home. I suspect that it’s the limited sRGB colorspace that these Frontier printers use. It’s not hard to dig up the proper ICC profile for these (drycreekphoto.com) but what is the best workflow to use? I’m starting with untagged TIF images that have been adjusted to appear correct on a calibrated monitor.
Do I first convert these images to the Frontier machine’s ICC profile, then adjust them afterward with Photoshop’s preview function so they look right? Simply converting to ICC profile doesn’t seem to do the job.

Thanks for any help!

-OT

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 00:43:26 GMT, "Techno Aussie" wrote:

Normal proceedure (as if anything to do with photography could be normal) is to edit your images with colour management turned off. When you are satisfied with the results… Apply the profile of your output devise. You might see some colour shift in the applied image but it will reverse itself on the output devise. This is the colsest to a ‘tutorial’ I can offer.
Doug

Thanks–but can I assume that this means that Adobe Gamma is turned off, also?

—————————–
"OT" wrote in message

I’ve never been especially happy with prints done at Costco or Sams, they always seem to lack the snap that I achieve without difficulty when printing at home. I suspect that it’s the limited sRGB colorspace that these Frontier printers use. It’s not hard to dig up the proper ICC profile for these (drycreekphoto.com) but what is the best workflow to use? I’m starting with untagged TIF images that have been adjusted to appear correct on a calibrated monitor.
Do I first convert these images to the Frontier machine’s ICC profile, then adjust them afterward with Photoshop’s preview function so they look right? Simply converting to ICC profile doesn’t seem to do the job.

Thanks for any help!

-OT

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 00:43:26 GMT, "Techno Aussie" wrote:

Normal proceedure (as if anything to do with photography could be normal) is to edit your images with colour management turned off. When you are satisfied with the results… Apply the profile of your output devise. You might see some colour shift in the applied image but it will reverse itself on the output devise. This is the colsest to a ‘tutorial’ I can offer.
Doug

OK, then what you’re telling us is that you start with a calibrated monitor with no other color management used (such as Abobe Gamma), then you turn Color Management (in Photoshop Color Settings) off, then Convert to Profile, choosing the ICC profile of the Frontier. Is any tweaking possible after converting to profile–should the View/Proof Colors be used, or does it serve any purpose for this?

"Techno Aussie" wrote in message

Normal proceedure (as if anything to do with photography could be normal)

is

to edit your images with colour management turned off. When you are satisfied with the results… Apply the profile of your output devise. You might see some colour shift in the applied image but it will reverse

itself

on the output devise. This is the colsest to a ‘tutorial’ I can offer.

Gee, I’ve bought this great $650 image manipulation program that offers the best color management of any software on the planet, and here’s a "tutorial" telling me that *everyone* just "turns it off." What am I going to do now? Guess I’ll just have to chuck all my profiles, soft-proofing, conversion-on-the-fly using monitor compensation, etc., etc., etc., and go back to PS 4.0.

Right…

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–

Try this tutorial. The firm produces top rate quality and is staffed by real professionals who wrote the information.
http://www.fstoponline.com.au/tech_monitor.html
Doug

"Buster" wrote in message

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 00:43:26 GMT, "Techno Aussie" wrote:

Normal proceedure (as if anything to do with photography could be normal)

is

to edit your images with colour management turned off. When you are satisfied with the results… Apply the profile of your output devise.

You

might see some colour shift in the applied image but it will reverse

itself

on the output devise. This is the colsest to a ‘tutorial’ I can offer.
Doug

OK, then what you’re telling us is that you start with a calibrated monitor with no other color management used (such as Abobe Gamma), then you turn Color Management (in Photoshop Color Settings) off, then Convert to Profile, choosing the ICC profile of the Frontier. Is any tweaking possible after converting to profile–should the View/Proof Colors be used, or does it serve any purpose for this?

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 22:23:39 -0800, "Flycaster" wrote:

"Techno Aussie" wrote in message

Normal proceedure (as if anything to do with photography could be normal)

is

to edit your images with colour management turned off. When you are satisfied with the results… Apply the profile of your output devise. You might see some colour shift in the applied image but it will reverse

itself

on the output devise. This is the colsest to a ‘tutorial’ I can offer.

Gee, I’ve bought this great $650 image manipulation program that offers the best color management of any software on the planet, and here’s a "tutorial" telling me that *everyone* just "turns it off." What am I going to do now? Guess I’ll just have to chuck all my profiles, soft-proofing, conversion-on-the-fly using monitor compensation, etc., etc., etc., and go back to PS 4.0.

Right…

Well, maybe that’s the problem…with too many options to the workflow dillema we often wind up stacking at least two "profiles" on the poor image and get overcompensated results to match. I suppose with experience we each come up with various methods that arrive at decent prints, but this whole thing should be a straightforward methodology. I’m addled by all this controversy– next thing I’m getting an X-Rite reflective photometer, cal target and reference prints. Maybe THEN I can see the light.

One thing that’s always bothered me is that a "calibrated" monitor differs so much from one that’s adjusted in accordance with Adobe Gamma. Mine seems rather "warm" or "tannish" in hue, rather than having a visually neutral tone. Why is that? So what’s wrong with Adobe Gamma that makes it unsuited to use with Photoshop CS?

"Buster" wrote in message

Well, maybe that’s the problem…with too many options to the workflow dillema we often wind up stacking at least two "profiles" on the poor image and get overcompensated results to match. I suppose with experience we each come up with various methods that arrive at decent prints, but this whole thing should be a straightforward methodology. I’m addled by all this controversy– next thing I’m getting an X-Rite reflective photometer, cal target and reference prints. Maybe THEN I can see the light.

It IS fairly straightforward. Calibrate and profile your monitor, use a RGB working space that approximates your output device (for inkjet and CMYK, that’d be AdobeRGB98; for commercial photoprinters it’s ususally sRGB), soft-proof using the output the profile to make your final image adjustments, and then designate Document for Source and the output profile in Print Space under Print Preview. This is, BTW, covered in the manual.

One thing that’s always bothered me is that a "calibrated" monitor differs so much from one that’s adjusted in accordance with Adobe Gamma. Mine seems rather "warm" or "tannish" in hue, rather than having a visually neutral tone. Why is that? So what’s wrong with Adobe Gamma that makes it unsuited to use with Photoshop CS?

Nothing. If it has a hue, then why don’t you re-run Adobe Gamma, separate the color sliders, and balance the RGB VLUT gains independently. If you can see the hue, for chrissakes get rid of it! Again, this is covered in the manual as well as in almost every PS book there is.

The fact that Adobe Gamma is not as *accurate* as a puck based calibration/profiling system is obvious. Nonetheless, many, many people use it exclusively and get very good monitor-print matches, provided they have a decent new monitor and they use Adobe Gamma correctly.

Oh, and don’t "turn off color management." That is just about the dumbest thing I’ve read here, in a long, long time. Do yourself a favor and buy "Real World Photoshop" by Blatner/Fraser. It’s a great "PS bible", and it will certainly open your eyes to the truths, and nonsense, you read here.

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–

Flycaster" wrote in message

Gee, I’ve bought this great $650 image manipulation program that offers

the

best color management of any software on the planet, and here’s a

"tutorial"

telling me that *everyone* just "turns it off." What am I going to do

now?

Guess I’ll just have to chuck all my profiles, soft-proofing, conversion-on-the-fly using monitor compensation, etc., etc., etc., and go back to PS 4.0.

——————
That all depends, Flycaster.
If you get 200~300 prints a month made by a lab and you’ve tried every lab in the country and got back unacceptably variable work and you then started getting consistent results with these instructions. Why wouldn’t you follow them? The major difference between PS 5 and PS CS is not in how it handles colour but in other functionality.

Whatever I said about colour and how to get a photo back that is very close to the one you see on the screen, relates to photographic output. Inkjet printers output very different colour but by following the same advise, you can apply the inkjet profile at the end of the edit session and have nearly identical prints or photographs.

Image manipulation programs like the "great $650" one you have all need training to consistently output what you see on the screen as what you get in a photograph. The information I have provided in this thread is intended to help those (obviously less proficient than yourself) people who are experiencing problems getting their digital photos printed by a chemical lab.

From the customers I have that use Photoshop 6, 7, 7.1, CS and Essentials 2, I can say with some certainty that the biggest problem facing digital Photographers who use Photoshop up to about intermediate proficiency is the variation between what they see on the screen and what their inkjet or photo lab printer produces. The information I provide here is not meant for advanced people like yourself but for photographers who use Photoshop to produce and enhance their photographs.

Doug
————————————-

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–

Flycaster wrote:

"Buster" wrote in message

Well, maybe that’s the problem…with too many options to the workflow dillema we often wind up stacking at least two "profiles" on the poor image and get overcompensated results to match. I suppose with experience we each come up with various methods that arrive at decent prints, but this whole thing should be a straightforward methodology.
I’m addled by all this controversy– next thing I’m getting an X-Rite reflective photometer, cal target and reference prints. Maybe THEN I can see the light.

It IS fairly straightforward.

Anything but.

Calibrate and profile your monitor,
use a RGB working space that approximates your output device (for inkjet and CMYK, that’d be AdobeRGB98; for commercial photoprinters it’s ususally sRGB), soft-proof using the output the profile to make your final image adjustments, and then designate Document for Source and the output profile in Print Space under Print Preview. This is, BTW, covered in the manual.

For CMYK work, I would advocate that photographers use CMYK to give a higher level of control to the final result, rather than trusting someone downstream in the workflow to correctly convert their images.

I wouldn’t recommend Adobe RGB particularly for inkjet printer work, or any other fine work for that matter. The difference is really rather subtle as far as image appearance goes, but sRGB will do the job.

Importantly, sRGB will avoid the risk that someone will get hold of your stuff on a web page, or print it on a Fujy Frontier, ignoring the embedded profile, and think to themselves "gee – I thought so and so had more of a Velvia look than that, oh well", and move on the the next photographer’s images.

One thing that’s always bothered me is that a "calibrated" monitor differs so much from one that’s adjusted in accordance with Adobe Gamma. Mine seems rather "warm" or "tannish" in hue, rather than having a visually neutral tone. Why is that? So what’s wrong with Adobe Gamma that makes it unsuited to use with Photoshop CS?

Nothing. If it has a hue, then why don’t you re-run Adobe Gamma, separate the color sliders, and balance the RGB VLUT gains independently. If you can see the hue, for chrissakes get rid of it! Again, this is covered in the manual as well as in almost every PS book there is.

I suspect the hue is due to setting the color temperature to 6500 or lower, rather than an explicit mismatch of the RGB sliders.

The fact that Adobe Gamma is not as *accurate* as a puck based calibration/profiling system is obvious. Nonetheless, many, many people use it exclusively and get very good monitor-print matches, provided they have a decent new monitor and they use Adobe Gamma correctly.

Nothing obvious about it. A lot of people invest in these colorimeters, and end up with results that are inferior to careful use of the Adobe Gamma utility.

Oh, and don’t "turn off color management." That is just about the dumbest thing I’ve read here, in a long, long time. Do yourself a favor and buy "Real World Photoshop" by Blatner/Fraser. It’s a great "PS bible", and it will certainly open your eyes to the truths, and nonsense, you read here.

I have a copy, and I found it to contain valuable information, but off the mark in several respects, and rather weak in many of the example images, which often fail to illustrate the point they are making. The strengths of CMYK correction are completely omitted from that book as well, and hibit is promoted with very little justification other than histogram combing. I also disagree with the rather endemic premise of the Fraser book that profiles will solve your color correction problems.

I would suggest Dan Margulis’s Professional Photoshop book instead. The opening chapters are directed at beginners, and the remainder of the book will keep you going for a good long time.

and it will certainly open your eyes to the truths, and
nonsense, you read here.

I agree there’s plenty of nonsense in this group. I’m hopeful that the two of us are not contributing a significan fraction of it. 🙂 —

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net

"Techno Aussie" wrote in message

That all depends, Flycaster.
If you get 200~300 prints a month made by a lab and you’ve tried every lab in the country and got back unacceptably variable work and you then

started

getting consistent results with these instructions. Why wouldn’t you

follow

them?

If I had tried "every lab in the country and got back unacceptably variable work", it would’ve occured to me that, just possibly, I didn’t know what I was doing! Seriously, this is simple hyperbole, no?

The major difference between PS 5 and PS CS is not in how it handles colour but in other functionality.

True, but we’re now 4 iterations down the road. The major difference between PS 5 and PS 6 (skipping 5.5 for now) most certainly WAS in how it handled colour, not other functionality.

Whatever I said about colour and how to get a photo back that is very

close

to the one you see on the screen, relates to photographic output. Inkjet printers output very different colour but by following the same advise,

you

can apply the inkjet profile at the end of the edit session and have

nearly

identical prints or photographs.

Applying (you *do* mean "convert to", yes?) "the inkjet profile at the end of the edit session" negates any benefit of final image control via soft-proofing, which to me is a waste of one of the greatest PS features. Irrespective, why the advice to "turn off color management?" With no DUMC, you’ll never get a screen-printer match using the profile. How can you since the monitor profile is *ignored* and all color information is directly mapped with no adjustments? This is, from a PS point of view, pre-historic thinking.

Image manipulation programs like the "great $650" one you have all need training to consistently output what you see on the screen as what you get in a photograph. The information I have provided in this thread is

intended

to help those (obviously less proficient than yourself) people who are experiencing problems getting their digital photos printed by a chemical lab.

And I think all that is very commendable, but for goodness sake stop telling people to "turn off color management." I, too, worked with the "old" Photoshop (had it since Ver. 2.5), and found working without color managment and display compensation is a complete PITA. It used to take me sometimes 5 , 6, or even more contract proofs to get "close" – nowadays, I get what I want in 1, 2 max. Not to mention, my inkjet printers are true WYSIWYG relative to my screen (no, they are not "perfect" and probably never will be), and what I send to photofinishers is what I get back becuase I am working in a screen rendition of *their* device’s color space. So, again, why advise people to dumb PS down?

I’m *not* trying to bust your chops here, rather letting you know that there are plenty of "tutorials" available on the net that tell folks *exactly* how to do this using full color management, with profiles, soft-proofing, the whole shebang. Ian Lyons web-site is chock full of this stuff, and is recommended by people here every single day. To top it off, he’s a great guy, he frequents the Adobe forums, and will (along with Bruce Fraser) actually reply to messages and e-mails.

From the customers I have that use Photoshop 6, 7, 7.1, CS and Essentials

2,

I can say with some certainty that the biggest problem facing digital Photographers who use Photoshop up to about intermediate proficiency is

the

variation between what they see on the screen and what their inkjet or

photo

lab printer produces. The information I provide here is not meant for advanced people like yourself but for photographers who use Photoshop to produce and enhance their photographs.

(Just FYI, about 95% of what I do is covered in your last sentence here…) Irrespective, do you know the reason *why* most digital photographers have this problem? It is not because they are stupid, nor is it due to the information not being readily available; rather, it’s because the majority of the digital photographers who buy Photoshop are too *lazy* to RTFM. They plunk down a grand or more for a great inkjet and high end imaging program, and then complain about the fact that it actually takes some set-up, not to mention some time to learn about how it all works. I mean, how many times have you seen the post here, "How do I calibrate my monitor?" For chrissakes, it’s in Chapter 1!

You want to hear a GOOD one? I (god’s truth) had a phone call last week from a client for whom I built a digital system about 6 months ago. He told me that he couldn’t figure out how to use PS -I supplied him with copies of RWP, along with PS Classroom, both of which he *refuses* to look at- and that a friend of his who "knows a lot about this stuff" had recommended that he dump his new system and buy a Mac instead…and that "that would solve all his problems." (No shit, amigo, those were his exact words, and the guy has a PhD to boot.)

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 20:41:05 GMT, "Techno Aussie" wrote:

Flycaster" wrote in message

Gee, I’ve bought this great $650 image manipulation program that offers

the

best color management of any software on the planet, and here’s a

"tutorial"

telling me that *everyone* just "turns it off." What am I going to do

now?

Guess I’ll just have to chuck all my profiles, soft-proofing, conversion-on-the-fly using monitor compensation, etc., etc., etc., and go back to PS 4.0.

——————
That all depends, Flycaster.
If you get 200~300 prints a month made by a lab and you’ve tried every lab in the country and got back unacceptably variable work and you then started getting consistent results with these instructions. Why wouldn’t you follow them? The major difference between PS 5 and PS CS is not in how it handles colour but in other functionality.

Whatever I said about colour and how to get a photo back that is very close to the one you see on the screen, relates to photographic output. Inkjet printers output very different colour but by following the same advise, you can apply the inkjet profile at the end of the edit session and have nearly identical prints or photographs.

Image manipulation programs like the "great $650" one you have all need training to consistently output what you see on the screen as what you get in a photograph. The information I have provided in this thread is intended to help those (obviously less proficient than yourself) people who are experiencing problems getting their digital photos printed by a chemical lab.

From the customers I have that use Photoshop 6, 7, 7.1, CS and Essentials 2, I can say with some certainty that the biggest problem facing digital Photographers who use Photoshop up to about intermediate proficiency is the variation between what they see on the screen and what their inkjet or photo lab printer produces. The information I provide here is not meant for advanced people like yourself but for photographers who use Photoshop to produce and enhance their photographs.

Hi Doug,

Well, I have to agree with Flycaster. If you’re talking about photographers who use Photoshop then the best thing they can do is get hold of a copy of Martin Evening’s Photoshop for Photographers and follow his lucid and intelligent instructions for getting excellent results. Notably, he uses Photoshop’s Colour Management to do this. Anyone with the intelligence to operate a modern camera should be able to follow Martin’s advice and get ver7y good results from their printing. Of course, I’m only talking about the quality of the output, not the quality of the image 🙂

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

I agree there’s plenty of nonsense in this group. I’m hopeful that the

two

of us are not contributing a significan fraction of it. 🙂

Mike, you always have taken a fairly contrarian point of view, especially with respect to the promotion of the sRGB working space, and CMYK adjustments for RGB print output. While I have seen some of the positive aspects of the latter, if I even mention sRGB to either of my service bureaus they’ll cut me off. 😉

Adobe Gamma builds no color ramp information in the profile, rather it simply balances a single grey-point, which PS then linearly extrapolates from there. The puck based profilers, otoh, do measure ramp swatches, thus they are more "accurate" in their color ramp predictions. That many (most?) people don’t use either correctly was not what I was referring to, rather what they are *capable* of..

Margulis’ book is helpful, but I personally find his curves obsession to be a bit pedantic. While all of these authors "toot their own horns", Margulis seems to be a little more strident in this regard, especially in his disdain for competing theories and practices. I dunno…maybe it’s a style thing for me.

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–

The schools of thought we have differ, Flycaster.
I know absolutely that people (not professionals) who buy DSLRs and Photoshop just expect it all to work for them. My solution is not to fight the flow but to go along with it. I don’t have a problem with Photoshop knowledge or how it’s acquired. I have a big problem in trying to ‘train’ customers (many of whom make a heap more money than I do) into learning and more importantly retaining the knowledge of complex software.

My free time is spent learning computer languages and writing magazine articles. I don’t have the time to discover how my car’s GPS actually works. Whenever I need it, I just switch it on and press a button or two. I know a fellow who really does know how it works and he has a problem with my insistence that it’s a piece of crap because I don’t have the time or inclination to delve into the manual and even when I do, can’t remember what I learn because the bloody car is just an irrelevant but essential part of my life.

In the context of what I’ve said, I have great success in breaking down complex procedures into (relatively) simple instruction that produce the end results that my customers can live with. On the odd occasion I come across someone who really does have the desire and time to master Photoshop, I pass them on to a friend who really does know how to use it. Incidentally his wife does the Photography because he couldn’t take a good picture if his life depended on it! Great team too.

My instructions to turn off colour management and add the printer profile at the end of an edit session, have overcome some major differences in output. If you follow my advise you will be able to create two different files, one for a photolab and one for your inkjet which will produce fairly constant results.

These instructions are not meant for people who "know how Photoshop works" but for those thousands of other people who buy it expecting it to work logically (which it has never done) or just work. I respect your in-depth knowledge, Flycaster but I also recognise that just taking a horse to water does not necessarily mean it won’t die of thirst. To gain the knowledge you have means you have dedicated the time to learn… Not everyone has that time.

Doug
P.S. In answer to the question below… If you created an image and sent that image to 10 labs claiming to have the same digilab, and the photo’s all came back looking different, Seriously, is that simple hyperbole? ————————————————
"Flycaster" wrote in message

"Techno Aussie" wrote in message

If I had tried "every lab in the country and got back unacceptably

variable

work", it would’ve occured to me that, just possibly, I didn’t know what I was doing! Seriously, this is simple hyperbole, no?

From a strictly personal and hypothetical view, Hecate… I agree entirely with you and Flycaster. Just don’t try to tell someone with 15 years photography behind them, who has spent $15,000 on gear to shoot 1000 frames a day that they don’t know what they are doing… Even if they don’t!

I take the line of least resistance and get them at least in the ballpark before anything else. Anyone who asks what they need to do to send a file to a digilab (The OP), clearly does not understand very much about the things you take for granted. If they at least get a picture close to what they expect, they won’t give up… That’s all, not rocket science, just human nature.

Soft proof 600 pictures of school kids? Nah, just make a droplet and drag the bloody lot into it! They’ll all come out cropped to 5×7 at 250 DPI with close enough colour… The Frontierer will love ’em. That’s professional Photography, digital style. Or do you think Professional photography is selling a single photo as a work of art? Hmmm?

Doug
———————–
"Hecate" wrote in message

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 20:41:05 GMT, "Techno Aussie" wrote:

Flycaster" wrote in message

Gee, I’ve bought this great $650 image manipulation program that offers

the

best color management of any software on the planet, and here’s a

"tutorial"

telling me that *everyone* just "turns it off." What am I going to do

now?

Guess I’ll just have to chuck all my profiles, soft-proofing, conversion-on-the-fly using monitor compensation, etc., etc., etc., and

go

back to PS 4.0.

——————
That all depends, Flycaster.
If you get 200~300 prints a month made by a lab and you’ve tried every

lab

in the country and got back unacceptably variable work and you then

started

getting consistent results with these instructions. Why wouldn’t you

follow

them? The major difference between PS 5 and PS CS is not in how it

handles

colour but in other functionality.

Whatever I said about colour and how to get a photo back that is very

close

to the one you see on the screen, relates to photographic output. Inkjet printers output very different colour but by following the same advise,

you

can apply the inkjet profile at the end of the edit session and have

nearly

identical prints or photographs.

Image manipulation programs like the "great $650" one you have all need training to consistently output what you see on the screen as what you

get

in a photograph. The information I have provided in this thread is

intended

to help those (obviously less proficient than yourself) people who are experiencing problems getting their digital photos printed by a chemical lab.

From the customers I have that use Photoshop 6, 7, 7.1, CS and Essentials

2,

I can say with some certainty that the biggest problem facing digital Photographers who use Photoshop up to about intermediate proficiency is

the

variation between what they see on the screen and what their inkjet or

photo

lab printer produces. The information I provide here is not meant for advanced people like yourself but for photographers who use Photoshop to produce and enhance their photographs.

Hi Doug,

Well, I have to agree with Flycaster. If you’re talking about photographers who use Photoshop then the best thing they can do is get hold of a copy of Martin Evening’s Photoshop for Photographers and follow his lucid and intelligent instructions for getting excellent results. Notably, he uses Photoshop’s Colour Management to do this. Anyone with the intelligence to operate a modern camera should be able to follow Martin’s advice and get ver7y good results from their printing. Of course, I’m only talking about the quality of the output, not the quality of the image 🙂

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

"Techno Aussie" wrote in message

The schools of thought we have differ, Flycaster.

[snip]

I can’t speak to that, but we do certainly differ in other areas. Your recommendation that folks "turn off color managment" not only flies in the face of what PS is all about, it is unecessarily *complicated* and *confusing* advice. Here is what you said, in your first reply to the post, in which the poster appears somewhat comfortable with the concepts of profiles, converting, and soft-proofing:

" Normal proceedure (as if anything to do with photography could be normal) is
to edit your images with colour management turned off. When you are satisfied with the results… Apply the profile of your output devise. You might see some colour shift in the applied image but it will reverse itself on the output devise. This is the colsest to a ‘tutorial’ I can offer."

The simple, and correct answer to the post is, " Soft-proof using the profile to make your final edits, and then convert a copy of the file to sRGB and send that copy to the Frontier lab." I realize this takes into account more PS knowledge than you are comfortable with, but this is the way it has been done for the past 5 or so years.

Your response, otoh, blows off his existing knowledge and takes him back to the PS dark ages. Not only that, but your advice will get him into even more trouble since his question was for a FRONTIER, and your response (as well as recommnded the web-site) was for a LAMBDA: Frontiers are not colormanaged and you cannot "pre-profile" files, rather they will only accept *sRGB* files, and if you pre-convert as you would for a Lambda you will get disastrous results.

For someone who appears to be at least conversant with PS, you are the *only* person I have ever seen that recommended turning color management off. I have no problem whatsoever with your suggesting this old methodology as an alterantive for someone who is hopelessly confused by all aspects of color management. Furthermore, I do not doubt that your personal work-flow based on the non-color managed technology of 8 years ago still provides you with acceptable results. But for you to insist that this method is, today, "normal" is just…absurd.

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–

Flycaster wrote: [speaking to "Techno Aussie"]

For someone who appears to be at least conversant with PS, you are the *only* person I have ever seen that recommended turning color management off.

I’ll chime in here and say that techno aussie is not alone. I have made this recommendation many times, particularly when v5 first came out. Furthermore I have seen nothing here to convince me otherwise – quite the contrary.

At that time folks were going through the nightmare of having their work unexpectedly "converted", Procrustean-style, to sRGB so as to "fit" the new system .

Though I did recommend turning off CM repeatedly when v5 first came out and people’s work was going down the sRGB drain, this seldom my first recommendation. I do still recommend turning color management off for people who require PS to exactly match their other applications, and who have no desire to export profiled images to others.

Flycaster also said:

recommendation that folks "turn off color managment" not only flies in the face of what PS is all about, it is unecessarily complicated and confusing advice

No. For many, probably the majority of customers, color management is simply a background support function. It is in no way, shape, or form, "what Photoshp is all about", nor is it confusing or complex to turn off.

Curves, info palette, layers, masks, compositing, and the other tools are indeed "what photoshop is all about". CM, though it may loom large for those who make their living from it, is only a supporting function.

Remember, through PS version 4, people were turning out excellent prints without a profile in sight. At that time there was, quite simply, no hue and cry from the masses for CM’s implementation. Though important, and even crucial for a large shop, CM was not, and is not today, very exciting or even functional for a one person operation.

—

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 10:57:20 GMT, "Techno Aussie" wrote:

From a strictly personal and hypothetical view, Hecate… I agree entirely with you and Flycaster. Just don’t try to tell someone with 15 years photography behind them, who has spent $15,000 on gear to shoot 1000 frames a day that they don’t know what they are doing… Even if they don’t!
I take the line of least resistance and get them at least in the ballpark before anything else. Anyone who asks what they need to do to send a file to a digilab (The OP), clearly does not understand very much about the things you take for granted. If they at least get a picture close to what they expect, they won’t give up… That’s all, not rocket science, just human nature.

The trouble with taking the line of least resistance is that you usually end up with crap. I come at PS from the photography side and decided that, when I was going to change to a digital darkroom I was going to learn to do it properly. Not doing it properly means you don’t get the best results…….

Soft proof 600 pictures of school kids? Nah, just make a droplet and drag the bloody lot into it! They’ll all come out cropped to 5×7 at 250 DPI with close enough colour… The Frontierer will love ’em. That’s professional Photography, digital style. Or do you think Professional photography is selling a single photo as a work of art? Hmmm?

…..and not getting the best results means that you’re already behind in the competition for work whether it’s you’re a school photographer, a wedding photographer or, yes, an art photographer who is looking for the perfect single image. As it happens, my work has always been in the nature/landscape arena (mainly – I have done other stuff as well) and I can tell you quite categorically that the best image not printed (either to film or paper) will *always* lose to a good image that#’s been properly handled. The people in this arena that get the sales are the people who are obsessive about quality, not those who are know for being "good enough". Like photography in most other fields, it’s highly competitive and everyone and their uncle thinks they can take a better image than you as soon as they’ve bought their first camera.

"Good enough" may be fine for press work – for anything else it isn’t.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

Flycaster wrote: [speaking to "Techno Aussie"]

For someone who appears to be at least conversant with PS, you are the *only* person I have ever seen that recommended turning color management off.

I’ll chime in here and say that techno aussie is not alone. I have made this recommendation many times, particularly when v5 first came out. Furthermore I have seen nothing here to convince me otherwise – quite the contrary.

At that time folks were going through the nightmare of having their work unexpectedly "converted", Procrustean-style, to sRGB so as to "fit" the

new

system .

You were certainly not the only voice speaking out against the CM policies of Ver 5.0; they were half-baked and horribly confusing. Nonetheless, that was (digitally speaking) a long time ago, my friend, and even you will admit that much has changed since then. (BTW, that’s one of the few times I’ve ever seen "procrustean" used correctly. Good fit. 😉

Though I did recommend turning off CM repeatedly when v5 first came out

and

people’s work was going down the sRGB drain, this seldom my first recommendation.

Funny, but I infer that you are actually agreeing with me here. This is also the first time I’ve ever seen you write a negative word about sRGB. I’m speechless.

I do still recommend turning color management off for
people who require PS to exactly match their other applications, and who have no desire to export profiled images to others.

Of course you do, though there is a also very simple color managed way to do this, as you well know.

Flycaster also said:
recommendation that folks "turn off color managment" not only flies in

the

face of what PS is all about, it is unecessarily complicated and confusing advice

No. For many, probably the majority of customers, color management is

simply

a background support function. It is in no way, shape, or form, "what Photoshp is all about", nor is it confusing or complex to turn off.

Mike, I said the *advice* was confusing, not the act of turning it off. Juheesus, disagree with me all you want, but at least pay attention to what I wrote and not accuse me of being a dimwit!

Curves, info palette, layers, masks, compositing, and the other tools are indeed "what photoshop is all about". CM, though it may loom large for those who make their living from it, is only a supporting function.

Tell that to someone who owns PSP. It, too, has all the tools and gadgets PS does (and some other cool ones as well), costs a helluva lot less, yet it falls on its face when it runs into color managed workflows.

Remember, through PS version 4, people were turning out excellent prints without a profile in sight.

That you, and I, as well as others got good results using PS 4.0 (and before) is not the point. Frankly, I also got great results long before digital *anything* – I’ve been at the high-end print game probably for as long as anybody in here. Does that mean we should all eschew the benefits of working digitally altogether and dig out the enlargers and old bottles of heavy metals? Boy, I hope not.

At that time there was, quite simply, no hue
and cry from the masses for CM’s implementation.

Of course not. The "masses" never hue and cry for anything about which they are totally ignorant. CM did not *exist* prior to Ver. 4.0, except in the gleam of certain engineers’ minds.

Though important, and even
crucial for a large shop, CM was not, and is not today, very exciting or even functional for a one person operation.

While I also strongly disagree with you regarding the applicability of CMS to a single person workflow, it’s clear you haven’t been paying much attention to this thread: take a look at the post header. Going to an outside printer is, by definition, no longer a "one person operation"…is it?

In closing, many of us (arguably the vast majority) have embraced CMS for two simple reasons: it works pretty darned well in almost every situation, it’s far better than the alternative because of that, and (though you would disagree) it *is* easier. Like you, I’ve worked in non color managed workflows. If you and our Australian friend want to stand pat by rejecting this new technology some or all of the time, so be it: go in peace. As for me, "Been there, done that, got the t-shirt", and I’m not going back.

That’s my story, and I’m stickin’ to it.

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 09:17:08 -0800, "Flycaster" wrote:

"Techno Aussie" wrote in message

The schools of thought we have differ, Flycaster.

[snip]

I can’t speak to that, but we do certainly differ in other areas. Your recommendation that folks "turn off color managment" not only flies in the face of what PS is all about, it is unecessarily *complicated* and *confusing* advice. Here is what you said, in your first reply to the post, in which the poster appears somewhat comfortable with the concepts of profiles, converting, and soft-proofing:

" Normal proceedure (as if anything to do with photography could be normal) is
to edit your images with colour management turned off. When you are satisfied with the results… Apply the profile of your output devise. You might see some colour shift in the applied image but it will reverse itself on the output devise. This is the colsest to a ‘tutorial’ I can offer."
The simple, and correct answer to the post is, " Soft-proof using the profile to make your final edits, and then convert a copy of the file to sRGB and send that copy to the Frontier lab." I realize this takes into account more PS knowledge than you are comfortable with, but this is the way it has been done for the past 5 or so years.

Your response, otoh, blows off his existing knowledge and takes him back to the PS dark ages. Not only that, but your advice will get him into even more trouble since his question was for a FRONTIER, and your response (as well as recommnded the web-site) was for a LAMBDA: Frontiers are not colormanaged and you cannot "pre-profile" files, rather they will only accept *sRGB* files, and if you pre-convert as you would for a Lambda you will get disastrous results.

That’s been my recent experience-the Frontier machines evidently convert customer’s images to their own internal profiles, and don’t need any help. Using Photoshop to convert and image to a Frontier profile will result in severe color shift, including brownish blacks/greys. It seems that all the Frontiers I have in my locality are set up to produce accurate results from sRGB inputs only. BTW, is that the "e-sRGB" that appears in Photoshop’s conversion menu?

For someone who appears to be at least conversant with PS, you are the *only* person I have ever seen that recommended turning color management off. I have no problem whatsoever with your suggesting this old methodology as an alterantive for someone who is hopelessly confused by all aspects of color management. Furthermore, I do not doubt that your personal work-flow based on the non-color managed technology of 8 years ago still provides you with acceptable results. But for you to insist that this method is, today, "normal" is just…absurd.

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–

"Buster" wrote in message

That’s been my recent experience-the Frontier machines evidently convert customer’s images to their own internal profiles, and don’t need any help. Using Photoshop to convert and image to a Frontier profile will result in severe color shift, including brownish blacks/greys. It seems that all the Frontiers I have in my locality are set up to produce accurate results from sRGB inputs only.

I’m not positive about this, but it may all Frontiers and many (most?) other high volume photo-printing devices that are software limited to receivng files in sRGB. There are a fair amount of PS "gurus" going around telling people to work exclusively in sRGB, and this is the reason most quoted as to why. Though, to be sure, certain others (ahem) will argue that sRGB is better anyway – in spite of the fact that it clips monitor colors as well as those that can be printed on any modern inkjet or CMYK printer. But, who cares about a few colors, right? 😉

that the "e-sRGB" that appears in Photoshop’s conversion menu?

Technically, it is "sRGB-IEC61966-2.1"

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–

I’m surprised , Flycaster, That a person with your intelligence has not realised right from my first post, my agenda…
Doug

"Flycaster" wrote in message

"Buster" wrote in message

That’s been my recent experience-the Frontier machines evidently convert customer’s images to their own internal profiles, and don’t need any help. Using Photoshop to convert and image to a Frontier profile will result in severe color shift, including brownish blacks/greys. It seems that all the Frontiers I have in my locality are set up to produce accurate results from sRGB inputs only.

I’m not positive about this, but it may all Frontiers and many (most?)

other

high volume photo-printing devices that are software limited to receivng files in sRGB. There are a fair amount of PS "gurus" going around telling people to work exclusively in sRGB, and this is the reason most quoted as

to

why. Though, to be sure, certain others (ahem) will argue that sRGB is better anyway – in spite of the fact that it clips monitor colors as well

as

those that can be printed on any modern inkjet or CMYK printer. But, who cares about a few colors, right? 😉

that the "e-sRGB" that appears in Photoshop’s conversion menu?

Technically, it is "sRGB-IEC61966-2.1"

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–

Techno Aussie wrote:

I’m surprised , Flycaster, That a person with your intelligence has not realised right from my first post, my agenda…
Doug

Ever think about the name "flycaster"?

My read on flycaster, after a couple of attempts to discuss things, is that he likes to send out short, thoughtful flicks of colorful bait and see who will go for it.

As one who has been caught and released recently, I think his inconsistency and illogic are enticingly displayed as bait to up the number of "catches". 🙂

Take care.
—

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net

"Techno Aussie" wrote in message

I’m surprised , Flycaster, That a person with your intelligence has not realised right from my first post, my agenda…
Doug

It really doesn’t matter what your agenda is. The point is to try to get you to not tell others that it is "normal" to turn off color managment, because it simply is not so. Sorry if that offends you, but it’s the truth.

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

Ever think about the name "flycaster"?

My read on flycaster, after a couple of attempts to discuss things, is

that

he likes to send out short, thoughtful flicks of colorful bait and see who will go for it.

As one who has been caught and released recently, I think his

inconsistency

and illogic are enticingly displayed as bait to up the number of

"catches".

🙂

Disparaging and untrue comments, Curvemeister. We disagree, it’s true, but for reasons based upon our respective experience.

Why you chose to not respond to my last post to you -which was neither inconsistent nor illogical, but rather entirely civil and written with obvious humor- instead choosing to insert a back-handed addendum onto another person’s post, is far more revealing of *your* character than mine.

Regardless of your unorthodox stance on certain issues, I had always thought you had some class. Sadly, I was mistaken.

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–

Flycaster wrote:

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

Ever think about the name "flycaster"?

My read on flycaster, after a couple of attempts to discuss things, is that he likes to send out short, thoughtful flicks of colorful bait and see who will go for it.

As one who has been caught and released recently, I think his inconsistency and illogic are enticingly displayed as bait to up the number of "catches". 🙂

Disparaging and untrue comments, Curvemeister. We disagree, it’s true, but for reasons based upon our respective experience.
Why you chose to not respond to my last post to you -which was neither inconsistent nor illogical, but rather entirely civil and written with obvious humor- instead choosing to insert a back-handed addendum onto another person’s post, is far more revealing of *your* character than mine.

Regardless of your unorthodox stance on certain issues, I had always thought you had some class. Sadly, I was mistaken.

Your name is a synonym for troll – sign your work if you want to have a real discussion.
—

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net

I had suspected that Mike…
Doug

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

Techno Aussie wrote:

I’m surprised , Flycaster, That a person with your intelligence has not realised right from my first post, my agenda…
Doug

Ever think about the name "flycaster"?

My read on flycaster, after a couple of attempts to discuss things, is

that

he likes to send out short, thoughtful flicks of colorful bait and see who will go for it.

As one who has been caught and released recently, I think his

inconsistency

and illogic are enticingly displayed as bait to up the number of

"catches".

🙂

Take care.
—

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

Flycaster wrote:

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

Ever think about the name "flycaster"?

My read on flycaster, after a couple of attempts to discuss things, is that he likes to send out short, thoughtful flicks of colorful bait and see who will go for it.

As one who has been caught and released recently, I think his inconsistency and illogic are enticingly displayed as bait to up the number of "catches". 🙂

Disparaging and untrue comments, Curvemeister. We disagree, it’s true, but for reasons based upon our respective experience.
Why you chose to not respond to my last post to you -which was neither inconsistent nor illogical, but rather entirely civil and written with obvious humor- instead choosing to insert a back-handed addendum onto another person’s post, is far more revealing of *your* character than mine.

Regardless of your unorthodox stance on certain issues, I had always thought you had some class. Sadly, I was mistaken.

Your name is a synonym for troll – sign your work if you want to have a

real

discussion.

Even I can see where this is headed Mike, and I’m not going there with you. This is certainly not the first time you’ve bared your teeth in this newgroup. I really am a nice guy, and maybe you think you are too. Then again, given your penchant for insult, perhaps you don’t care about such trivial matters. Whatever, the time and opportunity for discovery is past.

Enjoy your life, and I wish you no ill-will. Go in peace, and feel free to have the last word if it makes you feel better.

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–