Assign Profile versus Soft Proofing

RL
Posted By
Ronald_Lanham
Jul 25, 2004
Views
1517
Replies
107
Status
Closed
Assigning a profile via Image > Mode > Assign Profile yields different results than previewing a profile using Proof Setup via View > Proof Setup > Custom.

What needs to be changed to make these identically match?

I’m not converting the images’ profiles.

I’ve read a lot on this before posting (Bruce Fraser, etc.) but must be missing something (hopefully not too obvious) because I don’t see any mention on how to get them to be identical if they are off. Therefore… which one should be trusted without having to do trial-and-error printouts ad infinitum? It would help to be able to get closer proofing for different paper stocks.

How to Improve Photoshop Performance

Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!

BF
Bruce_Fraser
Jul 25, 2004
Assigning a profile is attaching a color appearance to the numbers in the document.

Proof Setup is mainly about previewing Conversions, not assignments.

Consider the text string

gift

If you interpret the string as English, it means a present

If you interpret the string as German, it means a poison

It’s the same 4 characters either way.

Saying "this is English" or "this is German" is like assigning a profile—you aren’t changing the characters, you’re just assigning an interpretation to them.

Converting to a profile, on the other hand, is like doing a translation that preserves the meaning.

If I take the string ‘gift’ and Assign German to it, I get the string ‘gift’ meaning poison.

If I take the string ‘gift’ with English Assigned to it, and Convert to german, I get the string ‘geschenk’ meaning a present.

Proof Setup lets you preview Conversions, rather than Assignments. Converting to a profile should generally produce a different result from assigning a profile. You need to get the distinction between assigning and converting clear.
R
Ram
Jul 26, 2004
Bruce’s explanation is –and has always been– crystal clear to me. However, I have no way of gauging whether it has the same impact on someone who is not proficient in the two languages involved.

Just think of Soft Proof (View > Proof Setup) as something telling you "this is what you can expect in print if you use this ink/paper/printer combination".

Assigning a profile to an untagged file is like guessing what the creator of the image file had in mind but forgot to tell you what language (color space profile) he was using when he created, manipulated and saved the image.
R
Ram
Jul 26, 2004
As a matter of fact, Ronald, with a lot of (most) ink/paper/printer-combination profiles, View > Proof Setup should look DIFFERENT, as the printed copy on paper will not look like what your monitor can display.
RL
Ronald_Lanham
Jul 26, 2004
Bruce

Since the assigned profile can display an image that is so far from what the conversion will actually be… is its purpose mainly for guessing at what untagged files’ profiles perhaps should have been?

It seems that assigning a profile is a little like finding the word gift completely out of context, and taking a stab at maybe it may mean present, and maybe it may mean poison.

Whereas viewing soft proofs are similar to finding the word ‘gift’ translated correctly and unambiguously into German… ?

….with a lot of (most) ink/paper/printer-combination profiles, View > Proof Setup should look DIFFERENT, as the printed copy on paper will not look like what your monitor can display.

Ramon

Wouldn’t that make soft proofing nearly useless then? That is — other than only to get you somewhere in the vicinity of the actual print out. Not to argue the point but… it would then seem that Adobe is deceiving us by including soft proofing that imparts such subtle changes to the images viewed when the profiles are changed. I realize that print outs are the only real way but I would hope that soft proofing is not only for a somewhere-in-the-ballpark approach.
RL
Ronald_Lanham
Jul 26, 2004
…. and thanks for the replies. (My color is on usually, but there is still a lot to know.)
R
Ram
Jul 26, 2004
…with a lot of (most) ink/paper/printer-combination profiles, View > Proof Setup should look DIFFERENT, as the printed copy on paper will not look like what your monitor can display. Ramon

Wouldn’t that make soft proofing nearly useless then? That is — other than only to get you somewhere in the vicinity of the actual print out. Not to argue the point but… it would then seem that Adobe is deceiving us by including soft proofing that imparts such subtle changes to the images viewed when the profiles are changed. I realize that print outs are the only real way but I would hope that soft proofing is not only for a somewhere-in-the-ballpark approach.

Quite the opposite, Ronald! That is precisely what makes Proof View so incredibly valuable. Depending on your ink/paper/printer-combination profile, the change you see can even be far from subtle. The image literally dies before your eyes as soon as you apply the soft proof view profile.

With certain ink/paper/printer-combination profiles the change may be not quite as drastic (that’s what happens with the Pictorico Photo Gallery Glossy Paper profile on my 2200), but with other papers (watercolor art paper, for instance) the change can be quite substantial.

The reason this is so valuable is that it’s at that point that you apply whatever corrections are necessary to your image so that the print comes out exactly like you intend it to look.

That’s the whole point.
R
Ram
Jul 26, 2004
By the way, the title of this thread can be misleading. It’s not a question of "Assign Profile versus Soft Proofing". It should be "Assign Profile AND Soft Proofing".

First you get a tagged image file (i. e. a file with a proper profile embedded), then you work on your image, AND then go to View > Proof Setup, apply the correct paper profile for your ink and paper to watch your image "die" on you on your monitor, so you can then fine tune the image to print as intended.
BF
Bruce_Fraser
Jul 26, 2004
If everyone played nice and embedded profiles so that we knew what colors the numbers were supposed to represent, Assign Profile would be either unnecessary or an expert feature for total geeks.

Yes, soft-proofing should be similar to finding the word ‘gift’ translated unambiguously into German.

As far as matching the hard copy goes, I firmly believe that you can get much closer than ‘somewhere in the ballpark’ — but a lot of factors come into play.

First, as with all color management, the various devices need to behave the way their profiles say they do. Since the soft proof is a product of at least three profiles—the document space, the printer, and the monitor—if any one of those is off, so will be the soft proof.

Second, the laws of physics come into play. Most printing devices can print colors that your monitor can’t display, particularly in the region of dark, saturated cyans and greens.

Third, and often overlooked, is the lighting you use to evaluate the print. Ideally, you need to balance the amount of light falling on the print to the amount of light being emitted by the monitor.

Fourth is learning to interpret the proof. The only time I ever saw a proof that really matched the manufactured product, it was a press proof (think: pre$$ proof). Matchprints were always contrasty and usually abit pink, but we learned to filter out the discrepancy.

There’s some learning involved in relating a glowing self-luminous image on a display to a reflective hard copy. But quite honestly, the Sony Artisan is thus far the most reliable proofing system I’ve worked with, and that includes Kodak Approvals and Creo Spectrums as well as all the old analog stuff.
GB
g_ballard
Jul 26, 2004
Ronald,

I migh be misunderstanding your post, but

What is your test file’s correct embedded SourceSpace?

I ask because there is no logic in Assigning the wrong Profile to a file…it is instantly hosed.

With a (correctly) embedded tag on a test file:

Image> Mode > Assign (any other) Profile hoses the file

From any (correctly) embedded SourceFile, the ONLY space move we can make is Image> Mode> CONVERT to (Target) Profile (ColorSpace) — then as Ramón says, SoftProof the Target device profile.
RL
Ronald_Lanham
Jul 26, 2004
— but a lot of factors come into play.

Since the soft proof is a product of at least three profiles—the document space, the printer, and the monitor—if any one of those is off, so will be the soft proof.

Bruce

It seems like the weak link may be the printer profile. Few canned profiles seem to be very exact. It seems that creating custom printer profiles would make the soft proofing much more accurate. As you’ve written about.

Depending on your ink/paper/printer-combination profile, the change you see can even be far from subtle.

Ramon

Yes I realize that… it’s just that. It’s when you said…

….as the printed copy on paper will not look like what your monitor can display.

…. it appeared that this was such a generalization that it seemed you were implying that soft proofing was an exercise in futility.

G

My work space is Adobe RGB (1998) with a Proof Setup of Working CMYK.

What got me wondering about this is that (out of curiosity) I assigned profiles of paper stock via Image > Mode > Assign Profile to already correctly tagged PSD files.

When I saw that the results displayed were sometimes very obviously different from the display via View > Proof Setup > Custom it made me more than a little curious and I mistakenly assumed that they should look identical.
RL
Ronald_Lanham
Jul 26, 2004
The image literally dies before your eyes as soon as you apply the soft proof view profile.

Ramon

By this I take it you mean that your eyes color correct for the gamut.

But you can have many windows opened of the same file — each displaying a different soft proof (as Bruce has written about) — so you can compare them side-by-side. This helps to offset any adjusting your eyes try to do.
R
Ram
Jul 26, 2004
Ronald,

Depending on your ink/paper/printer-combination profile, the change you see can even be far from subtle.

Ramon

Yes I realize that… it’s just that… it’s when you said…

…as the printed copy on paper will not look like what your monitor can display.

… it appeared that this was such a generalization that it seemed you were implying that soft proofing was an exercise in futility.

That’s because you are taking that part of the sentence out of context.

Here’s what I wrote:

As a matter of fact, Ronald, with a lot of (most) ink/paper/printer-combination profiles, View > Proof Setup should look DIFFERENT, as the printed copy on paper will not look like what your monitor can display.

[Emphasis added]

What I was referencing was the difference between what the monitor displays before you go to to Proof Setup and what you would get on paper if you do not apply any corrections whatsoever.

… (out of curiosity) I assigned profiles of paper stock via Image > Mode
Assign Profile to already correctly tagged PSD files.

That, of course, wrecks the file immediately and unavoidably. It has nothing to do with "View > Proof Setup > Custom". There’s no way you should EVER get those two to look alike, let alone identical. 🙂

It seems that creating custom printer profiles would make the soft proofing much more accurate.

But of course, absolutely! It does. Some canned profiles can be pretty good, but custom made profiles for your specific printer (the unit itself, not the model number in general), your specific inks and your specific paper are ideal. That’s why we pay good money for such custom profiles. 🙂
R
Ram
Jul 26, 2004
Ronald,

By this I take it you mean that your eyes color correct for the gamut.

But you can have many windows opened of the same file — each displaying a different soft proof (as Bruce has written about) — so you can compare them side-by-side. This helps to offset any adjusting your eyes try to do.

Yes, I use that method too.
GB
g_ballard
Jul 26, 2004
I assigned profiles of paper stock via Image > Mode > Assign Profile
to already correctly tagged PSD files.

That’s what I thought you ment.

That’s way wrong!?

Do you understand why (and how it’s hosed your test)?
Or were you just experimenting around…
MO
Mike_Ornellas
Jul 26, 2004
All this is way too confusing for some Art director to deal with, let alone a lowly poor secretary that is in charge of running color lasers.

I don’t know how many times I’m asked to match a color laser. Lets get real here people. Color mgmt. is a twisted mess for office folks.

Everthing is sideways at this point.
RL
Ronald_Lanham
Jul 26, 2004
… (out of curiosity) I assigned profiles of paper stock via Image > Mode > Assign Profile to already correctly tagged PSD files.

That, of course, wrecks the file immediately and unavoidably.

Ramon

Not actually… I never saved them with the assigned profile. <g>

Thanks for clarifying your previous posts. I was wondering why you seemed to be saying that we can’t rely on soft proofing…
R
Ram
Jul 26, 2004
Mike,

Color mgmt. is a twisted mess for office folks

Office folks are a twisted mess. Management is worse.
R
Ram
Jul 26, 2004
Management does the twisting.
MO
Mike_Ornellas
Jul 26, 2004
LOL!

Hey….

I like it!

Um, I think…
RL
Ronald_Lanham
Jul 26, 2004
Or were you just experimenting around…

G

Yes.

Somehow I’d gotten the mistaken impression that they should display similarly (nothing I’d read fortunately <g>).
R
Ram
Jul 26, 2004
Ronald,

… (out of curiosity) I assigned profiles of paper stock via Image > Mode
Assign Profile to already correctly tagged PSD files.

That, of course, wrecks the file immediately and unavoidably.

Ramon

Not actually… I never saved them with the assigned profile. <g>

Oh, yes, the image gets immediately and unavoidably wrecked as soon as you assign a different profile to an already correctly tagged image file –not permanently if you don’t save, of course, but immediately and unavoidably wrecked all the same.
RL
Ronald_Lanham
Jul 26, 2004
No it doesn’t.
Yes it does.
No way.
Yes way.
Nupe.
Yep.

Just thought I’d save some time… <g>
R
Ram
Jul 26, 2004
No way. 🙂
GB
g_ballard
Jul 26, 2004
Ronald,

If the SourceFile was last saved in the AdobeRGB ColorSpace — tagged or untagged — and we reopen it (do not color manage it) and Image> Mode> Assign any other profile than AdobeRGB:

We have indeed just hosed the file.

Likewise, if the SourceFile was last saved in the sRGB Colorspace — tagged or untagged — and we reopen it (do not color manage it) and Image> Mode> Assign any other profile than sRGB:

We have indeed just hosed the file.

Photoshop HAS to know the true SourceSpace BEFORE anything good can happen.

There are only three ways Photoshop can know the SourceSpace of the SourceFile:

1) The file is tagged, we honor the tag.

2) We Photoshop> Image> Mode> ASSIGN (the correct) Profile.

3) The file’s SourceSpace EQUALS Photoshop’s working space (by chance).

I don’t want throw my tired lay rant on ya — ya who have taught me many things 🙂 but it seems like you are a bit unclear on my point: <http://www.gballard.net/psd/honormyembeddedprofile.html>
MO
Mike_Ornellas
Jul 26, 2004
It’s only wrecked if you do a blind conversion or bad conversion.

IF you just re appropriate the profile, is just hosed or possible hosing…

Hosing can be fixed but it’s a guessing game.

It’s like playing truth or hose me.
GB
g_ballard
Jul 26, 2004
Further:

If we open a tagged AdobeRGB file, honor the tag — then — Image> Mode> Assign any other profile than AdobeRGB:

We have indeed just hosed the file.

If we open a tagged sRGB file, honor the tag — then — Image> Mode> Assign any other profile than sRGB:

We have indeed just hosed the file.

+++++

We only use ASSIGN when PS doesn’t know the SourceSpace. Once PS knows the SourceSpace, everything that happens after that is CONVERT.
GB
g_ballard
Jul 26, 2004
Of course, MO is talking about the rocket science because he knows.
[Me] I’m just spewing my lay opine 😉
GB
g_ballard
Jul 26, 2004
Ronald) you just experimenting around…Yes.

Okay, I missed your post, I had a feeling you already knew that (now I can relax my neurosis and retire myself for the evening)…
RL
Ronald_Lanham
Jul 26, 2004
G

Semantics?

Me: I didn’t save the files with an assigned profile… therefore to me they weren’t hosed. You: They were hosed when I assigned a profile even though it isn’t a permanent hosing.

No problem.
R
Ram
Jul 26, 2004
it isn’t a permanent hosing

Right, not a permanent hosing; just an immediate and unavoidable one. 😀
MO
Mike_Ornellas
Jul 26, 2004
G,

Photoshop knows nothing. you do.

You speak as if the machine understands what the profile should be.

YOU- are the interface.

It basically comes down to – do you like what you see, if not, change the profile assignment before you convert to output.

It’s pretty much comes down to this simple fact for an RGB workflow.

I personally like a LAB or RAW workflow myself because it’s more reliable and the results are WAY better.

More control, less BS…

less guessing…

more creative, better control.

Did I say control?
R
Ram
Jul 26, 2004
the machine understands what the profile should be.

Oooh! I want one of those. 🙂
R
Ram
Jul 26, 2004
Mike,

I personally like a LAB or RAW workflow …

Very interesting. As far as I was able to determine in my very shallow investigation of some of the controversies surrounding L*a*b convinced me to stay away from it.

Here’s an excerpt from the link below:

"Another interesting observation from the table relates to native Lab encoding. The established methods of integer encoding of Lab color (Lab TIFF, ICC, Photoshop) will clip some of the Lab Gamut. But even more devastating than that is the gross coding inefficiency (only 35%). This means that nearly two-thirds of Lab coding space is wasted on colors that do not even exist. This may be seen here. This inefficiency "squeezes" real colors tightly together, resulting in possible quantization losses. So converting an image into Lab for the purposes of applying a color correction in Photoshop can severely reduce the number of unique colors in your image. This is discussed further here. Whether this is a significant loss depends on the particular situation, but you should at least be aware of it."

< http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index.html?WorkingSpaceInfo.ht ml>

There’s an awful lot of numbers and technical stuff there, but the bottom line was that it reinforced my fears that the implementation of LAB in practice, more than the theory involved, could indeed lead to losses in detail and quality. Since I’m far from qualified to know how significant the problem is or can be, I just decided to stay away from L*a*b.
MO
Mike_Ornellas
Jul 26, 2004
Don’t get me wrong, but I only do a LAB workflow for 8 bit drum scanning. If my scanner software were 16 bit, I’d take ProPhoto RGB 16 bit ANY DAY over LAB. I choose LAB scans because I don’t have a choice for the most part.

LAB has many rounding errors that are unavoidable due to color mapping and compression into a CMYK 8 bit color space. Go ask Bruce, he likes to ramble off facts and figures. My focus is implementation and workflows.

LAB offers a mono color space to work from and is a common language for most high end commercial scanners.

It’s all about the bits brother!
RD
rob_day
Jul 26, 2004
If we open a tagged AdobeRGB file, honor the tag — then — Image> Mode> Assign any other profile than AdobeRGB: We have indeed just hosed the file.
If we open a tagged sRGB file, honor the tag — then — Image> Mode> Assign any other profile than sRGB:
We have indeed just hosed the file.

Could we get a definition of "hosed"? i assume it doesn’t mean clean a dirty picture.

When I assign different profiles to an RGB image, whether it’s been tagged or not, the preview changes but the RGB numbers don’t, so I don’t think the image has been damaged in anyway–it’s just my interpretation of what it looks like has changed.
MO
Mike_Ornellas
Jul 26, 2004
Hosed = changing the meaning of the numbers via a profile without consent or knowledge.

Like Bruce has said:

Color mgnt does two things,

1. By assigning a profile, you are giving a meaning to the numbers or changing the meaning from one space to the next. (numbers stay the same, but the meaning changes)

2. By converting the numbers, you are change the numbers.

They both can hose you if you don’t know what you are doing.

They both can help you if you know where and when to do so.
GB
g_ballard
Jul 26, 2004
definition of "hosed"?

What MO (and Bruce said) — changed, knocked it out of original color balance.

Open any file in PS:

Image> Mode> Assign (sRGB) Profile

Image> Mode> Assign (AdobeRGB) Profile

Image> Mode> Assign (AppleRGB) Profile

Image> Mode> Assign (MonitorRGB) Profile

NOTICE THE FILE CHANGES becauce we are telling Photoshop the file is in different ColorSpaces…PS is basing its understanding of the SourceFile on different "numbers," different color "maps."
BTW, this is "fishing" around for the best profile — Bruce’s Mystery Meat analogy.

Not to trick you 🙂 but:

Open any file in PS:

Image> Mode> Convert to (sRGB) Profile

Image> Mode> Convert to (AdobeRGB) Profile

Image> Mode> Convert to (AppleRGB) Profile

Image> Mode> Convert to (MonitorRGB) Profile

NOTICE THE FILE DOES not CHANGE"
This is because Photoshop knows the SourceSpace, and is merely CONVERTING to TargetSpaces — whilst all the time Converting SourceSpace> MonitorRGB, on-the-fly, (so’s we can PROOF it accurately on the monitor)…
MO
Mike_Ornellas
Jul 26, 2004
Just to clarify

When a conversion is done, "convert to profile" the files #’s change, and in doing so, you are preserving the color appearance.
RD
rob_day
Jul 26, 2004
Not to trick you but: Open any file in PS:

Not tricking me at all–that’s my point, there’s a huge difference between converting to a profile and assigning a profile. Assigning different profiles will not change the values in the file itself, it will effect the new values if there is a conversion made to a new color space, but the conversion has to be made for that to happen and there is no conversion when you assign.
MO
Mike_Ornellas
Jul 26, 2004
good,

I’m glad you understand it now.
RD
rob_day
Jul 26, 2004
I understood it before. Convert to Profile potentially "hoses" the file depending on how it is done–it’s the same as making a color correction. Assigning does nothing to the file other than embedding a new tag–doesn’t damage the file at all because the original values are maintained, just changes the way it is displayed.

You could change profiles a thousand times via Assign Profile and the image would not degrade, but if you did a thousand Convert to Profiles the image would be damged in the same way as if you did a thousand curve corrections.
MO
Mike_Ornellas
Jul 26, 2004
* sigh…
GB
g_ballard
Jul 26, 2004
what MO said (I was confused with the earlier confirmation but the second one sealed it).

I think you got it backwards, Rob…
RD
rob_day
Jul 26, 2004
sorry to make you sigh.

Assigning different or wrong profiles "hoses" the accuracy of the color mangement setup but doesn’t touch the file’s values. If you start with an RGB file tagged with Adobe RGB and assign 10 different tags, come back to Adobe RGB and look at the file’s histogram it’s identical every step of the way–how the file is color managed changes not the file. My definition of a hosed file is that it’s values have changed. Do the same experiment with Convert to Profile and the histogram will change at every conversion including the final back to Adobe RGB.
BF
Bruce_Fraser
Jul 26, 2004
–>You could change profiles a thousand times via Assign Profile and the image would not degrade

Inasmuch as the numbers in the file wouldn’t change, this is true. But it would display incorrectly, and convert to any other space incorrectly, so it’s fair to say that while the integrity of the data hasn’t been compromised, and you can rescue the file by assigning the correct profile, for all practical purposes, it’s hosed.
BF
Bruce_Fraser
Jul 26, 2004
–>My definition of a hosed file is that it’s values have changed.

My definition of a hosed file is that it created output the client refused to pay for.
RD
rob_day
Jul 26, 2004
and you can rescue the file by assigning the correct profile

Seems like an easy rescue. On the other hand a file converted badly down stream drowns (sorry, couldn’t resist)…
R
Ram
Jul 26, 2004
Seems like an easy rescue.

Except you would have to guess what the original correct profile was and what the image originally looked like.

To me that’s a wrecked, hosed, spoiled, damaged file. Toast; especially if the file gets sent to a third, unsuspecting party.
BF
Bruce_Fraser
Jul 26, 2004
–>a file converted badly down stream drowns

Yes, and assigning the wrong profile guarantees a bad conversion down stream.

I’ve seen more files wrecked by people opening perfectly good tagged files and either stripping the profile deliberately, having the software set up to discard the embedded profile, or using some antedeluvian version of Photoshop that doesn’t understand profiles, than from any other cause.

If I ruled the world, Assign Profile would be only be enabled for already-tagged files if the user correctly answered 100 or so fairly tough color managent questions, and signed a waiver. It’s fine for people who know what they’re doing to experiment with Assign Profile, but it’s really an expert feature…
GB
g_ballard
Jul 26, 2004
if a file comes in with the wrong profile embedded, most color-managed users will assume it’s a bad file and start hammering on it (or use it as is).

more savvy users will start Assigning various color spaces to see if the color improves…

if a file is Converted to the wrong space (with the profile intact), at least Photoshop will understand the file and be able to correctly Convert, including to the monitor.

on the dark side:

if a caveman, an old-school dog, the persons who hose AdobeRGB on a daily basis, opens the file, he will hose RGB in most cases — anyway…
RD
rob_day
Jul 26, 2004
Except you would have to guess what the original correct profile was.

Unless you knew where it was originated and could ask for the source profile, but that would be quite the leap of faith. Of course believing in an embedded profile from an unknown source requires a fair amount of faith anyway.
BF
Bruce_Fraser
Jul 26, 2004
It’s actually fairly hard to embed the wrong profile UNLESS you dick around with Assign Profile. Most of the people I hear say that you can’t trust embedded profiles from unknown sources are making lame excuses for having color management broken at an institutional or enterprise level.

You are of course the exception .
GB
g_ballard
Jul 26, 2004
you can’t trust embedded profiles from unknown sources

That’s the first time I heard that.

More likely he can’t trust his own monitor to PROOF it (and his own broken workflow to Convert it).

In any case — simply — opening an RGB file in Photoshop, HONORING the embedded profile, and PROOFing (viewing) it on a calibrated, profiled, accurate monitor will tell you one way or the other how good the file is.

In general theory, anyway…
GB
g_ballard
Jul 26, 2004
But aren’t some scanners and cameras prone to mistagging RGB through Photoshop Import plugins?

That’s where I would look for mis-tagging problems…
MO
Mike_Ornellas
Jul 26, 2004
The real problem here is the ability to strip the tag.

You should be able to change it, but not discard the tag.

If the profile is wrong, it’s wrong.

If there were no profile, is REALLY wrong!

The less of two evils…

Most people just convert and go about their business of color correction regardless of the outcome.

(and that’s the problem!)

If I ruled the world….um….

yea….
RD
rob_day
Jul 26, 2004
it’s actually fairly hard to embed the wrong profile UNLESS you dick around with Assign Profile.

Well how about this; the originator of the files works in Adobe RGB and tags the file accordingly (BTW, I’ve never suggested files shouldn’t be tagged) but he either hasn’t calibrated his monitor or has the wrong display profile loaded (how would I know that?) So, according to Bruce’s earlier post —

the soft proof is a product of at least three profiles—the document space, the printer, and the monitor—if any one of those is off, so will be the soft proof.

which I agree with–the originator of the file doesn’t have an accurate soft proof, but color corrects to taste anyway. If I open that file and honor the Adobe RGB tag on my correctly calibrated and tagged display I’m not seeing the same color, so the Adobe RGB tag could be deceiving me depending on how far off the original monitor is.
GB
g_ballard
Jul 26, 2004
I open that file and honor the Adobe RGB tag on my correctly calibrated…display
I’m not seeing the same color

Then the person who balanced the file has a bad monitor profile. Period (for all practical purposes).

so the Adobe RGB tag could be deceiving me

Actually, a tag allows us to accurately view the source file on screen and Convert it to other spaces — how is the tag deceiving you (unless you have a bad monitor or bad target profiles)?

I agree with–the originator of the file doesn’t have an accurate soft
proof

If the originator doesn’t have a good monitor profile s/he does not have the ability to accurately SoftProof in Photoshop. Photoshop’s SoftProof feature is based on an accurate monitor profile.
RD
rob_day
Jul 26, 2004
You should be able to change it, but not discard the tag.

Tags are only useful if the file needs to be edited downstream. I never assign tags to CMYK files because they are built for a single output device and I want to be sure my numbers are the output numbers. Tagging the file increases the risk of a CMYK to CMYK conversion whether, it’s inadvertent or not, on the printers end.
R
Ram
Jul 26, 2004
Rob,

Well, I don’t ever mess with CMYK files, but if I ever did, I certainly wouldn’t want to work with someone who doesn’t tag his files.
MO
Mike_Ornellas
Jul 26, 2004
Tags are only useful if the file needs to be edited downstream.

Which is pretty much all the time.

A CMYK ICC workflow has sunk to the bottom of the sea.
GB
g_ballard
Jul 26, 2004
Rob) I never assign tags to CMYK files because they are built for a
single output device and I want to be sure my numbers are the output numbers.

I have the feeling Rob knows the output device, can trust the people he hands the file to, and doesn’t want anyone dinking with his numbers.

Good and smart under that scenerio.

The trouble with handing off untagged anything — or recommending that approach — when we don’t know the output device or can’t trust the people we are handing the file to not dink with it — is the color will likely get hosed (when the genius downstream opens it or Converts it)…
RD
rob_day
Jul 26, 2004
Actually, a tag allows us to accurately view the source file on screen — how is it deceiving you (unless you have a bad monitor profile)?

well, the purpose of the RGB tag is to display a file’s color the same from one screen to the next, but only on the assumption that the monitor tag is accurate on both systems. If the originator doesn’t have an accurate monitor profile loaded in System Preferences>Displays>Color we won’t be seeing the same color–for it to work we BOTH have to have an accurate monitor profile loaded in Displays

If the originator doesn’t have a good monitor profile s/he does not have the ability to accurately SoftProof in Photoshop. SoftProff is based on an accurate monitor profile.

Right, that’s my point: she’s made a bad color correction because her soft proof is not accurate and I don’t know what she intended because we are not seeing the same color despite the fact that we are both in Adobe RGB.
BF
Bruce_Fraser
Jul 26, 2004
Tagging necessary to communicate color. It’s not sufficient…

(I don’t tag DeviceCMYK when I know it’s going straight to the device, either. But if it isn’t going straight to the device, the final output is someone else’s responsibility, and unless I know that it’s going to cause a screaming disaster because the recipient is clueless, I tag, because that way the recipient has a clue as to the intended color.)
RD
rob_day
Jul 26, 2004
Well, I don’t ever mess with CMYK files, but if I ever did, I certainly wouldn’t want to work with someone who doesn’t tag his files.

I can see that, but consider this: You have a print project with both full color CMYK and grayscale images you want to print as quad CMYK to get more dynamic range. The sophisticated approach would be to separate the grayscales with a Heavy Black Generation so you get a long black plate and avoid color shifts on press, and separate the color with light black generation and avoid too much black. You dutifully assign the different profiles and place the files in InDesign. At print time Color Mangement is on and default US Coated SWOP is chosen by the printer in the print driver. ALL of your separations are going to get blown off and you will get a CMYK to CMYK conversion–no more light or heavy black plate.

Without a tag you will maintain the original separated values.

Don’t worry I won’t send you any files…
RD
rob_day
Jul 26, 2004
But if it isn’t going straight to the device, the final output is someone
else’s responsibility

but that begs the question, why convert to CMYK at all. If you don’t want to be responsible for the CMYK, send RGB and let the conversion happen in the print driver via whatever CMYK tag they think works. The problem with a CMYK to CMYK conversion at print time is that the numbers in the file no longer match the numbers on the plate. Who wants to sort that out?
JG
John_G._Kaiser
Jul 26, 2004
This is a bit off topic, but is there a way on a Mac to scroll through the assigned profiles? I’ve noticed that with a PC you can use the scrolling wheel to look through profiles to see which one you want to assign (after highlighting the box where you choose the profile to assign. I rarely assign profiles in such a manner, but it is handy if you want to intentionally hose the profile (on a copy of a file) in order to get either a better looking picture or an intentionally bad (for example, to give a certain "look") image.
AS
Ann_Shelbourne
Jul 26, 2004
<< At print time Color Mangement is on and default US Coated SWOP is chosen by the printer in the print driver. ALL of your separations are going to get blown off and you will get a CMYK to CMYK conversion–no more light or heavy black plate. >>

Which is why it is better to send a PDF (instead of the InDesign file) and to make the PDF using "Leave Color Unchanged" in the Advanced dialog.
R
Ram
Jul 26, 2004
Rob,

Don’t worry I won’t send you any files…

Oh, I wasn’t worried at all. 🙂 Don’t worry yourself either. 😉
AR
Andrew Rodney
Jul 26, 2004
–>but that begs the question, why convert to CMYK at all. If you don’t want to be responsible for the CMYK, send RGB and let the conversion happen in the print driver via whatever CMYK tag they think works.

Cause color usually sucks big time!

If most printers and service bureaus (and even RGB photo labs with digital output devices) had a clue about how to handle your tagged RGB file using good output profiles, that would work just fine. Problem is, they don’t.
RD
rob_day
Jul 26, 2004
Which is why it is better to send a PDF (instead of the InDesign file) and to make the PDF using "Leave Color Unchanged" in the Advanced dialog.

Ann, you would think that would work, but all my testing shows that when exporting a PDF, files stay untouched if they are not tagged, and if the embedded tag matches your current CMYK working space at the time of export. Any file with a different tag gets converted. So, it would be easy to have unintended conversions if EVERYTHING isn’t tagged consistently when color mangement is on. If you turn off color mangement what you suggest should work.
AS
Ann_Shelbourne
Jul 26, 2004
You also need to leave "Include ICC Profiles" unchecked in the Advanced dialog. And send hard copy proofs with the CD too.

I do this for Press advertising and it works extremely well but i do have the advantage of still being able to "proof" print on an Epson 1270 using PressReady which provides virtual "Contract Proof" output.
BF
Bruce_Fraser
Jul 26, 2004
–>but that begs the question, why convert to CMYK at all.

Because people who ask for CMYK are almost invariably totally unqualified to even look at an RGB file. I work in ProPhoto RGB. There are about 5 shops in the country I’d consider sending a ProPhoto RGB file to. For the rest, it’s courting disaster.
MO
Mike_Ornellas
Jul 26, 2004
hmm..
H
Hexebah
Jul 27, 2004
"For the rest, it’s courting disaster."

So if I…

1. Set working space in Photoshop to ProPhoto RGB
2. Open ProPhoto RGB image in matched working space.
3. Edit/Proof/Etc.
4. Convert to output device colour space
5. Print

….Disaster? Am I missing something? I sure hope not.
I use this working space most of the time now. Works great with the RAW workflow I am using. Sure can give some scary looking thumbnails in the FB tho!

BTW Is ProPhoto the same as ROMM-RGB?

Chip
AR
Andrew Rodney
Jul 27, 2004
–>BTW Is ProPhoto the same as ROMM-RGB?

Yup.
RD
rob_day
Jul 27, 2004
You also need to leave "Include ICC Profiles" unchecked in the Advanced dialog. And send hard copy proofs with the CD too.

Ann,
That didn’t work for me. If you try this you can see what happens:

Set your Color Setting to US Prepress Defaults in both ID and Photoshop. In Photoshop make a file with a square of 0|0|0|100 (make sure only the K channel is filled) next to a square of 100% cyan–this file makes a CMYK to CMYK conversion easy to spot later. Save the file and make sure Embed Color Profile: US Web Coated SWOP is checked. Do a Save As with a new name but this time uncheck embed profile so the file is untagged. Place the 2 files in ID. If you check the file’s link info the untagged file should show NA next to profile, while the tagged file should show US Web Coated.

If a conversion is taking place it will be easy to spot because the black square will become a 4-color mix. To maintain the original values of the tagged file when you export to PDF you have to either assign the same tag that’s with the PS file to the ID file or, if the ID file is untagged, the working CMYK has to be set to the same profile. So, it would be impossible to stop some conversion if there were placed files with different tags. If you want to be absolutely certain a conversion won’t happen you would have to leave everything untagged or, all the placed files AND the ID file would have to have the same tag.
RD
rob_day
Jul 27, 2004
Because people who ask for CMYK are almost invariably totally unqualified to even look at an RGB file. I work in ProPhoto RGB. There are about 5 shops in the country I’d consider sending a ProPhoto RGB file to. For the rest, it’s courting disaster.

So, you don’t have a clue what the CMYK should be but you’re going to make the conversion anyway? With what profile–default SWOP? That’s going to blow away any advantages the ProPhoto space has, and then you’re going to ask the printer to correct the CMYK for her press with a CMYK to CMYK conversion at print time. Yeow.
AR
Andrew Rodney
Jul 27, 2004
–>With what profile–default SWOP? That’s going to blow away any advantages the ProPhoto space has, and then you’re going to ask the printer to correct the CMYK for her press with a CMYK to CMYK conversion at print time.

NOT if the shop really is printing SWOP (and quite specifically TR001 SWOP). When a printer actually conforms to this print "standard", the U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2 profile is hard to beat. Of course everyone tells you they print SWOP (one of the three biggest lies in the world..)

Given the option between guessing and using U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2 verses giving someone an RGB file and hoping they will produce a good conversion, I’ll take door number one. Of course I’d prefer to build a custom CMYK profile for their process (usually the contract proof). If most of these shops had a clue and would supply their output profile, I’d use that. 99 times out of 100, they either tell you they can’t supply said profile because it’s proprietary info that they don’t want their competitors to get hold of (nonsense) or when you ask for an ICC profile you either hear laughter on the other end of the phone or mumbling of confusion.
MO
Mike_Ornellas
Jul 27, 2004
I give everything away…
RL
Ronald_Lanham
Jul 27, 2004
Of course everyone tells you they print SWOP (one of the three biggest lies in the world..) – Andrew

And since Sheetfed is more common… it makes me wonder why Adobe doesn’t have that as the default for U.S. Prepress Defaults? Especially since the dot gain is going to change noticeably if someone leaves it in the default.
AR
Andrew Rodney
Jul 27, 2004
Well there is a sheetfed profile of course.

As yet, a "standard" for printing sheetfed ala TR001 isn’t yet written in stone. TR004 is still undergoing drafting by GRACoL.

I still hear printers telling me (and other users) to convert to SWOP even if the job is to be run sheetfed since this is such a convenient answer for them and I suspect so few users call them on this. That’s why it’s one of the three biggest lies in the world…
RD
rob_day
Jul 27, 2004
Right, and the discussion is whether to tag CMYK or not. If you are confident in your CMYK profile then once the conversion’s been made a tag isn’t necessary because there shouldn’t be any further conversions (CMYK to CMYK) given that it’s a good profile. If you are guessing what the profile should be and provide a tagged CMYK file that is in turn converted to different CMYK by the printer, then I don’t see how that (RGB>CMYK>CMYK) workflow is any easier to pull off than providing the printer with a good tagged RGB file (RGB>CMYK). In both cases your asking him to make a conversion that would only work if the correct profiles are in place.
AR
Andrew Rodney
Jul 27, 2004
Being a Gemini, I have two views of embedding profiles:

Twin A. Always embed because folks down the line may need to open, view or even convert the data. Without a profile, you have the famous Fraser CMYK mystery meat.

Twin B. You’ve got the data in the output space. The numbers are correct for the device, no one will or should open or alter the data. That being the case, the profile does absolutely nothing but add up to a few meg’s in each file.

CMYK to CMYK can be a dangerous game for all but the most adventurous. At the very least, I’d be a bit more open to it using a device link.

I think life would be a lot simpler if by and large, printers would simply take the CMYK numbers they get and output them to their device as is UNLESS a customer specifically requests otherwise. Then I’d be insured the numbers I provide will go out to the device with no alterations. Printers wouldn’t have to worry that some bonehead gave them totally inappropriate CMYK since "you get what you get." If the customer does this but asks for assistance, the printer charges big bucks to fix the issue or get the original RGB data or use some kind of CMYK to CMYK conversion. If the customer doesn’t ask for this, they get either a butt ugly proof or output on press but then they "get what they get." I on the other hand don’t have to worry that I did my homework, built a good profile and didn’t have someone try to out-think me by fixing the numbers I’ve provided. In such a case, I certainly don’t need to embed a profile.
GB
g_ballard
Jul 27, 2004
I don’t see how that (RGB>CMYK>CMYK) workflow is any easier to pull
off than providing the printer with a good tagged RGB file (RGB>CMYK)

Because: UNLESS your RGB is in the same working space as the genius’s WorkingRGB — he will hose it (for reasons previously discussed).

The same is true for CMYK, tagged or untagged, because these people do not honor embedded profiles.

You do not want to ask these people to "make a conversion." These people do not understand the question.

If you must deliver RGB, Convert to sRGB and hand it off (is my lay opine). If you must deliver CMYK, Andrew just covered that.
AS
Ann_Shelbourne
Jul 27, 2004
<< You also need to leave "Include ICC Profiles" unchecked in the Advanced dialog. And send hard copy proofs with the CD too. >>

<< That didn’t work for me. If you try this you can see what happens: >>

Rob:

Try this experiment:

Open an RGB file in Photoshop CS and convert to CMYK using standard US Prepress Defaults and Save As to CMYK_image_1 .

Open the same RGB and and convert to CMYK using a doctored version of US web SWOP 2 with GCR Heavy K Gen and Save As to CMYK_image_2 .

Place both CMYK images in the same InDesign CS document.

Export to PDF with: Color = "Leave Unchanged" and "Include ICC Profiles" unchecked.

Look at the seps. in Acrobat 6 Pro. — particularly at the black plate.

The two images ARE different.

Try it with CM ON and with it OFF in InDesign.

Provided that your PDF settings are as stated (Color = "Leave Unchanged" and "Include ICC Profiles" unchecked); BOTH PDFs will match each other and will show completely different Black plates for the two images.

It makes no difference whether CM was on or off in InDesign: the Profile used at the point at which you converted RGB to CMYK in Photoshop is retained in the separations.
RD
rob_day
Jul 27, 2004
I think life would be a lot simpler if by and large, printers would simply
take the CMYK numbers they get and output them to their device as is UNLESS a customer specifically requests otherwise. Then I’d be insured the numbers I provide will go out to the device with no alterations.

That’s what happens if you don’t tag anything. If you hand a printer an untagged ID file with untagged placed files the only way for her to alter the CMYK values is to open the ID file, assign a CMYK profile, and then chose a different destination space at print time–highly unlikely–and even then only the ID values would get converted, the placed files would be left untouched.

I could care less if the printer looks at the files and they don’t display correctly because I’ve asked that there be no edits.
MO
Mike_Ornellas
Jul 27, 2004
For the most part, a service provider gives you what you give them, granted that their output device is set to some standard. Hopefully some kind of SWOP tolerance.

Service providers_DO_ have to deal with TIL and Black generation issues because pubs request it even if the client knows it or not…

It’s not that simple guys.
AS
Ann_Shelbourne
Jul 27, 2004
If you are sending files directly to publications, you should be able to find the press requirements listed, together with the Ad. sizes, bleed and screen lpi, in the Rate Card.
If they are not, call Production and ask for the info.

We have had excellent results from the PDFs which we submit.
GB
g_ballard
Jul 27, 2004
It’s not that simple guys.

It (the Honor/Convert theory?) HAS to be that simple, MO — or — me and my fellow pea brains will never grasp the concept (let alone the implementation).

Not to mention the old dogs who refuse to take a few reads, an hour or so, to actually learn how to use the tool (or at least how NOT to hose my color on a daily basis)…
MO
Mike_Ornellas
Jul 27, 2004
When dealing with publications and pub materials, as a vendor for ad agencies, it is often the case whereas, we, the vendor, are responsible for total in limits, regardless of how in the hell the client created the separations, art work and the like.

The client really does not care what’s wrong with the files, the files just have to have a TIL of 300% as an example for a Web press. It’s the unfortunate reality of a service related industry dealing with people that have no business computing.

The usual…
AR
Andrew Rodney
Jul 28, 2004
–>When dealing with publications and pub materials, as a vendor for ad agencies, it is often the case whereas, we, the vendor, are responsible for total in limits, regardless of how in the hell the client created the separations, art work and the like.

Sounds like a historically BAD business decision which I don’t fault you or your company on (it’s probably been this way for years). It’s kind of silly to take any old CMYK file provided and be responsible for how wrong or crappy the conversion is. I suspect if someone in the business had a time machine and had any clue to what it would be like handing files in the late 20th/early 21st century would be like, they would have never agreed to this kind of acceptance. It’s like going into a Restaurant with stale food and asking for dinner only to complain that not only did the food produced taste bad, it made you quite ill.
MO
Mike_Ornellas
Jul 28, 2004
Andrew,

A LOT of times, our clients receive files from all over the world and then some from outer space. They don’t have anymore control than I do.

Prebind the f$%^ing applications and be done with this mess until legacy files die some time in 2020.

The Soviets are still using PS 5 for Christ sakes…

mo
R
Ram
Jul 28, 2004
Mike,

The Soviets no longer exist.
AS
Ann_Shelbourne
Jul 28, 2004
Nor should Photoshop 5.
P
progress
Jul 28, 2004
I love these little conversations…it always comes up with the same result to me.

1) Adobe CM had a fragile and minority grasp by the majority

2) Even a well setup file can be hosed by the majority down/upstream

3) Even when a solid grasp and stream of work is 100% CM, printers still need to fiddle with things outside of Adobe CM’s envelope.

Something needs to improve with CM, from all areas.

Locking down profiles with "beware of the leopard" warning signs if you change them would be a good start.

Adobe CM certified output houses would install confidence, and leave people alone to fiddle with what they need behind closed doors.

CM needs to be more clearly explained, and people need to make the effort to understand it.

Adobe need to make profiles "failsafe" in the exact definition of that term…if the CM flow fails, the file should still be safe.
MO
Mike_Ornellas
Jul 28, 2004
Ramon,

THE USSR ain’t around anymore, but the people are.
R
Ram
Jul 28, 2004
The people were never called Soviets, Mike. The word Soviet means "Council", that’s all. The communist "Councils" do not exist any more in any of the various countries into which the USSR disintegrated.
MO
Mike_Ornellas
Jul 28, 2004
Too much history channel for you.
R
Ram
Jul 28, 2004
I never watch it. It takes an event like 9/11 for me to sit or stand in front of a TV.
TL
Tim_Lookingbill
Jul 28, 2004
I just discovered what MO meant by the nonlinearity of assigned scanner and printer profiles and editing in that space rather than converting to a working space.

I do "profile fishing" by assigning different Fuji Frontier printer profiles off Dry Creek Photo’s site to my 35mm color negs scanned and burned to CD off the Fuji. I settle on a profile that makes the image match closest to the print, cancel out and use it to convert to after assigning the scanner profile off Fuji’s site which also makes the jpegs match very close to the prints.

I edit in the scanner space and convert to the Fuji printer profile. On reading about MO’s linearity comment, I decided to assign these downloaded profiles to a 21 step RGB grayramp. Yikes!

I’ve got about eight different Fuji printer profiles and one scanner profile and they all create slightly funky nonneutral color bleeds and shadow density variances between them. Some more drastic than others. Even the scanner profile creates an inconsistant grayramp, just not as bad. If I assign a working space or monitor profile, the grayramp is very clean.

From reading through this post am I to understand that if I assign any profile that makes the image look the way I like even though the image’s data is nowhere near that space that I will not retain that look when converting to a chosen output profile? Or will I just not get as accurate a print as intended?

In other words the untagged scans and prints off the minilab appear to be a bit dull but closer to reality and the way I remember the shot when I assign these Fuji specific profiles only. I mean reality isn’t as colorful as Madison Avenue and Kodak like to portray it. I don’t have anything to go by because the Fuji doesn’t read tags. I go by my memory of the shot.

If I assign something like ProPhotoRGB or even NTSC, the colors really beef-up with greens taking on a slight cyan cast among other slight hue shifts in other regions. Will I get that look when I convert? Or does this hose the colors when trying to improve the look by assigning wider gamut profiles rather than beefing up through curve and hue/saturation tools in the proper space?
AR
Andrew Rodney
Jul 28, 2004
Editing in an input space or moving directly from an input to output space has some issues (depending on the device) that make the concept of RGB working space really attractive. You’ve seen this already in your examples.

One useful illustration I like to show is opening a digital camera file shot linear (linear encoded gamma). That’s an option with some cameras. Open untagged and the image looks about 3 stops too dark and the Histogram is real odd looking (all pushed up to the left). Assign the camera profile and the preview looks great (numbers and histogram still odd). This first illustrates why we need profiles for describing the numbers in the file.

Now convert from this input space to a working space. Preview doesn’t really change but when you look at the Histogram, it’s all nice and even (I’m doing this of course on a high bit file). Mapping from the Linear gamma to the working space spreads out the data as we’d expect. This would be one funky file to be editing in an input space.

It’s an extreme example but it does illustrate the unique kinks in some input devices and why it’s usually a real good idea to get into a well behaved editing space asap.

The other useful thing about all working space is that when R=G=B, it’s neutral. That’s simply not the case with all input color spaces.
TL
Tim_Lookingbill
Jul 28, 2004
So Andrew,

As I understand you, I should use the histogram in determining the need to convert to working space? If so, then the data written to the untagged Fuji CD images is giving very spread out and balanced histograms and is probably OK to edit in the scanner assigned space. Correct?

I’m trying to avoid an additional conversion step to these comparatively low quality jpegs so I can retain most of my data during the editing phase. Or instead of an extreme amount of editing, I could just pick a wider gamut that beefs up the colors with the least amount of degradation using tonal adjust tools.

I guess the farther away the assigned profile is to the data (assigning ProPhotoRGB for example) and then converting to working space would severely degrade the image more than if I assigned a profile closer to its data-Fuji Neg scan profile-and then converted to AdobeRGB.
AR
Andrew Rodney
Jul 28, 2004
–>As I understand you, I should use the histogram in determining the need to convert to working space?

No, the point was that you can have a file in an input space that looks butt ugly both visually and through a histogram prior to a conversion into a working space which is designed for editing images.

You can edit in your scanning space but there are also compelling reasons to convert into a working space, one of which is how the data is distributed for editing, the gamma for applying the edits throughout the tone range evenly, and the ability to use R=G=B as a known neutral aimpoint.
P
progress
Jul 28, 2004
Andrew, thats interesting…but surely that can only happen with high bit files…surely if your image comes in with the highlights shot and the histogram shows this, if you convert it to a working space the histogram will only move slightly. I think your seeing the strengths of high bit images, as opposed to your method.

What i suspect is that your method only really pays dividends with high range/bit images, but i fear that it wont do much for standard images. If the range is shot on a scan in 8 bit then its pretty shot on any profile…you may be able to get a better colour feel, but the damage has been done. (by the scanner)
AR
Andrew Rodney
Jul 28, 2004
You’d want to do this on high bit files but that doesn’t have to happen. The same histogram and redistribution would happen in an 8 bit file, you’d just lose a lot more data. The original Histogram looks funky due to the way the data was captured (linear). Most products provide a gamma corrected image from RAW data (in the case of a camera). The point is that the mapping into the working space can handle this gamma correction.
MO
Mike_Ornellas
Jul 28, 2004
The critical reason why we want to edit in a linear RGB working space is the simple fact that the editing tools are linear. ie. Curves, Levels.

If you are looking at a severely whacked non-linear color space and making color edits and/or assessing the image based upon that which you see – and using color adjustment tools, the edits in which you preform may be totally off or inappropriate to what you see.

Color correction by the numbers only works if the person who is doing the correction understands how the output device behaves and is usually based upon the users "known" knowledge of such device. Usually, somewhat SWOP-ish. but never totally accurate and often flawed.

I personally enjoy telling a color operator that their full of crap when they think they are color correcting "by the numbers." I usually proceed to set the monitor profile to greyscale and tell them to go for it.

They quickly wake up from Oz…
GB
g_ballard
Aug 3, 2004
antediluvian

How to Improve Photoshop Performance

Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections