Now, that’s a great resumé. I knew there was a history lurking in there. Thanks so much for sharing that. My only connection to the music has been photographing musicians and living with a great musician. I really do appreciate this and wish I could have heard you play. Are there recordings of you out there???
Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.
It’s interesting when you talk your tone. There was a substitute trombone player Saturday night in Vaud and the Villains, and the tone was distinctly different – softer and sweeter – not as brassy and ballsy as Ulf, the regular player.
Typically, a trombonist who has grown up playing in school band and orchestra, and then college concert band and orchestra, while at the same time playing melodic solos in big band dance gigs will have a sweeter tone. Guys with natural talent who just want to play Dixieland and jazz and not undergo the discipline of formal music will have a brassier rawer tone. There have been two dozen or so well known jazz trombonists and all have a distinctive sound ranging from muddy to brilliant, and technique ranging from unschooled to mastery. My personal favorites are Bill Harris (driving, lyrical, Dixie influenced), Kai Winding ( brash, raw,idiomatic), Bill Watrous ( technically perfect and imaginative), the tragic Frank Rosolino ( the definitve master of the bop era, his licks are still in the tool bag of the great players), and Milt Bernhart ( could outshout the entire Kenton band). I knew Frank personally, a flawed genius whose friends, me included, did not see his deep seated disorder because of his talent and wit. I should mention Christian Lindberg and Charles Vernon, the classical masters, too. It’s amazing to me the number of great trombonists I worked with who never made it big. In their honor, I mention tnem now just to see their names in print. Charlie Gates ( well known in LA), Bob Norden ( another Bill Harris), Chuck MacDonald ( a true professional), Dick Thornberg ( incredibly talented), and a kid named Pete who could out play anyone at 17.
Ulf is great and the Villains are a great party band. Do they have a CD out yet.? When you pointed me to them on that site, I also searched them on iTunes but didn’t see anything then but that’s been two months or so.
I played all over the LA area in a big Latin jazz band for several years in the late sixties. That band was the most fun of all of them. Latin jazz is the best of both worlds.
That’s all very interesting. I’m going to look these folks up and here them. Ulf, interestingly enough is very classically schooled, grew up playing the most complicated things he could find, reads very well, and has a brassy growl that is infectious. It’s very interesting to see musicians pushed out of their comfort zone and hear what they have to improvise in a band with many twists and turns. Nothing on iTunes yet. They’re still getting situated musically, and it’s as much music theater as music itself.
These are terms of art, i.e. terminology accepted in the field.
There is absolutely no different in the embedding of a profile through ASSIGNING and CONVERTING. Sure, the effect is absolutely different between ASSIGNING and CONVERTING, but that is a function of the CONVERSION, not the embedding of the profile.
What you are proposing would contradict everybody’s usage and terminology. It’s nonsense.
As a matter of fact, you could CONVERT an image without embedding the profile if you wrote software that converted the image to a different profile without embedding a profile, just as if you stripped the profile after the fact, which you can do with a very simple script. Such a script is even provided by Apple for free, included with your OS, as is a script to embed a profile WITHOUT CONVERTING.
Convert and embed are totally independent functions, even though often performed simultaneously by the software, and they are also totally independent terms.
But the profile information can’t be in the same place or read the same way.
One reads it and the other reads the changed numbers. It’s just wrong to use the same terminology for two different actions.
Vaud and the Villains are definitely a show. You always have to sell it. The great conductors are showmen. Stan Kenton was a fine musician himself, and hired the best, but he was a master showman, his concerts were spectacular.
Woody Herman, too. He would hire young guys who could really blow, tour all over, work their asses off, and when they got famous and wanted more money, he’d disband, take a vacation and start over. When i was on the road we would frequently be in the same towns as Lawrence Welk or Woody Herman. You never saw Welk’s guys, but Woody’s bus would be in a parking lot somewhere with everyone in it. We’d pull up in our bus and yell, "How long you guys in for?" Welk of course was a superb showman. He insisted that everyone in his outfit double or triple on another instrument, sing, dance, or make jokes. We had a lot of respect for him and his people.
Some other trombonists, for you, Peter. Urbie Green, Benny Green (not related), Curtis Fuller ( with Barry Harris and Yusuf Lateef if possible; used to hang with them at the World Stage in Detroit), Miff Mole, Jimmy Cleaveland, Jimmy Knepper, the great J J Johnson, "Red" the trombone with Sam Butera and The Witnesses who were the backup band for Louis Prima and Keeley Smith, Rob McConnell, Bob Brookmeyer. More but my list is upstairs and it’s late.
The French horn is the most versatile brass instrument, and I wish I had doubled on it, but God is good and my grandson plays it.
But the profile information can’t be in the same place or read the same way.
Yes it is!
One reads it and the other reads the changed numbers.
Nonsense! The numbers were changed during the conversion and just prior to the embedding. The profile it’s merely telling the application what language (profile) the message is in. That’s all it does.
There is no further conversion during the reading of the file, just an informed reading of the file, in the intended language (profile).
It’s just wrong to use the same terminology for two different actions.
They are not "different actions", it’s one and the same identical action (embedding a profile). You need to think of the CONVERTING as a separate, independent action from the embedding. The embedding itself is identical regardless of whether you use Convert or Assign. That’s why it’s critical to use CONVERT, in order to trigger the conversion just prior to the embedding.
The computer cannot tell whether the profile was embedded through Convert or through Assign, neither could you if you dissected the file.
Sorry to have to contradict a luminary such as you, but what you are proposing and what you keep on arguing is just plain wrong and a terrible idea.
Tag, assign, embed, convert should have specific operational meanings.
They do. It’s explained above, ad nauseam.
* Tag is to pick a color space profile, either by specific informed intent, by trial and error, or arbitrarily, and saving the image file with said profile.
* Embed is to save the file with whatever color profile was chosen as per the above or by virtue of the actual working space in which the image was created.
* There is absolutely no difference between a tagged file and a file with an embedded profile.
* CONVERT is to take a tagged file (you do have to have a working source profile or there’s nothing to convert from) and translate (change) its numbers to a different color space profile so that the appearance of the colors remain practically unchanged (within the constraints of the target color profile, if such limitations exist).
* ASSIGN is to take any file, whether tagged or not, and define a different color space for it without changing the numbers, so that the colors will change. You choose ASSIGN either because some freakin’ moron handed you an untagged file (a file with no profile embedded), or because you want to be creative and come up with funky color effects all of that essentially by trial and error until the image "looks good" to you.
Assign OR tag ?
That’s like asking "getting dressed or doing the laundry?". Totally independent, not mutually exclusive terms. In ASSIGNING you’re choosing a profile; in TAGGING you’re saving that file with that profile.
In ASSIGNING you’re choosing a profile; in TAGGING you’re saving that file with that profile
Wouldn’t that just shift us over to "tag or embed"? I don’t think you’ve done a good enough job explaining the difference between tag and assign (they seem the same to me). Maybe the time at which you tag/assign would make them different, but here photoshop always uses assign.
Tag is to pick a color space profile, either by specific informed intent, by trial and error, or arbitrarily.
The critically important difference is the distinction between ASSING and CONVERT.
We’re in agreement there. Is tag just slang for assign/embed or some combination of both? I’ve heard it used both ways. I’m assuming here it doesn’t connote converting, as that changes the value of a file, and "tagging" means to me labels only.
explaining the difference between tag and assign (they seem the same to me)
No they are not the same. Tag implies ONLY saving the file with the chosen profile. (You could have arrived at the choice of that profile through converting or through assigning, that doesn’t play a part in defining tagging.)
ASSIGN means choosing a color space as explained in #46 and does NOT imply saving at all.
It really doesn’t make any difference when you’re in the thick of it. You get files of all ilk, tagged, untagged, RGB, CMYK, and you have to figure out what to do with them and make ’em all print as well as possible. It’s just a little game and if you’re good at it, you can make some good coin.
Tag, Assign, Embed. They’re all the same. Doesn’t matter when it happens or how it happens. The end result is a file that tells you something about how it’s supposed to look or print.
The most interesting part of this thread was the diversion into Lundberg’s musical past. That’s far more compelling than arguing over semantics.
When one receives files from all over the world and are scrambled like you say, and you have to straighten out the mess from the designers and go back and forth a few times with them – it gets old because everyone is working on their own idiotic workflow.
Then to repurpose the files for mutiple outputs back out to many agencies and printers all over the world becomes a difficult task.
So when you have an open archecture such as we have now, you have shit for breakfast lunch and dinner.
To be honest, nothing has gotten better since PS 1. You just have more options to screw yourself.
And this is why you have to deal with the mess that you have Peter. It’s a bloddy free for all.
We all make mistakes Peter, you, your clients, me, everyone…
No one is perfect and I will be the first to admit it. Yes, ME…
We need smart software and have it as a choice. You choose to stay where you are in your comfort level, processing turds or step up and play on the same field of professionals.
It takes no more effort, it helps you manage better color for you and your associates and you KNOW more about the file(s). My ideas will integrate your turd with no more or no less worse for the where, and I may help your turd when you give it to the next assignation of your choice
Converting and assigning are editing actions. Tagging is the same as embedding and is a saving function.
Yes, editing functions, but Tagging is the beginning of the embedding and can change before the embedded ICC resides in the file. There can be a discrepancy when that transpires due to where we are in development.
It can change via conversion or reassignment before the file hits the disk.
There are way more important things to worry about than this. We’ve been over this for, what, the last eight years. I’m looking forward to the next eight, starting in January…
I have not read the whole thread, but the easiest way to think of it is in terms of the language analogy.
Tagging/assigning is identification.
Converting means translation while preserving meaning.
Here’s an example.
Suppose you hear a stream of words coming over the radio while driving your car. You don’t understand it. Your friend sitting next to you says, "Oh, that sounds like Korean." That’s tagging, or assigning. Your friend is identifying what the language is. There’s no conversion/translation happening. Your friend may be correct, or incorrect. (For all you know, the real language might actually be Japanese.) Regardless, the central point is that this is what tagging/assigning means.
But now suppose you actually want to understand what those words mean (i.e., what the radio program is about). Then somebody has to translate it for you. This is "conversion." You ask your friend to translate the "Korean" to English, a language you do understand. What you hear from your friend are words in English, which are different from the original words coming over the radio (which are in Korean). But the meaning is the same (**). Going back to color management, "conversion" means that in general the underlying numbers change during the conversion process, but the color appearance stays the same.
Eric
(**) This assumes your friend actually knows Korean and translated it correctly.
Rats! I had just made a macro for your user ID and didn’t notice the missing d. It has now been edited, Lundberg02. My apologies.
— — —
There are two, Assign and Convert.
Yes these are the only two relevant actions to perform on a file as far as defining the colors and the numbers.
A tagged file and a file with an embedded profile are one and the same thing, regardless of how the profile was arrived at. These are just descriptions of the state of the file:
Tagged file: the file was saved with its appropriate image profile embedded.
Untagged file: some moron saved this file without an embedded profile.
All confusion disappears if you stick to this nomenclature and refrain at all costs from using "tag" and "embed" as verbs. Instead indicate that you saved the file with an embedded profile.
And yet there are still some valid reasons for not embedding profiles in some workflows. For RGB files, yes, embed, but for some CMYK workflows, there are printers out there who will do automatic conversions of tagged files, either because they actually have Photoshop set to automatically convert on opening (yes I’ve run into this all too often) or they have RIPs which will convert tagged files but pass untagged files through untouched.
I deal with a lot of stock images for some of my clients, and even today, even with some bigger and well known stock agencies, are still not tagging their files. I’m not sure I’d use the word moron, but you would think they might know better. You can either get upset about it or deal with. The files are invariably either sRGB or Adobe RGB, the two most prevalent RGB workspace out there. Assign one or the other and see which looks better and then move on. Untagged CMYK is only slightly more difficult, but not that hard. It seems that the stock images that come to me CMYK are much more likely to be untagged or have the wrong tag. I just look at it as the Peter Figen full employment act of the early 2000’s.
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
