Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: CMYK conversion tool?  (Read 17789 times)
pfigen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 451


WWW
« Reply #20 on: April 27, 2007, 06:42:53 PM »
ReplyReply

You then have to decide how much you need to "fix" them. Unless they are hiring you to prepare files for them, I would not worry about anyone else's files and let them print how they print. If the magazine is unhappy with their printing quality and wants help making it better, it is obvious that they could use it, but not til they ask. I've been down that road way too many times. If they don't have a basic understanding of the color management, let alone color corrective, process, unless they're willing to pony up for a company wide retooling, I would not spend too much time with them. Make your own work look as good as possible and when they ask the other works sucks by comparison, you can tell them.

I would also take a test file, something with some known images plus a stepped gray and convert it using their press profile. Look at the total ink numbers. Look at the black plate and how far up the gray ramp the black runs to get a feeling for the k generation in this profile, then Assign the Adobe SWOP profile and see how much your file changes on screen. If the preview stays the same or only changes a little, then you can be reasonably sure that they are at least close to SWOP. If there is a drastic change in appearance, then you have to ask why that is, when the US magazine industry is getting fairly standardized.
Logged
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1543


WWW
« Reply #21 on: April 27, 2007, 09:01:52 PM »
ReplyReply

You have to demonstrate and set an example if one wants to raise a client to the next level. Like these people who could not even see the issues, and currently they are responsible for about 25% of my income.
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
pfigen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 451


WWW
« Reply #22 on: April 28, 2007, 01:00:08 AM »
ReplyReply

If they are a big client, it probably is in your best interest to improve the situation, but from what you've already said, they aren't too sophisticated, so proceed with caution. It's all too easy to confuse them even more and you'll end up worse than before. Been there before...good luck.
Logged
wood
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


WWW
« Reply #23 on: April 28, 2007, 08:50:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There is a growing need, in my experience, for photographers to do their own CMYK conversions..............Is there broader interest in such a plugin?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


KIRK,

Take a look at this [a href=\"http://www.craigsactions.com/Products/CActionsProductsMain.html]SITE[/url].
They have some interesting action.

Good Luck,
Wood
Logged

[span style='color:gray'][span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']take a look... [/span][/span] [span style='color:gray']Postal Digital[/span]
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1543


WWW
« Reply #24 on: April 28, 2007, 11:04:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Pfigen, I appreciate your experience on this. I am also an educator so I am used to this. I am also teaching a scanning workshop soon that the same art director is attending. So they are up for improving their skills.

Wood, Looks interesting. I will check it out.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2007, 11:11:14 AM by Kirk Gittings » Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
fraser.crozier
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #25 on: July 02, 2007, 05:09:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Unfortunately, I am talking about mass market magazines on web presses. I just went to a meeting at one of them. They are not even using the icc profile of the web press that they supplied me! Poor monitor calibration etc. etc. I actually ended up correcting the barrel distortion and CA of another photographer's work, because they didn't know how.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I would have to say that anyone converting any images to CMYK is misguided. I don't mean this to be deroogatory in any way.

It is in the interest of all users to keep the final Photoshop image at the highest level of abstraction, and allow the ICC conversion to take place in the layout application, or the RIP depending on the output intent.

A very concise guide on file handling can be found at:

[a href=\"http://www.pass4press.com]http://www.pass4press.com[/url]

The days of prepress being the keeper of colour is well and trully past. As in the days where a scanner oeprator was the image processing genius, so too now are the photographers who capture high end digital images.

In a word, "convergence" has seen the gradual erosion of the niche prepress faculty, where there are now sufficient tools and guidelines that mere layout artists can produce a bulletproof PDF with reliable colour management.

The question is, do we stand in the way of progress, or do we assist in the process?
Logged
jorgedelfino
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 90


WWW
« Reply #26 on: July 02, 2007, 05:47:57 PM »
ReplyReply

I miss the days of just film emulsion numbers and gel filters!

 
Logged
bobrobert x
Guest
« Reply #27 on: July 11, 2007, 08:21:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Nobody has mentioned the wide gamut cmyk profile listed under free stuff at
curvemeister.com   http://www.curvemeister.com/  Dan Margulis in one of his books recommends something similar
Logged
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1543


WWW
« Reply #28 on: July 25, 2007, 04:39:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
But. . .that's already pretty much the standard "push button approach". The ONLY way to do it better is to actually take the time to soft proof in the final CMYK profile and make the image look as good as it can in CMYK. Unfortunately, software can't make decisions for you without properly setting up the software (like having a good profile and printer profile) and then using your eyes and judgement.

So, all you would end up with is an automated, push button "down and dirty" method of doing RGB>CMYK conversions. It's really tough to save people from themselves...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112623\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In retrospect, I have to admit that Schewe is/was right. Having some mileage now, going back and forth with the art directors, the printers and their profiles, I have developed a work flow that is predictable, relatively painless, and relatively quick. Basically I just needed some more practice with conversions and some real feedback via my conversions in print. Thanks for the kick in the rear.
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8625



WWW
« Reply #29 on: July 25, 2007, 04:42:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Nobody has mentioned the wide gamut cmyk profile listed under free stuff at
curvemeister.com   http://www.curvemeister.com/  Dan Margulis in one of his books recommends something similar
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127564\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Considering you can't use it to print, what's the point?
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5421


WWW
« Reply #30 on: July 25, 2007, 04:59:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
In retrospect, I have to admit that Schewe is/was right....snip

snip...Thanks for the kick in the rear.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129900\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Kirk. . .glad it finally hit home. . .yep, once you get past the point where you question the tools, you then can grok how to use them to your advantage...there's nothing fundimentally wrong with the concept of creating/using a really good CMYK profile, soft proofing so you know how the image will separate, tweaking the image for optimal repro and them doing the separation.

It really does work well. But all the little duckies must be lined up in their rows. Otherwise, you gotta learn to kill off those little duckies who refuse to get into line (kinda like telling an art director to go just in a lake or a printer to do their friggin' job right).

:~)
Logged
bobrobert x
Guest
« Reply #31 on: July 26, 2007, 02:44:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Considering you can't use it to print, what's the point?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129902\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


The original poster didn't say anything about printing

Quote > I can see the need for a PS plugin that that would help do better CMYK conversions. This plugin would incorporate side by side RGB and CMYK thumbnails (softproofing with the appropriate profile) and perhaps some kind of replacement tint picker that allowed you to pick Pantone colors that approximated the RGB values. <unquote

My reply was in line to his post You are far more knowledgeable than me in this subject but it is generally accepted that there are colour shifts when converting Using this method produces less shifts Dan Margulis - I know that you aren't a fan of his - has a lot of information about it If it does work then it must be an important part of the process of going from RGB to CMYK and ultimately print  
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8625



WWW
« Reply #32 on: July 26, 2007, 07:41:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The original poster didn't say anything about printing

CMYK is a print output color space! What else would you do with it?

Quote
it is generally accepted that there are colour shifts when converting

No, its not. There's a remapping of gamut since CMYK is darn small based on the printing device (colorants, inks on press). A color shift is absolutely not accepted nor something that occurs with good ICC profiles for the print device. Bad conversions can result in color shifts, no one wants or expects that. It isn't generally accepted, just the opposite.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2007, 07:44:28 AM by digitaldog » Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1543


WWW
« Reply #33 on: July 26, 2007, 09:36:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The original poster didn't say anything about printing

While that is technically true, web and offset printing was where I was heading with the thread. Having been in this business for 30 years, I have never experienced any other reason to do CMYK conversions. Why else would you do it?
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
KAP
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 168


WWW
« Reply #34 on: July 26, 2007, 09:47:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There is a growing need, in my experience, for photographers to do their own CMYK conversions. Whether you like this trend or not it is becoming a fact of life if you want your images to look good in print. I don't want to got into the politics or economics of this here. As any professional knows the PS tool for this conversion is very crude and soft proofing with the printers profile only helps so much. In the film days CMYK conversions were usually done by pre press professionals, who oftentimes masters at this with tons of daily experience.

I can see the need for a PS plugin that that would help do better CMYK conversions. This plugin would incorporate side by side RGB and CMYK thumbnails (softproofing with the appropriate profile) and perhaps some kind of replacement tint picker that allowed you to pick Pantone colors that approximated the RGB values.

I am not the guy to develop this tool, but I can sure see the need for it. Am I alone in this. Is there broader interest in such a plugin?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've no experiance of this software but take a look [a href=\"http://www.binuscan.com/cmyk_prod_multilangues/us/infos_cmyk_prod.html]http://www.binuscan.com/cmyk_prod_multilan..._cmyk_prod.html[/url]

Kevin.
Logged
bobrobert x
Guest
« Reply #35 on: July 28, 2007, 05:15:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
CMYK is a print output color space! What else would you do with it?
No, its not. There's a remapping of gamut since CMYK is darn small based on the printing device (colorants, inks on press). A color shift is absolutely not accepted nor something that occurs with good ICC profiles for the print device. Bad conversions can result in color shifts, no one wants or expects that. It isn't generally accepted, just the opposite.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129976\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


CMYK is a print output color space! What else would you do with it?
 

I am obviously missing something The photoshop books that I have recommend moving between them for image editing and not just for printing What I have read moving between RGB and CMYK and back means that there is a shift in colours hence the reason for my original post and I mistakenly thought that was the thrust of the original poster's post
Logged
LA30
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


« Reply #36 on: July 28, 2007, 06:18:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
CMYK is a print output color space! What else would you do with it?
No, its not. There's a remapping of gamut since CMYK is darn small based on the printing device (colorants, inks on press). A color shift is absolutely not accepted nor something that occurs with good ICC profiles for the print device. Bad conversions can result in color shifts, no one wants or expects that. It isn't generally accepted, just the opposite.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129976\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Thanks Andrew Rodney for chiming in...This thread is ridiculous.

You do CMYK conversions when you are a press operator and you are standing in front of a printing press.  All presses are different and the same one is different day to day.  Make a very nice 16bit RGB file and hand it to a qualified printer and it should come out nice.  My 2 cents.

Ken
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8625



WWW
« Reply #37 on: July 29, 2007, 09:30:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am obviously missing something The photoshop books that I have recommend moving between them for image editing and not just for printing What I have read moving between RGB and CMYK and back means that there is a shift in colours hence the reason for my original post and I mistakenly thought that was the thrust of the original poster's post
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130357\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Right, the old move from a useful wide gamut editing space to a device independent output color space to do some turd polishing you could do IN RGB, in less time and with less image damage. I think I have a few of these books too. They probably suggest converting to LAB to sharpen the L channel when you can produce the same results by staying in RGB, running USM and doing a fade luminosity with more control and less damage (faster too).

Go to CMYK last, when your goal is to send those numbers to an output device that requires those CMYK values.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1543


WWW
« Reply #38 on: July 29, 2007, 11:50:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This thread is ridiculous.


Ken,

Thanks for your smart ass contribution. You may think this thread is ridiculous, but if you do much magazine or book work you would know that CMYK conversions for photographers are a real issue these days. That is why national organizations like ASMP have been doing workshops on it. You can't just
Quote
hand it to a qualified printer and it should come out nice.
, because you oftentimes have no control over which printer it goes to, whether they give a s___, whether the art director at the magazine is going to do a D&D conversion before it even gets to the printer or whether anyone down the road knows what they are doing these days.
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8625



WWW
« Reply #39 on: July 29, 2007, 12:27:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Photographers doing their own CMYK conversions is becoming far more common for a number of reasons. I have an article upcoming in Digital Photo Pro about this (techniques and pitfalls). When we used to hand off a transparency, no reason to get involved. But a digital file is a different beast and more and more, photographers are being asked, sometimes demand to provide output ready files when the output device (the actual press) isn't known which is a huge problem. From a technology standpoint, this is all rather easy. The major issues facing us are political.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad