CMYK conversion tool?

[Kirk Gittings]

The major issues facing us are political.

Absolutely. I look forward to your article.

[Schewe]

When we used to hand off a transparency, no reason to get involved.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130453\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Actually, that wasn't my experience in the old days...I used to follow up even after the chrome was sent into production and retouched. The reason was that the prepress people used to heap the horse manure to the client saying the photographer screwed up the chrome by making it unprintable. Prepress had this way of lowering expectations so the first round of proofs, when they looked like crap, could be sent back for "corrections" and more proofs (which they then charged to the client). I would often ask to see the first set of proofs so I could tell the client whether they were getting a hose job. Funny, when the prepress people knew the photographer was going to be checking the first proof, those proofs sure seemed to come out a lot better.

In the late 80's, the PIA (Printing Industries of America) did a survey and found that on average, it took 3.2 proofs before a client would sign off on color. Guess who paid for the extra 2.2 proofs? It was a major source of income for prepress...

[digitaldog]

Actually, that wasn't my experience in the old days...I used to follow up even after the chrome was sent into production and retouched. The reason was that the prepress people used to heap the horse manure to the client saying the photographer screwed up the chrome by making it unprintable.

You're just a lot older than me Jeff <g>.

In photo school, we didn't learn to light for repro, that's for sure. When you actually start scanning your own chromes, even on a decent desktop drum, you change your approach a bit in lighting! I certainly hope that anyone that has to shoot film and get that stuff scanned for repro should do the scanning. Its an eye opener.

When's the Pixel Mafia dinner? I'm getting hungry,

[bobrobert x]

You're just a lot older than me Jeff <g>.

In photo school, we didn't learn to light for repro, that's for sure. When you actually start scanning your own chromes, even on a decent desktop drum, you change your approach a bit in lighting! I certainly hope that anyone that has to shoot film and get that stuff scanned for repro should do the scanning. Its an eye opener.

When's the Pixel Mafia dinner? I'm getting hungry,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130474\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

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

The problem with this thread is that - like many others - it got hijacked and posters were posting replies that weren't relevant to the original post and the sniping started Instead of informing the viewers they were ridiculing them without the hint of a bit of humour Not very nice  

[Ken Scott]

".......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."


Dear Kirk,

You are welcome.  In my experience it just takes one person to ruin a file, either it's an art director working off an un-color corrected monitor, a printer operator that doesn't give a s___, or the freelance graphic designer making no money who just doesn't have the time.  My point is that with out getting some pretty specific knowledge of where it will be printed, how large, etc you file might not look so good.  Most of the magazines that I have shot for want everything FTPed to them.  They have me size the files and send them the color corrected rgb file.  I would perfer to give them a large 16bit file.  So far things have looked good, maybe it is the people in my chain that seem to know what they are doing.  

Maybe I should go to a work shop.

Schewe,

"Actually, that wasn't my experience in the old days...I used to follow up even after the chrome was sent into production and retouched. The reason was that the prepress people used to heap the horse manure to the client saying the photographer screwed up the chrome by making it unprintable. Prepress had this way of lowering expectations so the first round of proofs, when they looked like crap, could be sent back for "corrections" and more proofs (which they then charged to the client). I would often ask to see the first set of proofs so I could tell the client whether they were getting a hose job. Funny, when the prepress people knew the photographer was going to be checking the first proof, those proofs sure seemed to come out a lot better.

In the late 80's, the PIA (Printing Industries of America) did a survey and found that on average, it took 3.2 proofs before a client would sign off on color. Guess who paid for the extra 2.2 proofs? It was a major source of income for prepress..."

I have seen this many times, it is almost laughable.


Ken

[Kirk Gittings]

Ken, the trouble is not your point, but the fact that you think your narrow experience (your "chain" as you call it) is indicative of what is happening in the industry. My "chain", includes a couple of dozen national magazines and presses and the days of "Make a very nice 16bit RGB file and hand it to a qualified printer and it should come out nice." are gone for the most part.