Thoughts on SOOC

On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 14:34:59 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-03-06 20:55:56 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 11:13:44 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-03-06 18:40:11 +0000, nospam said:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Some time ago you claimed to have read "Color Management" by Fraser,
Murphy and Bunting. If that is correct you should now know that color
management for printing can be anything but straightforward. A simple
color managed work flow is far from sufficient.

colour management may be complicated, but the workflow is not.

A non sequitur.

not at all. you brought up the book.

A color managed workflow can be uncomplicated. However, having things a
little off when shooting reference shots for calibration purposes can
be disasterous. So sometimes it is worth knowing how to do things
correctly to make that workflow uncomplicated.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_04.jpg

That's fine at the camera end of the process but I suspect Neil has
the printing end of the process in mind. e.g.
http://tinyurl.com/z6aslus

I am sure that he has a real concern with color fidelity and
consistency of intent when it comes to the print process. However, the
files he submits for those print jobs have to start with the image
capture. That is where the color managed (or mangled) workflow starts.
This is much easier to get right at the start in digital image capture
than with film. As you know each film type has it own particular color
and tone character, and analog shooters have struggled to fix that over
the years with filters and developing processes (film & print).
What solution would you propose to fix a film induced color
characteristic or color cast? That is the starting point for the print
job after all. Even the printers of today do not go about things the
same way they did 50 years ago. print advertising in NatGeo, Life, etc
in the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, etc are very different in color fidelity
to that found in print today.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/CC-60s.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/06/01/article-2153272-13671849000005DC-938_634x829.jpg

The

color a photographer achieved for a particular job in 1964 might not
have been, and probably wasn't a true representation of the color of
the subject object. That has changed in the digital
camera-to-computer-to-print job world of today.

I don't think you have worked with commercial high quality color
printing. The problems of getting colors right in 8 or 10 color
printing presses such as are seen in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKKbppE2W20 are not significantly
helped by having a digital front end to the process. I suspect that is
the sort of thing Neil has been working with.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 18:13:03 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


with a fully colour managed workflow, you'd get more accurate results
than what you're doing now and certainly with anything involving film.
this can and has been measured.

tl;dr digital is more accurate than film.

It's more easily measured but that doesn't necessarily mean it is more
accurate.

that's true, however, digital is more accurate. this is a fact.

In any case, the basic problems of commercial CMYK printing
have not really changed over the last 50 years

true, but what has changed is how to manage it.

Some functions have been computerised but the basic problems remain.
We grapple with RGB and some of us with CMYK but consider the problems
when up to 10 colours may be being transferred by off-set rollers on
to paper whose quality has not been as well controlled as the inkjet
paper with which we are familiar.

and neither have the
photographer's problems if this is the end of the process they are
grappling with.

that part is wrong.

Another of your simple explanations. :-(
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 18:13:02 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Thanks. It's unfortunate that some people just have the need to be
oppositional even when their comments are proven to be incorrect.

what's unfortunate is that there are those who do nothing but hurl
insults, notably peter but apparently you too.

Stating the truth about your on-line persona hurts.

But then you never hurl insults. We all know you conduct yourself with
class and dignity, at all times.

i never insult first. i only do so in *response* to insults made by
others, most of whom do nothing *but* hurl insults, namely you.

You may not realise it but your trademark one-line denials can often
be contemptuously insulting.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2016-03-07 04:06:15 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 14:34:59 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2016-03-06 20:55:56 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 11:13:44 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2016-03-06 18:40:11 +0000, nospam said:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Some time ago you claimed to have read "Color Management" by Fraser,
Murphy and Bunting. If that is correct you should now know that color
management for printing can be anything but straightforward. A simple
color managed work flow is far from sufficient.

colour management may be complicated, but the workflow is not.

A non sequitur.

not at all. you brought up the book.

A color managed workflow can be uncomplicated. However, having things a
little off when shooting reference shots for calibration purposes can
be disasterous. So sometimes it is worth knowing how to do things
correctly to make that workflow uncomplicated.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_04.jpg

That's fine at the camera end of the process but I suspect Neil has
the printing end of the process in mind. e.g.
http://tinyurl.com/z6aslus

I am sure that he has a real concern with color fidelity and
consistency of intent when it comes to the print process. However, the
files he submits for those print jobs have to start with the image
capture. That is where the color managed (or mangled) workflow starts.
This is much easier to get right at the start in digital image capture
than with film. As you know each film type has it own particular color
and tone character, and analog shooters have struggled to fix that over
the years with filters and developing processes (film & print).
What solution would you propose to fix a film induced color
characteristic or color cast? That is the starting point for the print
job after all. Even the printers of today do not go about things the
same way they did 50 years ago. print advertising in NatGeo, Life, etc
in the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, etc are very different in color fidelity
to that found in print today.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/CC-60s.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/06/01/article-2153272-13671849000005DC-938_634x829.jpg

The

color a photographer achieved for a particular job in 1964 might not
have been, and probably wasn't a true representation of the color of
the subject object. That has changed in the digital
camera-to-computer-to-print job world of today.

I don't think you have worked with commercial high quality color
printing. The problems of getting colors right in 8 or 10 color
printing presses such as are seen in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKKbppE2W20 are not significantly
helped by having a digital front end to the process. I suspect that is
the sort of thing Neil has been working with.

I have no experience with commercial high quality color printing at
all, unlike our resident omni-expert. That does not make my assertion
that said commercial high quality color printing might have moved with
the times over the last 50 years less valid.

Also your assertion that "8 or 10 color printing presses are not
significantly helped by having a digital front end to the process" is a
tad baffling given the existence of products such as these:
http://www8.hp.com/us/en/commercial-printers/indigo-presses/10000.html
Take a look at the promo video on that site.
...and the SM 102-8 P5 S in your video is a 2001 vintage press. I
believe that makes that technology at least 15 years old.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 20:42:27 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-03-07 04:06:15 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 14:34:59 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2016-03-06 20:55:56 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 11:13:44 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2016-03-06 18:40:11 +0000, nospam said:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Some time ago you claimed to have read "Color Management" by Fraser,
Murphy and Bunting. If that is correct you should now know that color
management for printing can be anything but straightforward. A simple
color managed work flow is far from sufficient.

colour management may be complicated, but the workflow is not.

A non sequitur.

not at all. you brought up the book.

A color managed workflow can be uncomplicated. However, having things a
little off when shooting reference shots for calibration purposes can
be disasterous. So sometimes it is worth knowing how to do things
correctly to make that workflow uncomplicated.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_04.jpg

That's fine at the camera end of the process but I suspect Neil has
the printing end of the process in mind. e.g.
http://tinyurl.com/z6aslus

I am sure that he has a real concern with color fidelity and
consistency of intent when it comes to the print process. However, the
files he submits for those print jobs have to start with the image
capture. That is where the color managed (or mangled) workflow starts.
This is much easier to get right at the start in digital image capture
than with film. As you know each film type has it own particular color
and tone character, and analog shooters have struggled to fix that over
the years with filters and developing processes (film & print).
What solution would you propose to fix a film induced color
characteristic or color cast? That is the starting point for the print
job after all. Even the printers of today do not go about things the
same way they did 50 years ago. print advertising in NatGeo, Life, etc
in the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, etc are very different in color fidelity
to that found in print today.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/CC-60s.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/06/01/article-2153272-13671849000005DC-938_634x829.jpg

The

color a photographer achieved for a particular job in 1964 might not
have been, and probably wasn't a true representation of the color of
the subject object. That has changed in the digital
camera-to-computer-to-print job world of today.

I don't think you have worked with commercial high quality color
printing. The problems of getting colors right in 8 or 10 color
printing presses such as are seen in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKKbppE2W20 are not significantly
helped by having a digital front end to the process. I suspect that is
the sort of thing Neil has been working with.

I have no experience with commercial high quality color printing at
all, unlike our resident omni-expert. That does not make my assertion
that said commercial high quality color printing might have moved with
the times over the last 50 years less valid.

Also your assertion that "8 or 10 color printing presses are not
significantly helped by having a digital front end to the process" is a
tad baffling given the existence of products such as these:
http://www8.hp.com/us/en/commercial-printers/indigo-presses/10000.html
Take a look at the promo video on that site.
..and the SM 102-8 P5 S in your video is a 2001 vintage press. I
believe that makes that technology at least 15 years old.

True, but offset printing is still the King when it comes to large
prints and large print volumes. Heidelberg has made digital printers
for the best part of 20 years but their major demand and heavy-weight
performers are *still* offset machines. See
https://www.heidelberg.com/us/en/pro...t_overview.jsp
or http://tinyurl.com/znzsm7p

For examples of their digital machines see
https://www.heidelberg.com/us/en/pro...g_overview.jsp
or http://tinyurl.com/jqcu8yd

Nevertheless the point remains the problems of color management at the
printing end of the process continue to be very difficult. See
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped.../6b/Offset.png which
is a simplified diagram of the ink-feed path on but a single stage of
an offset print process. See http://tinyurl.com/zlfoa2j for a diagram
of what it is more likely to be in practice. I can assure you that
color management of this type of machine is not at all similar to the
color management of an Epson printer.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 09:30:46 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:
That can only be based on the intent of the photographer.

Fully agree. To me, SOOC is just trying to get as near as possible to
the result I've on my mind, so I need less work later.

On film times, all the processing we do today on photo retouch
software, it were done "retouching" the negatives in dark room, so
nothing changed, really. It is more easy and forgiving today tho', we
now can "step back/undo" when overdoing something, while in the old
times we had to redo everything from scratch or keep whatever we got.
--
andrea - ri mi cci, name

On 3/6/2016 11:06 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 14:34:59 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-03-06 20:55:56 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 11:13:44 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-03-06 18:40:11 +0000, nospam said:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Some time ago you claimed to have read "Color Management" by Fraser,
Murphy and Bunting. If that is correct you should now know that color
management for printing can be anything but straightforward. A simple
color managed work flow is far from sufficient.

colour management may be complicated, but the workflow is not.

A non sequitur.

not at all. you brought up the book.

A color managed workflow can be uncomplicated. However, having things a
little off when shooting reference shots for calibration purposes can
be disasterous. So sometimes it is worth knowing how to do things
correctly to make that workflow uncomplicated.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_04.jpg

That's fine at the camera end of the process but I suspect Neil has
the printing end of the process in mind. e.g.
http://tinyurl.com/z6aslus

I am sure that he has a real concern with color fidelity and
consistency of intent when it comes to the print process. However, the
files he submits for those print jobs have to start with the image
capture. That is where the color managed (or mangled) workflow starts.
This is much easier to get right at the start in digital image capture
than with film. As you know each film type has it own particular color
and tone character, and analog shooters have struggled to fix that over
the years with filters and developing processes (film & print).
What solution would you propose to fix a film induced color
characteristic or color cast? That is the starting point for the print
job after all. Even the printers of today do not go about things the
same way they did 50 years ago. print advertising in NatGeo, Life, etc
in the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, etc are very different in color fidelity
to that found in print today.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/CC-60s.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/06/01/article-2153272-13671849000005DC-938_634x829.jpg

The

color a photographer achieved for a particular job in 1964 might not
have been, and probably wasn't a true representation of the color of
the subject object. That has changed in the digital
camera-to-computer-to-print job world of today.

I don't think you have worked with commercial high quality color
printing. The problems of getting colors right in 8 or 10 color
printing presses such as are seen in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKKbppE2W20 are not significantly
helped by having a digital front end to the process. I suspect that is
the sort of thing Neil has been working with.

Yes. However, this is not about film vs. digital. My comments *presume*
a "color manged workflow"... not just the jargon, but all that it
implies... and it doesn't require an 8 or 10 color printing process to
reveal color fidelity issues that can be a challenge. Go shoot a book of
Pantone color swatches in various lighting conditions and see how many
of those colors completely fail to be accurately represented.

The problem when going to print is that RGB gamut contains colors that
are not reproducible in CMYK, and so on. That is one reason why presses
beyond those four colors are useful. Sometimes, an analog process can
get closer to reproducing a particular color accurately, and anyone who
can do the math knows why. But, that doesn't create a film vs. digital
issue beyond saying that both have limitations.

--
Best regards,

Neil

On Mon, 07 Mar 2016 21:14:54 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 20:42:27 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-03-07 04:06:15 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 14:34:59 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2016-03-06 20:55:56 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 11:13:44 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2016-03-06 18:40:11 +0000, nospam said:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Some time ago you claimed to have read "Color Management" by Fraser,
Murphy and Bunting. If that is correct you should now know that color
management for printing can be anything but straightforward. A simple
color managed work flow is far from sufficient.

colour management may be complicated, but the workflow is not.

A non sequitur.

not at all. you brought up the book.

A color managed workflow can be uncomplicated. However, having things a
little off when shooting reference shots for calibration purposes can
be disasterous. So sometimes it is worth knowing how to do things
correctly to make that workflow uncomplicated.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_04.jpg

That's fine at the camera end of the process but I suspect Neil has
the printing end of the process in mind. e.g.
http://tinyurl.com/z6aslus

I am sure that he has a real concern with color fidelity and
consistency of intent when it comes to the print process. However, the
files he submits for those print jobs have to start with the image
capture. That is where the color managed (or mangled) workflow starts.
This is much easier to get right at the start in digital image capture
than with film. As you know each film type has it own particular color
and tone character, and analog shooters have struggled to fix that over
the years with filters and developing processes (film & print).
What solution would you propose to fix a film induced color
characteristic or color cast? That is the starting point for the print
job after all. Even the printers of today do not go about things the
same way they did 50 years ago. print advertising in NatGeo, Life, etc
in the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, etc are very different in color fidelity
to that found in print today.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/CC-60s.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/06/01/article-2153272-13671849000005DC-938_634x829.jpg

The

color a photographer achieved for a particular job in 1964 might not
have been, and probably wasn't a true representation of the color of
the subject object. That has changed in the digital
camera-to-computer-to-print job world of today.

I don't think you have worked with commercial high quality color
printing. The problems of getting colors right in 8 or 10 color
printing presses such as are seen in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKKbppE2W20 are not significantly
helped by having a digital front end to the process. I suspect that is
the sort of thing Neil has been working with.

I have no experience with commercial high quality color printing at
all, unlike our resident omni-expert. That does not make my assertion
that said commercial high quality color printing might have moved with
the times over the last 50 years less valid.

Also your assertion that "8 or 10 color printing presses are not
significantly helped by having a digital front end to the process" is a
tad baffling given the existence of products such as these:
http://www8.hp.com/us/en/commercial-printers/indigo-presses/10000.html
Take a look at the promo video on that site.
..and the SM 102-8 P5 S in your video is a 2001 vintage press. I
believe that makes that technology at least 15 years old.

True, but offset printing is still the King when it comes to large
prints and large print volumes. Heidelberg has made digital printers
for the best part of 20 years but their major demand and heavy-weight
performers are *still* offset machines. See
https://www.heidelberg.com/us/en/pro...t_overview.jsp
or http://tinyurl.com/znzsm7p

For examples of their digital machines see
https://www.heidelberg.com/us/en/pro...g_overview.jsp
or http://tinyurl.com/jqcu8yd

Nevertheless the point remains the problems of color management at the
printing end of the process continue to be very difficult. See
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped.../6b/Offset.png which
is a simplified diagram of the ink-feed path on but a single stage of
an offset print process. See http://tinyurl.com/zlfoa2j for a diagram
of what it is more likely to be in practice. I can assure you that
color management of this type of machine is not at all similar to the
color management of an Epson printer.

That last TinyURL obviously wasn't a diagram of what it was more
likely to be in practice. Nevertheless it gives a very good idea of
the complexity of system of rollers involved in the supply of ink of
just one colour to just the one print station.

There is no single adjustment by means of which one vary the amount of
ink. Control of color is achieved by the color separations used to
make up the plates which carry the image. Trying to achieve control of
a 4 color CMYK is bad enough. A 10 color machine is much worse. When
you get it right, you don't touch it. Any adjustments have to be made
via the separations.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 3/6/2016 11:19 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 18:13:02 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Thanks. It's unfortunate that some people just have the need to be
oppositional even when their comments are proven to be incorrect.

what's unfortunate is that there are those who do nothing but hurl
insults, notably peter but apparently you too.

Stating the truth about your on-line persona hurts.

But then you never hurl insults. We all know you conduct yourself with
class and dignity, at all times.

i never insult first. i only do so in *response* to insults made by
others, most of whom do nothing *but* hurl insults, namely you.

You may not realise it but your trademark one-line denials can often
be contemptuously insulting.


nospam realizes exactly what it is doing.


--
PeterN