Thoughts on SOOC

On 3/4/2016 11:10 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Neil
wrote:


In any case, if you are worried about color accuracy through the
process, even if you get the color right at the stage of the
photographic output, you then have to leave someone else to worry
about all the things the printing process can do to the colors you
have so strenuously struggled to maintain. Almost certainly the
printing process will have a different gamut from the photographic
process and there is little the photographer can do about that.

Actually, those of us who must maintain color accuracy throughout in
order to guarantee it in print have to understand lithography. One of
the challenges is the gamut transition from RGB to CMYK, which is one
reason that using auto WB can screw up royally. I have always delivered
my final pix to printers in CMYK, with a full understanding of their
process, in order to guarantee color accuracy in print.

that explains why you're having so many problems.

it sounds like you do not have a colour managed workflow. that needs to
change if you want it to work at all.

I *don't* have problems because I began working in pre-press in the
1960s, and have been using color-managed workflows since that time. By
the 1980s, it has been an entirely digital workflow, and I have all of
the requisite hardware and software to support it. I was also a
beta-tester on some of the industry standard applications, and have
written code to enhance the capabilities and accuracy of my systems. The
problem is that some of the folks around here are completely
inexperienced in these areas, and therefore don't understand the
underlying issues. So, rather than trying to "solve a problem" that
doesn't exist for me and toss out jargon, perhaps you would do well to
acquire a deeper understanding of these issues.

--
Best regards,

Neil

In article , Neil
wrote:

In any case, if you are worried about color accuracy through the
process, even if you get the color right at the stage of the
photographic output, you then have to leave someone else to worry
about all the things the printing process can do to the colors you
have so strenuously struggled to maintain. Almost certainly the
printing process will have a different gamut from the photographic
process and there is little the photographer can do about that.

Actually, those of us who must maintain color accuracy throughout in
order to guarantee it in print have to understand lithography. One of
the challenges is the gamut transition from RGB to CMYK, which is one
reason that using auto WB can screw up royally. I have always delivered
my final pix to printers in CMYK, with a full understanding of their
process, in order to guarantee color accuracy in print.

that explains why you're having so many problems.

it sounds like you do not have a colour managed workflow. that needs to
change if you want it to work at all.

I *don't* have problems because I began working in pre-press in the
1960s, and have been using color-managed workflows since that time. By
the 1980s, it has been an entirely digital workflow, and I have all of
the requisite hardware and software to support it.

you *do* have problems, which you mentioned earlier in the thread.

a *lot has changed since the 1980s and certainly the 1960s.

I was also a
beta-tester on some of the industry standard applications, and have
written code to enhance the capabilities and accuracy of my systems. The
problem is that some of the folks around here are completely
inexperienced in these areas, and therefore don't understand the
underlying issues. So, rather than trying to "solve a problem" that
doesn't exist for me and toss out jargon, perhaps you would do well to
acquire a deeper understanding of these issues.

i have a *very* good understanding of colour management. you clearly do
not. worse, you're not interested in learning nor have you given any
indication that you're even *using* colour management at all.

your solution is the wrong solution. it's a lot more work and won't
produce optimal results.

On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 04:05:59 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 3 March 2016 02:49:40 UTC, Mort wrote:
Savageduck wrote:
Technical perfection does not necessarily make a great or memorable image.


This is quite similar to classical music, where sometimes technical
perfection is lifeless and boring if not combined with feeling and
appropriate interpretation.

To paraphrase the great pianist Arthur Rubinstein, about a certain piano
recital:

I heard the notes,and I felt nothing.

This came up in Star Trek when data (andriod) plays a musical instrument.

Machines have been playing musical instruments for centuries.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7500599.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7500604.jpg
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 3/4/2016 2:06 PM, Neil wrote:
On 3/4/2016 11:10 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Neil
wrote:


In any case, if you are worried about color accuracy through the
process, even if you get the color right at the stage of the
photographic output, you then have to leave someone else to worry
about all the things the printing process can do to the colors you
have so strenuously struggled to maintain. Almost certainly the
printing process will have a different gamut from the photographic
process and there is little the photographer can do about that.

Actually, those of us who must maintain color accuracy throughout in
order to guarantee it in print have to understand lithography. One of
the challenges is the gamut transition from RGB to CMYK, which is one
reason that using auto WB can screw up royally. I have always delivered
my final pix to printers in CMYK, with a full understanding of their
process, in order to guarantee color accuracy in print.

that explains why you're having so many problems.

it sounds like you do not have a colour managed workflow. that needs to
change if you want it to work at all.

I *don't* have problems because I began working in pre-press in the
1960s, and have been using color-managed workflows since that time. By
the 1980s, it has been an entirely digital workflow, and I have all of
the requisite hardware and software to support it. I was also a
beta-tester on some of the industry standard applications, and have
written code to enhance the capabilities and accuracy of my systems. The
problem is that some of the folks around here are completely
inexperienced in these areas, and therefore don't understand the
underlying issues. So, rather than trying to "solve a problem" that
doesn't exist for me and toss out jargon, perhaps you would do well to
acquire a deeper understanding of these issues.


Neil,
You are wasting your time trying to discuss anything with nospam. He has
more knowledge about everything ever posted here than everybody else,
cumulatively. If Albert Einstein was posting to this group, nospam would
argue that the math supporting relativity is not valid. But, he would
not explicitly explain why. nospam is one of those individuals that are
called Usenet trolls.
BTW I have had lithographers, custom film developers and professional
photographers as friends and clients. Over the years I have learned from
them that what you have said is 100% correct.


--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

BTW I have had lithographers, custom film developers and professional
photographers as friends and clients. Over the years I have learned from
them that what you have said is 100% correct.

what works for film does not necessarily work for digital. very simple
concept.

if he's not using a colour managed workflow, and he's given no
indication that he is, then he's making his life very difficult. that's
not to say it can't be done, but it's going to be a helluva lot more
work for a less accurate result.

On 3/4/2016 8:05 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 3/4/2016 2:06 PM, Neil wrote:
On 3/4/2016 11:10 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Neil
wrote:


In any case, if you are worried about color accuracy through the
process, even if you get the color right at the stage of the
photographic output, you then have to leave someone else to worry
about all the things the printing process can do to the colors you
have so strenuously struggled to maintain. Almost certainly the
printing process will have a different gamut from the photographic
process and there is little the photographer can do about that.

Actually, those of us who must maintain color accuracy throughout in
order to guarantee it in print have to understand lithography. One of
the challenges is the gamut transition from RGB to CMYK, which is one
reason that using auto WB can screw up royally. I have always delivered
my final pix to printers in CMYK, with a full understanding of their
process, in order to guarantee color accuracy in print.

that explains why you're having so many problems.

it sounds like you do not have a colour managed workflow. that needs to
change if you want it to work at all.

I *don't* have problems because I began working in pre-press in the
1960s, and have been using color-managed workflows since that time. By
the 1980s, it has been an entirely digital workflow, and I have all of
the requisite hardware and software to support it. I was also a
beta-tester on some of the industry standard applications, and have
written code to enhance the capabilities and accuracy of my systems. The
problem is that some of the folks around here are completely
inexperienced in these areas, and therefore don't understand the
underlying issues. So, rather than trying to "solve a problem" that
doesn't exist for me and toss out jargon, perhaps you would do well to
acquire a deeper understanding of these issues.


Neil,
You are wasting your time trying to discuss anything with nospam. He has
more knowledge about everything ever posted here than everybody else,
cumulatively. If Albert Einstein was posting to this group, nospam would
argue that the math supporting relativity is not valid. But, he would
not explicitly explain why. nospam is one of those individuals that are
called Usenet trolls.
BTW I have had lithographers, custom film developers and professional
photographers as friends and clients. Over the years I have learned from
them that what you have said is 100% correct.

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

--
Best regards,

Neil

In article , Neil
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.

not only has no proof been given, but it's now very clear that your
workflow is not colour managed and that you have *no* interest in
learning anything.

On 3/4/2016 9:21 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Neil
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.

Sorry to call you a jackass. My humble apologies to all the jackasses
that walk on four legs.


not only has no proof been given, but it's now very clear that your
workflow is not colour managed and that you have *no* interest in
learning anything.


What is clear is that whatever he is doing is working.

--
PeterN

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.

Sorry to call you a jackass. My humble apologies to all the jackasses
that walk on four legs.

stop lying. you're not sorry. you're also a troll.

not only has no proof been given, but it's now very clear that your
workflow is not colour managed and that you have *no* interest in
learning anything.


What is clear is that whatever he is doing is working.

wrong on that too. he wrote:
...and I find this to be far
more challenging with digital than it was with film.

if he adopted a colour managed workflow, it would be both easier and
more accurate.

In article , Neil
wrote:

Perhaps the divergence in our viewpoints is attributable to the level of
accuracy we're referring to. My work involves accurate color matching of
products in different lighting conditions, and I find this to be far
more challenging with digital than it was with film.

Of course, one should learn as much as possible about their tools before
going to work! The question is about how much is knowable. Using a few
examples, I've tried to explain (apparently not convincingly enough)
that complete control of all imaging parameters is not possible with
digital cameras. So, IMO, many acceptable shots fall under the
"magnificent accidents".

On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 21:21:32 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Neil
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.

not only has no proof been given, but it's now very clear that your
workflow is not colour managed and that you have *no* interest in
learning anything.

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.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens