«

Do publishers use highly advance monitors or
super-knowledgeable graphics professionals who know how things will
turn out even if they can't preview them?

"Scotius" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Do publishers use highly advance monitors or
> super-knowledgeable graphics professionals who know how things will
> turn out even if they can't preview them?

"What is the point of having 16 bit colour if a computer monitor can only
display 8 bit colour? How do you edit 16 bit colour when you can only see
8 bit?"

Precision - so that when you adjust the levels in the image, you still
have more than enough bits.

David

On 12/07/2010 07:45, Scotius wrote:
> Do publishers use highly advance monitors or
> super-knowledgeable graphics professionals who know how things will
> turn out even if they can't preview them?

One of the reasons lies in the lack of computational accuracy during
editing, that rears its ugly head as a the "combed histogram":

http://www.photoreview.com.au/tips/e...istograms.aspx

--
Bertrand

In article <i1een7$qsh$>,
"David J Taylor" <david-> wrote:

> "Scotius" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> > Do publishers use highly advance monitors or
> > super-knowledgeable graphics professionals who know how things will
> > turn out even if they can't preview them?
>
> "What is the point of having 16 bit colour if a computer monitor can only
> display 8 bit colour? How do you edit 16 bit colour when you can only see
> 8 bit?"
>
> Precision - so that when you adjust the levels in the image, you still
> have more than enough bits.
>
> David

In the print advertising industry we used to make comprehensive layouts
("comps") for proofing, client presentations, editing, etc. This was
done with various printing technologies (color laser, solid-ink, Iris
prints, large scale photographic proofs) which could emulate the 4-color
offset printing process that would produce the final product. At the
very least they all depended on the CMYK gamut as they all were seen in
reflected light. None of these could accurately match Pantone colors.

On-screen proofs were considered inferior and unreliable -- CRT monitors
deeded daily attention to be "accurate" etc.

Now, for the most part, the newer generation of art directors do
everything on screen, and make client presentations in PowerPoint. There
are often big surprises when the printed pieces come off press, as no
monitor can fully emulate CMYK. And the younger art directors don't know
what Pantone means.

There are always trade-offs.

On Jul 12, 12:09*pm, krishnananda <kris...@divine-life.in.invalid>
wrote:
> In article <i1een7$qs...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> *"David J Taylor" <david-tay...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
> > "Scotius" <yodas...@mnsi.net> wrote in message
> >news:.. .
> > > Do publishers use highly advance monitors or
> > > super-knowledgeable graphics professionals who know how things will
> > > turn out even if they can't preview them?
>
> > "What is the point of having 16 bit colour if a computer monitor can only
> > display 8 bit colour? How do you edit 16 bit colour when you can only see
> > 8 bit?"
>
> > Precision - so that when you adjust the levels in the image, you still
> > have more than enough bits.
>
> > David
>
> In the print advertising industry we used to make comprehensive layouts
> ("comps") for proofing, client presentations, editing, etc. This was
> done with various printing technologies (color laser, solid-ink, Iris
> prints, large scale photographic proofs) which could emulate the 4-color
> offset printing process that would produce the final product. At the
> very least they all depended on the CMYK gamut as they all were seen in
> reflected light. None of these could accurately match Pantone colors.
>
> On-screen proofs were considered inferior and unreliable -- CRT monitors
> deeded daily attention to be "accurate" etc.
>
> Now, for the most part, the newer generation of art directors do
> everything on screen, and make client presentations in PowerPoint. There
> are often big surprises when the printed pieces come off press, as no
> monitor can fully emulate CMYK. And the younger art directors don't know
> what Pantone means.
>
> There are always trade-offs.

Thank those who decided to use RGB for monitors and CMYK for printing.

In article
<6b4a8c66-5c71-41e7-b62c->,
Rich <> wrote:

> > There are always trade-offs.
>
> Thank those who decided to use RGB for monitors and CMYK for printing.

go learn about additive and subtractive colour.

In article
<6b4a8c66-5c71-41e7-b62c->,
Rich <> wrote:

> On Jul 12, 12:09*pm, krishnananda <kris...@divine-life.in.invalid>
> wrote:
> > In article <i1een7$qs...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > *"David J Taylor" <david-tay...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > "Scotius" <yodas...@mnsi.net> wrote in message
> > >news:.. .
> > > > Do publishers use highly advance monitors or
> > > > super-knowledgeable graphics professionals who know how things will
> > > > turn out even if they can't preview them?
> >
> > > "What is the point of having 16 bit colour if a computer monitor can only
> > > display 8 bit colour? How do you edit 16 bit colour when you can only see
> > > 8 bit?"
> >
> > > Precision - so that when you adjust the levels in the image, you still
> > > have more than enough bits.
> >
> > > David
> >
> > In the print advertising industry we used to make comprehensive layouts
> > ("comps") for proofing, client presentations, editing, etc. This was
> > done with various printing technologies (color laser, solid-ink, Iris
> > prints, large scale photographic proofs) which could emulate the 4-color
> > offset printing process that would produce the final product. At the
> > very least they all depended on the CMYK gamut as they all were seen in
> > reflected light. None of these could accurately match Pantone colors.
> >
> > On-screen proofs were considered inferior and unreliable -- CRT monitors
> > deeded daily attention to be "accurate" etc.
> >
> > Now, for the most part, the newer generation of art directors do
> > everything on screen, and make client presentations in PowerPoint. There
> > are often big surprises when the printed pieces come off press, as no
> > monitor can fully emulate CMYK. And the younger art directors don't know
> > what Pantone means.
> >
> > There are always trade-offs.
>
> Thank those who decided to use RGB for monitors and CMYK for printing.

And by that you do mean the laws of physics?

Transmitted light (additive) primaries are Red Green and Blue.
"Media that combine emitted lights to create the sensation of a range of
colors are using the additive color system. Typically, the primary
colors used are red, green, and blue."
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Additive_color>

Reflected light (subtractive) primaries are Cyan Magenta and Yellow.
"Media that use reflected light and colorants to produce colors are
using the subtractive color method of color mixing."
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subtractive_color>

No matter what color space you are working in, if you are using a
monitor that transmits light (that would be all of them), a slide
projector, a television, etc. what you are actually _looking at_ is
additive color.

If you are looking at a color print etc. you are looking at subtractive
color.

If you combine red, green, and blue light in equal parts you get pure
white (colorless) light.

If you combine red, green, and blue _paint_ you get a horrible dark mud
which would be black if the pigments were pure.

Likewise if you have no red, green, or blue light you have darkness. If
you have no paint on a white substrate you have the color of the
substrate.

No one "decided" to enact these laws of physics. Newton may have
_discovered_ the physics behind color (Isaac Newton, "Optics, or, a
Treatise of the Reflections, Refractions, IrMlections and Colours of
Light", 4th ed. (London, 1730)) but, like gravity, he didn't "invent" it.