Adobe and America go from an ownership to a rental economy

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, May 8, 2013.

  1. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sat, 18 May 2013 19:07:27 -0400, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <201305181538569530-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
    ><savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >> >>> which brings up another point, advancements in raw processing can make
    >> >>> old images look better too. use lightroom's latest noise reduction, for
    >> >>> instance, and those noisy photos taken 10 years ago look better than
    >> >>> they used to.
    >> >>>
    >> >>> with film, what you have is what you have. it can't ever get better.
    >> >>
    >> >> That will come as a surprise to those of us who have scanned old
    >> >> family prints and processed them in Photoshop and/or used a program
    >> >> like Noiseware or Nik's Dlight.
    >> >
    >> > you can't add what was never there.

    >>
    >> ...but you can fix damage.
    >> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_224.jpg >

    >
    >you can but it's not exactly what was originally there, however, it's
    >probably close enough not to matter.
    >
    >don't forget, retouching that took time, and in some cases, it can be a
    >*lot* of time.
    >
    >for digital, you get new algorithms in raw processing without any extra
    >work. just click the checkbox to use the new algorithm versus the old
    >and you get the benefits. no additional effort, other than a one time
    >checkbox.


    How does that apply to restoring old family photographs such as the
    one the Duck provided?


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, May 19, 2013
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sat, 18 May 2013 22:30:28 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2013-05-18 21:58:15 -0700, Tony Cooper <> said:
    >
    >> On Sat, 18 May 2013 15:38:56 -0700, Savageduck
    >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2013-05-18 15:11:18 -0700, nospam <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> In article <>, Tony Cooper
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> which brings up another point, advancements in raw processing can make
    >>>>>> old images look better too. use lightroom's latest noise reduction, for
    >>>>>> instance, and those noisy photos taken 10 years ago look better than
    >>>>>> they used to.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> with film, what you have is what you have. it can't ever get better.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That will come as a surprise to those of us who have scanned old
    >>>>> family prints and processed them in Photoshop and/or used a program
    >>>>> like Noiseware or Nik's Dlight.
    >>>>
    >>>> you can't add what was never there.
    >>>
    >>> ...but you can fix damage.
    >>> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_224.jpg >

    >>
    >> Evidently, nospam is not proficient in Photoshop if he thinks you
    >> can't improve, or even add what wasn't there, in Photoshop.
    >>
    >> I could replace those gloves in her hand with an iPad, and I imagine
    >> you could too.

    >
    >Oh! You mean something like this?
    ><
    >https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Evans-05AACV1920E1.jpg
    >>

    And nospam said a project like this takes a lot of time.

    Unfortunately, you have used a photograph of Melinda Gates'
    grandmother. The resulting turning over in her grave because she's
    seen here endorsing an Apple product will cause shockwaves all down
    the west coast. I suggest you spend the night in a doorway.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, May 19, 2013
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Tony Cooper
    <> wrote:

    > >>>> which brings up another point, advancements in raw processing can make
    > >>>> old images look better too. use lightroom's latest noise reduction, for
    > >>>> instance, and those noisy photos taken 10 years ago look better than
    > >>>> they used to.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> with film, what you have is what you have. it can't ever get better.
    > >>>
    > >>> That will come as a surprise to those of us who have scanned old
    > >>> family prints and processed them in Photoshop and/or used a program
    > >>> like Noiseware or Nik's Dlight.
    > >>
    > >> you can't add what was never there.

    > >
    > >...but you can fix damage.
    > >< https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_224.jpg >

    >
    > Evidently, nospam is not proficient in Photoshop if he thinks you
    > can't improve, or even add what wasn't there, in Photoshop.


    let's see you start with a blank document and create a photo.

    after all, you can add what wasn't there.

    and this isn't about compositing anyway. the original example above
    removed a tear, adding what looks like should have been where the tear
    was. you can only add what you *think* was there, not what really was
    there.

    but why am i not surprised you keep changing things.

    > I could replace those gloves in her hand with an iPad, and I imagine
    > you could too.


    which is done digitally, with photoshop.

    let's see you do it with film. good luck.
     
    nospam, May 19, 2013
  4. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Tony Cooper
    <> wrote:

    > >> >>> which brings up another point, advancements in raw processing can make
    > >> >>> old images look better too. use lightroom's latest noise reduction, for
    > >> >>> instance, and those noisy photos taken 10 years ago look better than
    > >> >>> they used to.
    > >> >>>
    > >> >>> with film, what you have is what you have. it can't ever get better.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> That will come as a surprise to those of us who have scanned old
    > >> >> family prints and processed them in Photoshop and/or used a program
    > >> >> like Noiseware or Nik's Dlight.
    > >> >
    > >> > you can't add what was never there.
    > >>
    > >> ...but you can fix damage.
    > >> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_224.jpg >

    > >
    > >you can but it's not exactly what was originally there, however, it's
    > >probably close enough not to matter.
    > >
    > >don't forget, retouching that took time, and in some cases, it can be a
    > >*lot* of time.
    > >
    > >for digital, you get new algorithms in raw processing without any extra
    > >work. just click the checkbox to use the new algorithm versus the old
    > >and you get the benefits. no additional effort, other than a one time
    > >checkbox.

    >
    > How does that apply to restoring old family photographs such as the
    > one the Duck provided?


    it takes time, versus a click to gain the benefits. that should be
    obvious.
     
    nospam, May 19, 2013
  5. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sun, 19 May 2013 07:16:24 -0400, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, Tony Cooper
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> >> >>> which brings up another point, advancements in raw processing can make
    >> >> >>> old images look better too. use lightroom's latest noise reduction, for
    >> >> >>> instance, and those noisy photos taken 10 years ago look better than
    >> >> >>> they used to.
    >> >> >>>
    >> >> >>> with film, what you have is what you have. it can't ever get better.
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> That will come as a surprise to those of us who have scanned old
    >> >> >> family prints and processed them in Photoshop and/or used a program
    >> >> >> like Noiseware or Nik's Dlight.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > you can't add what was never there.
    >> >>
    >> >> ...but you can fix damage.
    >> >> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_224.jpg >
    >> >
    >> >you can but it's not exactly what was originally there, however, it's
    >> >probably close enough not to matter.
    >> >
    >> >don't forget, retouching that took time, and in some cases, it can be a
    >> >*lot* of time.
    >> >
    >> >for digital, you get new algorithms in raw processing without any extra
    >> >work. just click the checkbox to use the new algorithm versus the old
    >> >and you get the benefits. no additional effort, other than a one time
    >> >checkbox.

    >>
    >> How does that apply to restoring old family photographs such as the
    >> one the Duck provided?

    >
    >it takes time, versus a click to gain the benefits. that should be
    >obvious.


    The old family photograph is a scan of a print from film. It can be
    opened as a RAW file, but that is not the same as a RAW file created
    in-camera. No "one click" repairs or restores.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, May 19, 2013
  6. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/18/2013 10:35 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <51981a67$0$10837$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>>>>>> however, a print might, depending on the printer and ink, in which case
    >>>>>>> you print another identical copy. can't do that with film.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> You can't? I have a drawer full of negatives from my film days. I
    >>>>>> can't make a print from one of those negatives? The image on the
    >>>>>> negative has faded?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> yes, it has faded. you could make a print but it won't be as good as
    >>>>> the original you had back in your film days.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> also, depending on the film, it might have faded a lot. look at colour
    >>>>> prints from the 70s. blech.
    >>>>
    >>>> But isn't that "twisting" and changing the subject? The issue isn't
    >>>> prints. Prints from digital may fade in time.
    >>>
    >>> they might, but the original data is the same, so another print will be
    >>> identical to the previous one and quite possibly it could better due to
    >>> advancements in printer and inks.

    >>
    >> Possibly, if the ICC profile of the printer and paper have not changed.

    >
    > doesn't matter if it has or not. go learn about colour management
    > before you say more stupid things.
    >


    Oh! So you know how do imbed, or mimic an ICC profile, without processing?
    Please tell us, or point to a website that will give us instructions.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 19, 2013
  7. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/18/2013 10:35 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <51981778$0$10766$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>>>>> I'm not sure what you mean by "does not fade".
    >>>>>
    >>>>> what's to not understand? digital doesn't fade. film does. film is also
    >>>>> at risk for fire, mold, etc.
    >>>>
    >>>> See
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> <http://fht.byu.edu/prev_workshops/workshop07/papers/3/Digital-Preservation.
    >>>> pdf>
    >>>>
    >>>> Digital doesn't degrade.
    >>>
    >>> exactly the point.
    >>>
    >>>> the media does.
    >>>
    >>> who cares. it's not an issue.
    >>>
    >>> since you can make unlimited identical copies of anything digital, you
    >>> simply migrate to new media every couple of years, something which
    >>> likely happens without even thinking about it when you upgrade
    >>> hardware.
    >>>
    >>> and since there are multiple backups, if one fails, you have redundant
    >>> copies.
    >>>
    >>> with film, fire, flood, mold, improper storage conditions, etc., can
    >>> (and has) caused total loss.

    >>
    >> Congratulations. I hereby nominate that comment, for the MACY award.
    >> (Most Asinine Comment of the Year.)

    >
    > more of your usual insults and nothing whatsoever to refute anything i
    > said.
    >
    > my point stands.
    >


    You are really trying for the MACY award.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 19, 2013
  8. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/19/2013 9:56 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
    > On 2013.05.18 20:06 , PeterN wrote:
    >> On 5/18/2013 12:03 PM, nospam wrote:
    >>> In article <5197a24d$0$10782$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>>> I'm not sure what you mean by "does not fade".
    >>>>>
    >>>>> what's to not understand? digital doesn't fade. film does. film is
    >>>>> also
    >>>>> at risk for fire, mold, etc.
    >>>>
    >>>> See
    >>>>
    >>>> <http://fht.byu.edu/prev_workshops/workshop07/papers/3/Digital-Preservation.pd
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> f>
    >>>>
    >>>> Digital doesn't degrade.
    >>>
    >>> exactly the point.
    >>>
    >>>> the media does.
    >>>
    >>> who cares. it's not an issue.
    >>>
    >>> since you can make unlimited identical copies of anything digital, you
    >>> simply migrate to new media every couple of years, something which
    >>> likely happens without even thinking about it when you upgrade
    >>> hardware.
    >>>
    >>> and since there are multiple backups, if one fails, you have redundant
    >>> copies.
    >>>
    >>> with film, fire, flood, mold, improper storage conditions, etc., can
    >>> (and has) caused total loss.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Congratulations. I hereby nominate that comment, for the MACY award.
    >> (Most Asinine Comment of the Year.)

    >
    > In context, nothing asinine about it.
    >


    If he said you can avoid the issue by making regular backups of the
    backups, and on some rational schedule change the media, you would be
    correct. Unfortunately he made a bald faced half statement.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 19, 2013
  9. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <51991e54$0$10811$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > >>>>>> I'm not sure what you mean by "does not fade".
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> what's to not understand? digital doesn't fade. film does. film is also
    > >>>>> at risk for fire, mold, etc.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> See
    > >>>>
    > >>>> <http://fht.byu.edu/prev_workshops/workshop07/papers/3/Digital-Preservati
    > >>>> on.
    > >>>> pdf>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Digital doesn't degrade.
    > >>>
    > >>> exactly the point.
    > >>>
    > >>>> the media does.
    > >>>
    > >>> who cares. it's not an issue.
    > >>>
    > >>> since you can make unlimited identical copies of anything digital, you
    > >>> simply migrate to new media every couple of years, something which
    > >>> likely happens without even thinking about it when you upgrade
    > >>> hardware.
    > >>>
    > >>> and since there are multiple backups, if one fails, you have redundant
    > >>> copies.
    > >>>
    > >>> with film, fire, flood, mold, improper storage conditions, etc., can
    > >>> (and has) caused total loss.
    > >>
    > >> Congratulations. I hereby nominate that comment, for the MACY award.
    > >> (Most Asinine Comment of the Year.)

    > >
    > > more of your usual insults and nothing whatsoever to refute anything i
    > > said.
    > >
    > > my point stands.

    >
    > You are really trying for the MACY award.


    you own that award. nobody could take it from you.

    if you think there's something incorrect with what i said, feel free to
    point it out and explain why.

    since you keep resorting to insults, i can only assume you have nothing
    to refute anything i said.

    once again, my point stands.
     
    nospam, May 19, 2013
  10. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <51992059$0$10771$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > >>>> Digital doesn't degrade.
    > >>>
    > >>> exactly the point.
    > >>>
    > >>>> the media does.
    > >>>
    > >>> who cares. it's not an issue.
    > >>>
    > >>> since you can make unlimited identical copies of anything digital, you
    > >>> simply migrate to new media every couple of years, something which
    > >>> likely happens without even thinking about it when you upgrade
    > >>> hardware.
    > >>>
    > >>> and since there are multiple backups, if one fails, you have redundant
    > >>> copies.
    > >>>
    > >>> with film, fire, flood, mold, improper storage conditions, etc., can
    > >>> (and has) caused total loss.
    > >>
    > >> Congratulations. I hereby nominate that comment, for the MACY award.
    > >> (Most Asinine Comment of the Year.)

    > >
    > > In context, nothing asinine about it.

    >
    > If he said you can avoid the issue by making regular backups of the
    > backups, and on some rational schedule change the media, you would be
    > correct.


    i did say that,

    > Unfortunately he made a bald faced half statement.


    no.

    that makes you the asinine one.
     
    nospam, May 19, 2013
  11. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <51991ddf$0$10811$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > >>>> Prints from digital may fade in time.
    > >>>
    > >>> they might, but the original data is the same, so another print will be
    > >>> identical to the previous one and quite possibly it could better due to
    > >>> advancements in printer and inks.
    > >>
    > >> Possibly, if the ICC profile of the printer and paper have not changed.

    > >
    > > doesn't matter if it has or not. go learn about colour management
    > > before you say more stupid things.

    >
    > Oh! So you know how do imbed, or mimic an ICC profile, without processing?


    i didn't say anything remotely close to that.

    > Please tell us, or point to a website that will give us instructions.


    try this, but i'm sure it's *well* over your head. maybe you can find
    someone to explain it to you.

    <http://colorremedies.com/realworldcolor/>
     
    nospam, May 19, 2013
  12. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/19/2013 3:31 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <51991ddf$0$10811$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>>>>> Prints from digital may fade in time.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> they might, but the original data is the same, so another print will be
    >>>>> identical to the previous one and quite possibly it could better due to
    >>>>> advancements in printer and inks.
    >>>>
    >>>> Possibly, if the ICC profile of the printer and paper have not changed.
    >>>
    >>> doesn't matter if it has or not. go learn about colour management
    >>> before you say more stupid things.

    >>
    >> Oh! So you know how do imbed, or mimic an ICC profile, without processing?

    >
    > i didn't say anything remotely close to that.


    Then explain what you mean.


    >
    >> Please tell us, or point to a website that will give us instructions.

    >
    > try this, but i'm sure it's *well* over your head. maybe you can find
    > someone to explain it to you.
    >
    > <http://colorremedies.com/realworldcolor/>
    >


    Bruce Fraser was certainly an authority on color management. What does
    that have to do with your point.
    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 19, 2013
  13. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <51993e23$0$10844$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > >>>>>> Prints from digital may fade in time.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> they might, but the original data is the same, so another print will be
    > >>>>> identical to the previous one and quite possibly it could better due to
    > >>>>> advancements in printer and inks.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Possibly, if the ICC profile of the printer and paper have not changed.
    > >>>
    > >>> doesn't matter if it has or not. go learn about colour management
    > >>> before you say more stupid things.
    > >>
    > >> Oh! So you know how do imbed, or mimic an ICC profile, without processing?

    > >
    > > i didn't say anything remotely close to that.

    >
    > Then explain what you mean.


    use the proper profile for the printer/ink/paper combination. very
    simple.

    that should be obvious to anyone who understands even the basics of
    colour management.

    > >> Please tell us, or point to a website that will give us instructions.

    > >
    > > try this, but i'm sure it's *well* over your head. maybe you can find
    > > someone to explain it to you.
    > >
    > > <http://colorremedies.com/realworldcolor/>

    >
    > Bruce Fraser was certainly an authority on color management.


    yes he was. i had the pleasure of meeting him at a workshop about a
    decade ago.

    > What does
    > that have to do with your point.


    read his book and learn.
     
    nospam, May 20, 2013
  14. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/19/2013 9:29 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <51993e23$0$10844$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>>>>>>> Prints from digital may fade in time.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> they might, but the original data is the same, so another print will be
    >>>>>>> identical to the previous one and quite possibly it could better due to
    >>>>>>> advancements in printer and inks.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Possibly, if the ICC profile of the printer and paper have not changed.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> doesn't matter if it has or not. go learn about colour management
    >>>>> before you say more stupid things.
    >>>>
    >>>> Oh! So you know how do imbed, or mimic an ICC profile, without processing?
    >>>
    >>> i didn't say anything remotely close to that.

    >>
    >> Then explain what you mean.

    >
    > use the proper profile for the printer/ink/paper combination. very
    > simple.
    >
    > that should be obvious to anyone who understands even the basics of
    > colour management.
    >
    >>>> Please tell us, or point to a website that will give us instructions.
    >>>
    >>> try this, but i'm sure it's *well* over your head. maybe you can find
    >>> someone to explain it to you.
    >>>
    >>> <http://colorremedies.com/realworldcolor/>

    >>
    >> Bruce Fraser was certainly an authority on color management.

    >
    > yes he was. i had the pleasure of meeting him at a workshop about a
    > decade ago.
    >
    >> What does
    >> that have to do with your point.

    >
    > read his book and learn.
    >


    Then I don't understand your point. You essentially said that a digital
    image can be reproduced that cold even be better than the original
    print, even if you use a different printer.
    I said that was true if you matched the ICC profile, and in order
    convert to, or assign a new profile, one needed to open the image. You
    then went off in a tangent saying I didn't know anything about color
    management. I still do not know how to assign, or convert to an ICC
    profile, without opening the image. If there is a way I woud like to
    know how.
    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 20, 2013
  15. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <519aa4a1$0$10847$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > >>>>>>>> Prints from digital may fade in time.
    > >>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>> they might, but the original data is the same, so another print will
    > >>>>>>> be
    > >>>>>>> identical to the previous one and quite possibly it could better due
    > >>>>>>> to
    > >>>>>>> advancements in printer and inks.
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> Possibly, if the ICC profile of the printer and paper have not changed.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> doesn't matter if it has or not. go learn about colour management
    > >>>>> before you say more stupid things.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Oh! So you know how do imbed, or mimic an ICC profile, without
    > >>>> processing?
    > >>>
    > >>> i didn't say anything remotely close to that.
    > >>
    > >> Then explain what you mean.

    > >
    > > use the proper profile for the printer/ink/paper combination. very
    > > simple.
    > >
    > > that should be obvious to anyone who understands even the basics of
    > > colour management.
    > >
    > >>>> Please tell us, or point to a website that will give us instructions.
    > >>>
    > >>> try this, but i'm sure it's *well* over your head. maybe you can find
    > >>> someone to explain it to you.
    > >>>
    > >>> <http://colorremedies.com/realworldcolor/>
    > >>
    > >> Bruce Fraser was certainly an authority on color management.

    > >
    > > yes he was. i had the pleasure of meeting him at a workshop about a
    > > decade ago.
    > >
    > >> What does
    > >> that have to do with your point.

    > >
    > > read his book and learn.
    > >

    >
    > Then I don't understand your point. You essentially said that a digital
    > image can be reproduced that cold even be better than the original
    > print, even if you use a different printer.


    i said it could be better with newer raw processing algorithms, better
    noise reduction algorithms, better printer technology, etc. all of this
    stuff improves as time goes on.

    you then said
    > >>>>>> Possibly, if the ICC profile of the printer and paper have not changed.


    i said that doesn't matter, and it doesn't. if the printer, paper or
    ink have changed, you switch to the appropriate profile for that
    printer/ink/paper combination. that's what colour management is for.

    and let's not forget that back in the film days, there were film
    batches and paper batches and the chemistry might not be as fresh in
    the afternoon as it was in the morning, etc.

    > I said that was true if you matched the ICC profile, and in order
    > convert to, or assign a new profile, one needed to open the image.


    who said anything about not opening the image?

    obviously you have to open the image to print it, regardless of what
    profile is used.

    > You
    > then went off in a tangent saying I didn't know anything about color
    > management.


    based on what you've written, it does not look like you know all that
    much.

    > I still do not know how to assign, or convert to an ICC
    > profile, without opening the image. If there is a way I woud like to
    > know how.


    again, who said anything about not opening the image?
     
    nospam, May 21, 2013
  16. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/20/2013 8:49 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <519aa4a1$0$10847$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>>>>>>>>> Prints from digital may fade in time.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> they might, but the original data is the same, so another print will
    >>>>>>>>> be
    >>>>>>>>> identical to the previous one and quite possibly it could better due
    >>>>>>>>> to
    >>>>>>>>> advancements in printer and inks.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Possibly, if the ICC profile of the printer and paper have not changed.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> doesn't matter if it has or not. go learn about colour management
    >>>>>>> before you say more stupid things.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Oh! So you know how do imbed, or mimic an ICC profile, without
    >>>>>> processing?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> i didn't say anything remotely close to that.
    >>>>
    >>>> Then explain what you mean.
    >>>
    >>> use the proper profile for the printer/ink/paper combination. very
    >>> simple.
    >>>
    >>> that should be obvious to anyone who understands even the basics of
    >>> colour management.
    >>>
    >>>>>> Please tell us, or point to a website that will give us instructions.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> try this, but i'm sure it's *well* over your head. maybe you can find
    >>>>> someone to explain it to you.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> <http://colorremedies.com/realworldcolor/>
    >>>>
    >>>> Bruce Fraser was certainly an authority on color management.
    >>>
    >>> yes he was. i had the pleasure of meeting him at a workshop about a
    >>> decade ago.
    >>>
    >>>> What does
    >>>> that have to do with your point.
    >>>
    >>> read his book and learn.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Then I don't understand your point. You essentially said that a digital
    >> image can be reproduced that cold even be better than the original
    >> print, even if you use a different printer.

    >
    > i said it could be better with newer raw processing algorithms, better
    > noise reduction algorithms, better printer technology, etc. all of this
    > stuff improves as time goes on.
    >
    > you then said
    >>>>>>>> Possibly, if the ICC profile of the printer and paper have not changed.

    >
    > i said that doesn't matter, and it doesn't. if the printer, paper or
    > ink have changed, you switch to the appropriate profile for that
    > printer/ink/paper combination. that's what colour management is for.
    >
    > and let's not forget that back in the film days, there were film
    > batches and paper batches and the chemistry might not be as fresh in
    > the afternoon as it was in the morning, etc.
    >
    >> I said that was true if you matched the ICC profile, and in order
    >> convert to, or assign a new profile, one needed to open the image.

    >
    > who said anything about not opening the image?
    >
    > obviously you have to open the image to print it, regardless of what
    > profile is used.
    >
    >> You
    >> then went off in a tangent saying I didn't know anything about color
    >> management.

    >
    > based on what you've written, it does not look like you know all that
    > much.
    >
    >> I still do not know how to assign, or convert to an ICC
    >> profile, without opening the image. If there is a way I woud like to
    >> know how.

    >
    > again, who said anything about not opening the image?
    >


    The implication in your comment was that it was simply a matter of
    reprinting the image. It now appears that you meant the image might very
    well have to be processed all over again. I know enough about using ICC
    profiles to know that when one assigns or changes profiles, the colors
    change and the entire image might have to be adjusted, which may or may
    not be a trivial task.
    Here is an image that looks simole, but has twenty two layers.
    <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/babooninator.jpg>


    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 21, 2013
  17. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <519ad00f$0$10828$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > >> Then I don't understand your point. You essentially said that a digital
    > >> image can be reproduced that cold even be better than the original
    > >> print, even if you use a different printer.

    > >
    > > i said it could be better with newer raw processing algorithms, better
    > > noise reduction algorithms, better printer technology, etc. all of this
    > > stuff improves as time goes on.
    > >
    > > you then said
    > >>>>>>>> Possibly, if the ICC profile of the printer and paper have not
    > >>>>>>>> changed.

    > >
    > > i said that doesn't matter, and it doesn't. if the printer, paper or
    > > ink have changed, you switch to the appropriate profile for that
    > > printer/ink/paper combination. that's what colour management is for.
    > >
    > > and let's not forget that back in the film days, there were film
    > > batches and paper batches and the chemistry might not be as fresh in
    > > the afternoon as it was in the morning, etc.
    > >
    > >> I said that was true if you matched the ICC profile, and in order
    > >> convert to, or assign a new profile, one needed to open the image.

    > >
    > > who said anything about not opening the image?
    > >
    > > obviously you have to open the image to print it, regardless of what
    > > profile is used.
    > >
    > >> You
    > >> then went off in a tangent saying I didn't know anything about color
    > >> management.

    > >
    > > based on what you've written, it does not look like you know all that
    > > much.
    > >
    > >> I still do not know how to assign, or convert to an ICC
    > >> profile, without opening the image. If there is a way I woud like to
    > >> know how.

    > >
    > > again, who said anything about not opening the image?

    >
    > The implication in your comment was that it was simply a matter of
    > reprinting the image.


    it is.

    > It now appears that you meant the image might very
    > well have to be processed all over again.


    no. what i'm saying is that a future version of lightroom, photoshop,
    etc. will produce better quality results from the same source due to
    improvements in the algorithms.

    you won't have to do anything at all, other than upgrade the software,
    open the image and confirm you want to use the new algorithm, exactly
    the same as you're doing now (other than the one-time upgrade).

    some users might want to keep the same look as before, so there's
    likely to be a setting to use the old way or take advantage of the new
    way. this is what adobe did.

    you could also switch to different software if something else had
    demonstrably better results. it's more work, but it might be worth it.
    or it might not.

    > I know enough about using ICC
    > profiles to know that when one assigns or changes profiles, the colors
    > change and the entire image might have to be adjusted, which may or may
    > not be a trivial task.


    in a colour managed workflow, you use the proper profile for each
    printer/ink/paper combo and you get the same results on each, subject
    to whatever limitations of the printer.

    for instance, if you switch to a printer with a wider gamut you'll get
    better results. if you switch to printing on newsprint, you'll the best
    you can get on newsprint, but the colours will still be correct.

    > Here is an image that looks simole, but has twenty two layers.
    > <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/babooninator.jpg>


    and?
     
    nospam, May 21, 2013
  18. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/20/2013 10:06 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <519ad00f$0$10828$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>>> Then I don't understand your point. You essentially said that a digital
    >>>> image can be reproduced that cold even be better than the original
    >>>> print, even if you use a different printer.
    >>>
    >>> i said it could be better with newer raw processing algorithms, better
    >>> noise reduction algorithms, better printer technology, etc. all of this
    >>> stuff improves as time goes on.
    >>>
    >>> you then said
    >>>>>>>>>> Possibly, if the ICC profile of the printer and paper have not
    >>>>>>>>>> changed.
    >>>
    >>> i said that doesn't matter, and it doesn't. if the printer, paper or
    >>> ink have changed, you switch to the appropriate profile for that
    >>> printer/ink/paper combination. that's what colour management is for.
    >>>
    >>> and let's not forget that back in the film days, there were film
    >>> batches and paper batches and the chemistry might not be as fresh in
    >>> the afternoon as it was in the morning, etc.
    >>>
    >>>> I said that was true if you matched the ICC profile, and in order
    >>>> convert to, or assign a new profile, one needed to open the image.
    >>>
    >>> who said anything about not opening the image?
    >>>
    >>> obviously you have to open the image to print it, regardless of what
    >>> profile is used.
    >>>
    >>>> You
    >>>> then went off in a tangent saying I didn't know anything about color
    >>>> management.
    >>>
    >>> based on what you've written, it does not look like you know all that
    >>> much.
    >>>
    >>>> I still do not know how to assign, or convert to an ICC
    >>>> profile, without opening the image. If there is a way I woud like to
    >>>> know how.
    >>>
    >>> again, who said anything about not opening the image?

    >>
    >> The implication in your comment was that it was simply a matter of
    >> reprinting the image.

    >
    > it is.
    >
    >> It now appears that you meant the image might very
    >> well have to be processed all over again.

    >
    > no. what i'm saying is that a future version of lightroom, photoshop,
    > etc. will produce better quality results from the same source due to
    > improvements in the algorithms.
    >
    > you won't have to do anything at all, other than upgrade the software,
    > open the image and confirm you want to use the new algorithm, exactly
    > the same as you're doing now (other than the one-time upgrade).
    >
    > some users might want to keep the same look as before, so there's
    > likely to be a setting to use the old way or take advantage of the new
    > way. this is what adobe did.
    >
    > you could also switch to different software if something else had
    > demonstrably better results. it's more work, but it might be worth it.
    > or it might not.
    >
    >> I know enough about using ICC
    >> profiles to know that when one assigns or changes profiles, the colors
    >> change and the entire image might have to be adjusted, which may or may
    >> not be a trivial task.

    >
    > in a colour managed workflow, you use the proper profile for each
    > printer/ink/paper combo and you get the same results on each, subject
    > to whatever limitations of the printer.
    >
    > for instance, if you switch to a printer with a wider gamut you'll get
    > better results. if you switch to printing on newsprint, you'll the best
    > you can get on newsprint, but the colours will still be correct.
    >
    >> Here is an image that looks simole, but has twenty two layers.
    >> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/babooninator.jpg>

    >
    > and?
    >


    Right now the ICC profile is set for projection, on a particular
    projector. If I convert the profile for another device, the color of the
    image will change on my monitor. Indeed tht is why I am careful to
    correct the color profile of my monitor, so the final print will look as
    closely as possible to the finished output, regardless of the printer,
    paper ink combination.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 21, 2013
  19. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <519adbec$0$10757$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > Right now the ICC profile is set for projection, on a particular
    > projector. If I convert the profile for another device, the color of the
    > image will change on my monitor. Indeed tht is why I am careful to
    > correct the color profile of my monitor, so the final print will look as
    > closely as possible to the finished output, regardless of the printer,
    > paper ink combination.


    you should have a profile for your display (ideally done with a puck)
    and a different profile for the projector and yet another for your
    printer. you can soft-proof it to see how it will look.

    for printers, the profile is applied during printing (you should never
    need to manually apply it). just be sure to do it only once, either in
    photoshop or in the printer. a common mistake is people do the
    conversion in photoshop and forget that the printer is set to do it
    too.
     
    nospam, May 21, 2013
  20. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/20/2013 11:08 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <519adbec$0$10757$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Right now the ICC profile is set for projection, on a particular
    >> projector. If I convert the profile for another device, the color of the
    >> image will change on my monitor. Indeed tht is why I am careful to
    >> correct the color profile of my monitor, so the final print will look as
    >> closely as possible to the finished output, regardless of the printer,
    >> paper ink combination.

    >
    > you should have a profile for your display (ideally done with a puck)
    > and a different profile for the projector and yet another for your
    > printer. you can soft-proof it to see how it will look.
    >
    > for printers, the profile is applied during printing (you should never
    > need to manually apply it). just be sure to do it only once, either in
    > photoshop or in the printer. a common mistake is people do the
    > conversion in photoshop and forget that the printer is set to do it
    > too.
    >

    Yes, I do calibrate my monitor, using Sypder II. It works for me.
    I use an outside printing service, Costco. they are quite accommodating.
    I request that they let my software do the color management, and that is
    how it is done. Costco's ICC profiles, are easily obtained, and I check
    every few months to get the latest versions.

    Since I do all color management in software, the image tones will, by
    definition, vary with different profiles. While I understand what you
    are saying about soft proofing, and it may work for you and your needs,
    the difference is that I am not concerned with producing colors to suit
    a creative director. I am concerned with my artistic use of color, to
    satisfy me. When I see the image I like on screen, I stop tweaking. Soft
    proofing doesn't work for me. And why I need to color manage on my monitor.


    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 21, 2013
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Similar Threads
  1. Zogby
    Replies:
    188
    Views:
    4,377
    Rowdy Yates
    Aug 15, 2004
  2. One-Shot Scot

    Rental DVDs: "Rental Only - Not For Resale."

    One-Shot Scot, Sep 11, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,838
    One-Shot Scot
    Sep 11, 2004
  3. hdtv?
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,444
    Rick Merrill
    Oct 18, 2006
  4. Go GO GO !!go to shopping

    , Jan 14, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    766
  5. Go GO GO !!go to shopping

    , Jan 14, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    664
  6. Devvie Nuis
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    4,631
  7. RichA
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    353
    Sandman
    Sep 2, 2013
  8. RichA

    Apple's foray into the "service/rental economy"

    RichA, Jun 3, 2014, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    59
    Views:
    4,394
    Whisky-dave
    Jun 17, 2014
Loading...