Mike Ornellas wrote:
I wish I had control over my environment. It's far from that…
That is precisely what I was trying to say. Unfortunately, the JIve software was shifting the position of my cursor on its own almost constantly, and I failed to catch all the gibberish and duplicated words. Try reading that paragraph without the extraneous instance of the word "have":
It's hardly an issue for those of us who are lucky enough to have control over the whole process, but others have, like Mike, have to deal with files generated by others, and from that point of view, I fully sympathize and agree with Mike.
In other words, what I meant to say in that paragraph was "Mike has to deal with files generated by others, and from that point of view, I fully sympathize and agree with Mike."
Mike Ornellas wrote:
Sometimes you are so far ahead of the curve that you are seen as a reject.
I've been an advocate for "pushing ahead and beyond today's current thinking" for more than 30 years. More than a few times I've thought it might not be a bad idea to go into a deep-sleep for 5 years and wait for the rest of the people to catch up. Maybe then I wouldn't have to endure the stares of "Shawk.... oops, I mean shock and awe... when I suggest that a particular workflow may no longer be enough or efficient within the next year or 2. Best to slowly start learning now, than try to do it all at once in the future. Anyway, I'd like to play catch-up just once. I find it rather exhilarating.
However there are always those that cling to the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" routine, many don't realize how very broke the pattern really is. That there will be stumbling blocks and hurdles to overcome, well.... that's a given if you want to be relevant, on the cutting edge, and try new things.... and eventually get perfect results 99% of the time. It also takes "work"... something that many people just don't have time for any more, or plain don't want to do. Not really anyway. Laziness and sloth was the eventual death of the Roman Empire, and I'm sure it will be the death of Western Civilization as we know it as well. The timeline is in dispute, but we see the making of history repeating itself all around us. But I digress...sorry.
As it relates to this fantastic discussion here regarding the broken and inconceivably complicated idea of color management (for the masses), all I can sadly say, is that in my experience as a print consultant, a large majority of people turn CM off completely. Most replying to my question as to "why?", because it doesn't work; it makes no difference when "printing"; their printing service told them to turn it off; ....or the #1 reason: they hate the warning dialogs.
Anyway... too bad this gem of a discussion is buried in a Forum thread titled "Where has all the "help" gone". I was seriously looking forward to new insights and installments. Good reading
I chose to hijack this thread because I thought the title was appropriate. The help is truly gone.
Like holes and opinions, everyone has them.
I think most geeks that know what I'm talking about understand that there is no such thing as no color management. There is however, such a thing, as “I’m not paying attention to color management." Therefore, there are no complaints for change because the general population of morons is not paying attention to the topic. They accept what comes out or whack the files to get what they think they want. It's the perfect storm for no changes in the way we work.
Most users think if you turn off color manglement, you will not be changing the numbers in the files. To clarify, color management does two things. Change the meaning of the file or change the numbers in the file. For RGB workflows, you want to preserve the color appearance and change the numbers of the files upon conversion. That way your image will always LOOK the same for the most part - depending upon the source and destination color space gamut.
Most CMYK environments want to preserve the numbers - mostly due to liability on vendors. Once files are converted for an output device like an offset press, and you start getting blended color builds, all kinds of crazy crap can start happening - both from a production stand point as well as sales. What happened? Why did you change my files? I'm not paying for that. You screwed it up, the colors don't match my laser prints and it’s on you now. Yes, it's that bad.
Inkjet and solvent printers are much more forgiving because of the blended inksets and dot structures.
I myself still fight the craziness of confusion when it comes to processing Photoshop documents into Illustrator or In Design when it comes to the color policy train wreck, even if your so called settings are synchronized. That's a laugh right there - synchronized. Hardly Adobe.
So what am I looking at? Are my files being converted? Is it just a color preview change? Both? None? Only some files being converted based upon if there are profiles in the placed documents? What about nested files? Do I need to extract them? Why are all my placed vector art objects changing and not the raster elements? Should I do this in Photoshop? No wait, that should be done in In Design. No maybe Illustrator. Awe hell, I will just take this pile of turds and just convert it in Acrobat and print. Screw the next guy who picks up these files sitting next to me or somewhere in China.
This is a joke right? No. I'm afraid not.
This is what's happening times 7.0 billion people as of October 31 2011.
And Adobe can't capitalize on this? Who is the retard now?
@ Mike Ornellas - thanks for the added "chapter"
I found quite the perfect topic thread, that I would dearly and truly LOVE to read your take on the color management situation and the answers given.
It is exactly what you're commenting about, and regardless of my experience and understanding of CM, CMYK, PMS and the whole mess... the above read makes my *******' head hurt! Yes indeed: "who is retarded now" you ask?
Why do I feel it's me for even dealing with it?!
PS. added because f-r-i-g-g-i-n is censored here? Let's try, "that's just slabberdash and bullocks!"
PS. - Silly uneducated dictionary you use Adobe. Look up what was allowed to go uncensored. At least one of them is truly "nasty".
Message was edited by: DocPixel-BMW