On 6/7/03 2:19 am, "Stephen Marsh" wrote: > I would like to know what criteria BPRP bases for an image which is > 'unsuitable for output' - which is a rather broad term.
So would I. But I don't know, they do, why not ask them? > I would also like access to an image for human inspection that BPRP thinks > is unsuitable for repro - and to be given some info on what the intended > repro details are...to see what a human with a little repro experience > thinks. Hmm, aren't you a human with "a lot of experience" ? > I have used Binuscan scanner software and RECO in the past - but not PRP. So, therefore, what was the other binuscan software like? Any good? Did you trust it, or was it rubbish? I'm no expert in anything to do with colour repro, I'm just a great photographer (I can feel the head swelling now :-) So I have no idea how good PRP is. What I do know, is that Binuscan have been round a long time, and that they have worked very hard to get PRP to market. They are very good at listening to their users and have received very good reviews from MacWorld when reviewed. I know for a fact, after studying PRP and speaking to one of their techs, that PRP is designed as a non-destructive program, whereas Photoshop tends to destroy images with every move. Now the level of this destruction is debateable and Photoshop is fine if used wisely. However PRP can be used pretty unwisely and still keep things in check. You can tell that, even as an amateur, by looking at the histograms after various actions. (please note, I'm not saying the histogram tells the whole story, but it does show degradation and in PRP its minimal with most actions). As for the 1% rule, who knows. It seems to make sense to me. If you were looking at an image, you would draw on years of experience in repro to judge the results. Not all of us have those years behind us, so what are we meant to do. Personally, I put my trust in Binuscan (for the most part). I've asked before on this forum, for the "experts" amongst us, to offer up an opinion on PRP. They never do. I get the feeling that either they are tied to closely to Photoshop, that they can't offer an opinion, or that they simply don't care, because they are so experienced in Photoshop that all their needs can be accomplished using that program. This is the same for most users of software. My girlfriend is a Quark expert, therefore if she want to write a letter, she uses Quark, not Word. I'm food on spreadsheets, so I do tonnes of stuff in Excel, rather than use a database program or something else. People tend to stick with what they know. Which is a great pity, because sometimes when you actually go to the effort of learning a proper program that does the job well instead of one that can simply do the job as part of its repertoire, one can find that its much faster and more efficient. I find in my workflow, that PRP is amazing. I can't live without it (truth is I could, but I wouldn't want to). Regards Paul PS Please remember, PRP is not a Photoshop replacement (even if Binuscan might think it is, its a companion product and is superb at what it does) -- Paul Tansley Fashion & Beauty Photography London +44 (0) 7973 669584 http://www.paultansley.com =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
