Richard Lewisohn wrote: > I'm rarely happy with the way my images end up once printed. One > client converts to CMYK themselves with no regard to settings, another > sends my RGB files to their printers and the results often look flat > and horrible (I asked to look at the CMYK files. The embedded profile > was : Photoshop 5 Default CMYK, working: Euroscale Uncoated v2).
You have no idea how common this is (and has been for 10+ years). > > So should I be learning to do the conversions myself? YES, without a shred of doubt. > What I've read > in Martin Evening's section on the subject in 'Adobe Photophop 7.0 for > Photographers' suggests that it isn't (quite) rocket science. It's not and given the right precautions, it's a LOT safer than supplying RGB. In effect when supplying RGB you supply not an end product or something that can be evaluated in itself, but rather an intermediate step that has to be processed further (viewed on a calibrated monitor or converted/printed on a well calibrated/profiled printer) unlike a transparency or a print. I like to compare it to supply a colour negative to your client, who are then commissioning someone else to supply her with 10.000 prints. When the prints are supplied and the client isn't pleased, who to blame is up for grabs. What it boils down to is how well the client trust your word as opposed to the other(s) suppliers. I will heartedly recommend to supply CMYK files, use the standard based profiles condoned by ISO (including accompanying pdf file), and supply a verified proof to go along with this. And if you feel like it include the RGB file as well if the client decides to change the printing type or whatever. But proof the used CMYK (which should be appropriate for the printing type and paper) and verify that the proof is accurate. It's a long explanation which we went over in detail at the IN&Out seminar last week... > That > being said, it is presumably impossible to 'practice' conversions > without seeing them printed (by a printing company). It is very possible indeed. Many prepress houses never see the results of what they do in print... It helps to have a proof printer you know (not think) you can trust. > It would be > something of a big leap of faith for a client to trust something that > important to a novice, So is the current state of affairs better (as in why are you writing this mail)? It certainly seems some of your clients are not even at the novice level yet... > and it could be a good way of losing a client. So is supplying any file that doesn't end up properly printed in CMYK, where there is even a shred of doubt that you are to blame (rightful or not). > Also, how helpful are printers, who are losing this part of their > business to photographers and inhouse repro departments, in supply > profiles, advice, etc.? Printers in general are very helpful if they have a profiled printer. This is the vast minority though. But if you can't have a custom profile, use a standards based one - in many respects this is even better. Printers doesn't loose business to photographers unless they invest in a Heidelberg or Komori or MAN or whatever. Albeit I know one photographer who bought a 6 colour Heidelberg Speedmaster it's hardly the norm... > > I can also see it becoming another digital service that clients will > want for nothing. How much is normally charged for RGB>CMYK conversion > (by both photographers and repro houses)? Free as in supplying digital files? It depends on the subject matter. You could charge a little for packs and a lot for campaigns which require a lot more effort. But you can always charge for a proof (and actually more more money that you would supplying RGB. I have NEVER had a client complain of the cost of a proof done on one of my Epsons - never. > > I sadly missed Neil's seminars last week (as I was working); I would > have asked the above questions there. It would have been a good forum to do it in. > I'm hoping to attend Bob > Marchant's seminar, which I understand covers the subject, when it next > happens. In the meantime, can anyone recommend other books, or other > ways of 'learning' CMYK conversion, as well as answering some of the > questions above. If you are interested I do personalised training one to one (or in small groups) on the subject. If you are interested contact me offline. Best Regards, Thomas Holm / Pixl Aps - Photographer, Educator, Colour Management Consultant & Seminar speaker - Remote Profiling Service (Output ICC profiles) - www.pixl.dk � Email: th[AT]pixl.dk -- =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
