At 3:43 PM +0100 5/24/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, as I am mentioned specifically by name many times in this email I feel it's probably best if I respond.
Obviously I hit a nerve with Eric and I assure you that I did not mean to call anyone out specifically. I do stand behind my previous post however, and I will enumerate my reasons below. > >And now, I'd like to add some info to the discussion which came up over my >pricing and the speculation about its meaning by some of my competitors. actually, it was not directed to you at all. >Steve Upton in a recent post made a point about custom profiling being a >service. He made a rather unfortunate comparison that a �35 profile from >Stone Quay Studio was equivalent to a cheap haircut. (well he didn't mention >us by name the innuendo ws pretty clear). again, no. >There were several other innuendos in the posts from Steve Upton and Neil >Barstow (who happen to be "competitors") that suggested that someone willing >to produce profiles at �35/profile is somehow >a) not able to write full or clear instructions >b) not well informed or lacking in experience and expertise >c) not up to giving good customer support before or after purchase or >d) not using top equipement for the job. this is not true. I meant to say (and said) that you tend to get what you pay for. The haircut comparison is a good one, I feel, because we've all had good and bad haircuts and it's fair to say that price plays a role. Sure, good cheap cuts are available as well as crappy expensive ones. > >Steve wrote in his post that its pretty easy for anyone to go out and buy >an i1Photo. The fact is that with a bit of practice its also pretty easy to >get a supurb profile from i1Photo which is every bit as good as that >produced with the equipment he mentions, most of which is really designed >for other purposes than producing profiles for inkjet printers. not true as I will illuminate below. >For example, Steve mentions the Spectrolino which Gretag Macbeth markets >this way: "Spectrolino meets the needs of color formulation and control in >the graphic arts, as well as color formulation for retail paints". It's much >more expensive than the i1Spectrophotometer because its designed to do >different tasks than the i1 Photo but it won't produce better inkjet >profiles just because it can measure the density of paint. There are several reasons why the Spectrolino (Lino) is a superior instrument. - full automation - when an instrument moves itself for each reading you can ensure that it always sets down at the 0-degree angle that is required for optimum readings (not to mention required by the measurement spec). This makes the repeatability of the instrument very high. If you measure a target twice with an Eye-One vs a Lino you will find much less variation with the Lino. - Filtration. The Lino is the only instrument that you can change between no-filter, UV-cut, and polarization filters. UV-cut is still required to get good profiles from some photo printing systems (even when the software is supposed to detect it). Polarization is required to get good detail out of matte art papers on pigmented inkjets. The Eye-One (and all other instruments) is fixed. You can purchase it with a UV filter or without, no polarization is available. - More accurate instrument. If you look at the raw specs the instrument error, repeatability (consistent measurements over time), and inter-instrument agreement is all higher (some considerably higher) on the Lino. We have found that all of these factors play a significant role in profile building. I am not saying the Eye-One is bad at all. It is a great instrument in its price range. The Lino is just much better in a number of areas. (it's also 3-4 times more expensive, so you pay for the capabilities). Oh yeah, the Eye-One can also measure the density of paint. >Even ProfileMaker Pro which is a �3000+ software collection doesn't produce >better inkjet profiles just because it has capabilities to do things for >CMYK printing presses that Match wasn't designed to handle. > >But when it comes to producing profiles for inkjet printers Andy Rodney, >well known Colour Management Guru, in a recent post at Imaging Review said >"... the profiles you build there (ProfileMaker Pro) verses Match are >virtually identical." > >So from a product point of view, the profile I can make for you is virtually >identical to the product they supply. not true, for a number of reasons. - The Eye-One Match software is based on the same code that ProfileMaker is with all of its features "preset". So if you would use all the same settings in ProfileMaker as those preset in Match, then you should get the same results. We rarely use the preset features when building profiles with ProfileMaker. Again, Match is not bad but ProfileMaker is better. - UV detection & compensation. Optical brighteners in inkjet and other papers can through off profiling equipment. In Match, UV compensation is always on. We don't use it when it's not required as we find it dulls some saturated colors so we use it selectively. - Illuminant - All profiles built with Match are built to be viewed under D50 lighting. As most light sources (including those which are supposed to be 5000K) are NOT D50, profiles built with Match may not look good under different lighting conditions. This problem is at its worst with inkjet printers and pigmented ink and will be present, to some extent, with any profiles made for the printer. ProfileMaker, however, allows us to choose to build the profile for viewing under lighting conditions specific to the client. We have found that profiles build with fluorescent or incandescent lighting will make Epson 2200 profiles much better, for example. - Different targets, adaptive targets - ProfileMaker allows us to vary and increase the color patches used which can help build much better RGB-style profiles as these printers tend to behave strangely in saturated colors and shadows. - CMYK (separations, shadow color balance, UCR/GCR). Again, Match has all these settings preset. The professional-level profiling apps allow you to vary these as needed. Please note that 4 of the 5 above points are all VERY relevant to building RGB-style profiles for inkjet printers. These are not only-for-the-pressroom issues at all. These are also all issues that affect people just wanting a decent profile for their printer (everyone). We have found time and time again that if people want good color and are willing to pay for a custom profile then they want it to work. We feel that it's necessary to invest in the professional-level equipment and expertise to give these results to people (and our customers agree). >I know from discussions with clients that the real problem they face as >serious amateur or professional photographers is two fold: >1) its not cost effective to go out and buy a good profiling kit like i1 >Photo to profile four or five papers >2) most photographers haven't enough time to spend following colour >management issues because they're too busy trying to put the bread on the >table or deal with the myriad of other photographic images issues we face. I totally agree with you here. >Because of my background with computers, software (especially photoshop) and >photography, I can (through Stone Quay Studio) offer top quality profiles >and strong customer support without the high business overheads needed to >buy expensive CMYK based equipment and software, hire experienced CMYK saavy >staff to build profiles, have office rental costs, hiring, employee issues, >etc to deal with, expensive accountants to do the books, etc I assure you, we have long-since amortized our equipment costs. We >So its not a case of a cheap haircut by someone just out of an >apprenticeship programme compared to a master stylist. well. I'm not sure we've established that yet. I would not use this terminology to describe you or us but I can say for certain that the hardware and software differences are significant, the experience differences may be showing themselves in this thread - I'll let others form their own conclusions. I am hoping to keep this discussion limited to the facts so I will stop there. (I cannot speculate otherwise) >Rather its a case of someone with a lifetime of professional expertise >cutting down on costs by working from home, buying only the essential tools >for the job, having a sharp business focus and willing to work at a modest >(dare I say meagre) profit margin. There's nothing wrong with doing things well at a reasonable cost. How you keep your costs down is up to you. CHROMiX started in my basement as well so I know where you are coming from. I apologise if my last email was taken personally. I think it's fair to note that our profiling service is not among the higher priced services (I think it translates to somewhere around 55 pounds). My last posting was meant to get people thinking about profiling services as services and that custom profiles are not commodities. It may not always stand that paying more for a suit is going to get you a better suit (to change metaphors). But, better suits cost typically cost more and only a percentage of it is the material. Regards, Steve ________________________________________________________________________ o Steve Upton CHROMiX www.chromix.com o (hueman) 866.CHROMiX 206.985.6837 o ColorGear ColorThink ColorValet ColorSmarts ProfileCentral -- =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
