On Fri, 20 Jul 2001 13:07:09 + Lynn Allen ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
over here in the serious-practicioners' community we refer to
those people as the Artsy-Fartsy.
Yes, that's him, same label in UK :) Actually, aside from his blinkered
attitude to digital, I do have a lot of respect
Dave wrote (re bad repro houses):
It'll get better as more jobs are shot digitally. Then the repro
folks won't have as much incentive to sabotage jobs not scanned in
house since there's no film anyway.
Even with photographer supplied scans this behavior will eventually
backfire on honery and
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001 01:21:44 -0400 Dave King ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
It'll get better as more jobs are shot digitally. Then the repro
folks won't have as much incentive to sabotage jobs not scanned in
house since there's no film anyway.
True. These problems have long since been
Tony wrote:
These problems have long since been resolved in newsprint, for that
reason.
Generally smaller repro houses don't have these problems...
In the US, many (if not most) newspapers are using digital, because it's so
fast. By the same token, the MajorMajors, like Time Newsweek (I've
, July 17, 2001 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Repro issues (was Which Buggy Software?)
This is a horror story that many people in the industry could have
written,
myself included (although I was usually submitting reflective art,
not
digital). One answer might be to go in and work the Macs
fly, there probably will be. Until that happens, all you can do is the
best you can do, and hang tough. Wish I could offer better.
Best regards--LRA
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony Sleep)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Repro issues (was Which Buggy
On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 19:42:49 -0500 Maris V. Lidaka, Sr.
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Dan's response would be that most repro houses don't use embedded color
profiles anyway - they do it the old-fashioned way. If he's wrong,
please
tell him ;)
He's largely right, although I just had a
