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 stubborn printers because clients will just
take jobs where they get printed well. I have clients who trust me
and see good results with my files from some printers and not others.
Guess which ones will get repeat business.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Lynn Allen <ktrout@hotmail.com>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, 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 yourself
(but I've
> never seen a repro house that would allow that). Since I mostly
worked on
> the Client side of the street, I had a bit more "clout" than a
'mere'
> photographer would--but I always tried to extend that clout to
getting the
> best reproduction of the photographer's work (for which I'd paid a
princely
> sum, I might add ;-) ). I got my ass kicked around a lot, too, but
(if I
> might boast) I gave as good as I got, most of the time. I wasn't
ashamed of
> most of the results (but I sure as hell heard about the others, let
me tell
> you)--lost a job or two in the process; that's the 'down'side.
>
> Is there an answer? Yeah, when Profits and Repro Houses get
reasonable, and
> pigs 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: TonySleep@halftone.co.uk (Tony Sleep)
> >Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> >To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> >Subject: Re: filmscanners: Repro issues (was Which Buggy Software?)
> >Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 02:48 +0100 (BST)
> >
> >On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 19:42:49 -0500 Maris V. Lidaka, Sr.
> >(mlidaka@ameritech.net) 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 magazine repro screw-up
this week
> >which seems likely to be explained as the repro house doing
> >manual adjustments to a tagged image on a (gamma=1.0 by the look of
it)
> >input workstation which didn't speak ICC, and then sending it to an
> >pagesetter which *did* - with (the now completely inappropriate)
Colormatch
> >RGB tag still in place that indicated, among other things, that the
gamma
> >was 1.8. The postmortem is continuing... fortunately, on this
occasion the
> >repro house concerned is keen to address the problems and open to
> >discussion. I spent half of Saturday trying to figure out what had
gone
> >wrong and emailing the Art Ed. Fortunately both she and the editor
had seen
> >the scans on their own calibrated screens in PS, before they went
to repro,
> >else I would be getting the blame.
> >
> >The trouble is that even though they said they loved the pics, next
time
> >they might avoid the problem by giving the work to someone who
turns in
> >work on E6 instead. If I'd wanted to shoot it like that I'd have
done so,
> >but I use this stuff to get better pics in worse circumstances. It
works,
> >they agree - but if the repro buggers it, it's a chocolate teapot.
> >
> >Whatever, it's a nightmare. ICC tags are not a panacea, and can
cause extra
> >problems - as they seem to have done on this occasion.
> >
> >OTOH if you don't use them, whatever you intended the image to look
like is
> >out of your control entirely. You had better supply a print or
tranny
> >instead.
> >
> >Some repro houses never seem to have problems, others have been so
> >disastrous I have lost clients as a result. Faced with a choice
between a
> >photographer and a repro house, the repro house wins, if only for
> >contractual reasons.
> >
> >Basically Margulis is right IME. Repro houses don't need to use nor
> >understand ICC, and wherever they do, it's because they have had to
find
> >some way of coping with 'externally supplied' scans. In UK this is
rare, at
> >least among repro houses working for 50,000+ circulation magazines.
Yet
> >this problem is not going to go away, since there are good
(creative
> >control) reasons for photographers to scan and supply images in dig
format.
> >
> >Right now, it is safer to supply untagged files and trust that
others in
> >the chain are capable of sensible judgements about what looks
right. Often
> >they aren't, as printers are skilled at matching scans to images,
not
> >imagination.
> >
> >Also many repro houses want to keep every bit of scanning business,
and
> >have good reasons to portray photographer-supplied scans as
inferior, risky
> >and a route to terrible results. It doesn't help that a lot are, of
course.
> >But it's distressing to get clients, do a job they are happy with,
and then
> >lose them because the repro goes to shit. I don't know what the
answer is.
> >I've tried supplying Epson proofs as references, I've tried
supplying
> >inkjets as final artwork (I'm never totally happy with either, and
this
> >just isn't practical on short deadlines/email delivery, as this job
was),
> >I've tried tagged and untagged files. Sod's law rules, and I doubt
Margulis
> >has any failsafe answers either.
> >
> >Regards
> >
> >Tony Sleep
> > - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film
scanner info
> >& comparisons
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
>
