[rollei_list] Re: Retro: Back to the Past!
- From: "Neil Gould" <neil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 08:39:03 -0500
Recently, you wrote:
> From: Bob Shell <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> (platform prejudice mostly snipped)
>
> On Friday, August 12, 2005, at 07:42 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
>
>> "The folks at Adobe..." will tell you that there is no functional
>> difference between their apps on a Mac vs. their apps under Windows.
>> And, there isn't.
>
> Actually that is not true. The folks I know at Adobe are the software
> engineers who actually build the program. They would not say
> something that stupid. Fundamentally, Windows lacks color management
> capability that is essential to WYSIWYG Photoshop work.
>
This statement is patently false. Windows does not use a system-wide CMS
as did MacOS pre-OSX, but provides a way for any application to use an
installed CMS. In other words, under Windows CMS is an application-level
function rather than a system-level function. There is no disadvantage to
this approach, *especially* if the only app one uses that may benefit from
a CMS is Photoshop (not my case, FWIW, and all my graphics applications
use the same CMS, installed once as a system resource). On either
platform, a CMS must be properly set up in order to be of use, and on
either platform, it is possible to have the CMS out of whack. The salient
question is whether Marc has implemented any CMS functionality, such as
monitor and scanner calibration, printer profiling, etc.
As this is not a platform advocacy group, I'll end my comments re: Mac vs.
PC here, and attempt to get back on topic.
>> I don't think it's very responsible to send him off with the notion
>> that his problems will be over if he buys more or different products.
>> Good results (within the constraints of his system, for example
>> scanning resolution as Chris Brown pointed out) should be obtainable
>> with what Marc already has.
>
> Marc can learn using outmoded stuff if he wants. But that adds an
> extra layer of unnecessary difficulty.
>
The only tools Marc should require at this point are curves and cropping,
Those haven't changed much since at least version 3. USM and other effects
are a bit more advanced, but not likely to be why he hasn't gotten "one
printable image" from his efforts. Since he already has cropping down, I
fail to see the "extra layer of difficulty" that you are trying to sell,
here.
> But first he should make the best possible scan with his scanner and
> send it to someone who does this all the time to determine if he is
> getting workable scans. GIGO, you know.
>
Well, on this we can agree, to a point. However, unless there is some
really obvious flaw in Marc's method of scanning, the recipient would have
no way to know whether they have received "the best possible scan" of his
slides within the constraints of his system. I suspect that Chris Browns'
offer presumes that the scan is usable and just needs proper tweaking to
get a presentable image. I also suspect that the level of scanning
software Marc is using limits such really obvious flaws, but I could be
wrong about that.
Regards,
Neil
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
