Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Color management

Expand Messages
  • Karl Shah-Jenner
    I thought I was alone with my take on colour management but it seems others have discovered the same thing as I. I d also state straight up that I taught
    Message 1 of 28 , Dec 1, 2011
      I thought I was alone with my take on colour management but it seems others
      have 'discovered' the same thing as I.

      I'd also state straight up that I taught photography as a science course, so
      the emphasis was not on following what I say, but in having students TEST
      what I say - compare it to other methods, compare it to 'what they know' and
      evaluate the results as objectively as possible. That is what science is..
      degrees don't make a scientist - science is a philosophy of analysis.


      So firstly... if you're a graphic designer working with colourmetrics,
      you've a set of colours that are limited to your printer, and graphics
      printers are generally 4 colour.

      This means: photographs will never reproduce well
      Your calibration is based on inksets used in specific printers.
      You will pay dearly to buy profiles.
      You will be outputting to a very tiny selection of printers.
      Photographers will hate your work and say you do not understand colour.


      We are photographers. We work with many more inks than this, we don't like
      spending money, and we DO understand colour, just differently than graphics
      guys understand it.

      I was thinking about this one day while I was running a control strip
      through the RA4 machine. For those who are unaware of the process, a batch
      of 'control strips' are bought from Kodak, Fuji or elsewhere that are simply
      lengths of RA4 paper, frozen, that have been exposed to give a selection of
      colour swatches. Instructions on the box include (specific to each batch)
      standard colour correction variables - ie, each batch of paper is different
      so even though the exposure of the paper was done under a specific,
      carefully monitored light source, the paper will not represent these colours
      100% accurate from batch to batch.

      Running these through the RA4 machine each day you'd then pop the control
      strip under a densitometer and check how close the colours were to what they
      were supposed to be (allowing for the included variation) then you'd head
      back to the RA4 machine and tweak the chemistry..

      This was a number of days after Fuji Australia had failed to reorder E6
      control strips and we'd run out.. 4 weeks wait and we neeeeeed these things
      to get the chemistry right! Kodak had none either (unbefreakingleavable)

      I got around this pretty easily by grabbing a batch of frozen film which
      had always produced reliable colours, then I shot a few rolls of a Gretag
      card under controlled lights (flash with voltage monitoring) at a specified
      distance at a specified exposure with a specific camera. - all carefully
      noted in case I needed to go through the process again at a later time. It
      is critical you use exactly the same setup, any variations *here* will
      affect stuff *there* - how you going to know which was which?

      After this, I snipped off a few frames and ran these with the last control
      strip through the chemistry. Popping them under the densitometer, I
      calibrated the control strip, then adjusted the values against the stock I
      shot.. I calculated what the correct values for my control strips were,
      adjusted the chemistry based on the last Fuji control strip then checked
      mine again. Pretty close to perfect.

      Noting the various values for My Control Strips, the rest of the rolls shot
      were snipped up and frozen to be used daily.. When the Fuji control strips
      finally came in I checked the chemistry as we'd been using it against what
      it was supposed to be and it was as though we'd been using the Fuji's all
      along.

      Back to the RA4 saga..

      I was tossing all this around in my head along with what I knew was being
      taught about colour management to students and I had a bit of an epiphany

      Firstly, aside from the control strips, NO ONE sticks their prints under the
      densitometer unless they're testing papers! No final print is ever checked
      this way - they're viewed under a controlled 'daylight' light source by eye,
      but never a densitometer! We only calibrate the 'printer' - not the film,
      not the lighting conditions, nothing but the printer (RA4) and then as we
      print we eyeball the results and tweak the filtration until we get the print
      looking right. Once your light is right, for that entire roll of film (if
      the subjects were shot under the same light) no further tweaking is
      necessary.

      Sure we may filter light when shooting, and we may select specific film
      stocks, but these are always to get 'best looking' results, not '100%
      accurate' results (impossible anyway). Who filtered to eliminate the sky
      colour in the evening? No one. Unless you were shooting for colour
      accuracy, in which case you'd have been better off shooting in a studio..
      even then, your film stock would let you down. Remember how we picked Kodak
      for reds, Fuji for greens etc? What did accuracy have to do with it?? The
      closest film to accurate was Konica 100 and no one used that (that's an
      objective analysis done by a compulsive film tester who blew loads of cash
      testing every film available on the market talking ;)

      Ultimately, we went for what LOOKED right.

      Anyone who took a leaf and compared the leaf it's self to the print under a
      densitometer deserved to be dragged off to Trembling Willows and placed in a
      room with rubber wallpaper. We photographers unlike graphics folk, go for
      what *looks* right. The managing director of advertising at Coke doesn't
      care if the logo looks green under fluro lights, what he cares about is that
      the logo looks exactly the same - exactly - as the pantone swatch value for
      his logo colour under the same lightsource, so all coke logos, coke labels
      and coke party hats .

      We came to digital imaging as photographers long after the graphics guys did
      and we adopted their tools - which was all there was - and we basically
      copied their techniques without ever asking if it was the right way.. after
      all there was a huge learning curve and the graphics guys seemed to have it
      nailed. but the fundamental philosophic difference was overlooked..

      This set me to work trying to find a more appropriate method of colour
      management for photographers than that we were using. I was mixing with
      graphics and printer guys not long after this at a Canon printer
      repair/setup training course and I mentioned I was on this path - I was
      soundly congratulated by all and sundry as (in their words) they were
      heartily sick of photographers and how little they understood of colour.
      (/hangs head in shame) The individuals who created all on Ilford
      Australia's colour profiles were there, the biggest distributor of wide
      format printers were there.. they all said the same thing.

      The thing was, once I nailed it I didn't actually have anything saleable for
      anyone, it's actually very easy.


      First thing to understand is printers, as these are often the intended final
      output device for photos. More on screen colour later..

      dpi means nothing, ppi means everything.. and printer manufacturers confuse
      the two to confuse you. DPI is how many splats of ink per inch the printer
      may use to make up a colour. Tamper with this value by restricting the
      number of colours the printer can select and you'll lose your colour range.
      Canon doesn't let you near this value (nor should they) Epson does. Great
      for Graphics folks to limit their colour range, a disaster for
      photographers. leave this alone.

      Media. Basically there's gloss (needs more ink squirted per drop), matte
      (needs lots more ink squirted per drop) and plain (doesn't need much). All
      changing the media should do is change the amount squirted out per drop.
      Canon and almost everyone else abides by this simple rule, Epson does not.
      Don't believe me? Change the media setting and run three prints through on
      the same media, the colours will look pretty much the same out of a canon,
      just more or less (paler or ink sloshing across the paper). Do it with an
      Epson and watch the colours actually change. Epson like photographers.
      Epson sells many, many profiles to photographers. Photographers love Epson.
      Epson is a wealthy company. (Epson is Seiko)

      Quality. Draft (skip some lines (low dpi), make tiny drops, go fast).
      Standard (don't be too fussy, put a reasonable amount of ink
      down, use maybe a few more colours and quirts)
      Graphics ( let the rip go stupid on saturating the more
      perceptually 'vivid' colours, use lots of ink, avoid subtle tones please
      RIP)
      Photographic (ok guys, fire up the 'good' rip, be careful with
      colours, lay down reasonably heavy drops (check the 'media type') and use
      all the dots you need to get the colours goodest)


      Photographers should have their printers set to photographic quality, gloss
      or matte and nothing else.

      Set the PPI on the image before sending it to print and get it to bang on
      300ppi for the intended image size. If using an Epson and you go looking at
      dpi, set it to maximum, but restrict the print size to whatever it is you
      intend, ie an 8x10 image should be sent through as 2400x3000 pixels, image
      size 8x10, dpi= max. do not send 4000ppi images to print or your printer
      will hate you..


      Now the colour side of things.. this bit is actually short.

      I made a swatch of colours, RGBYMC and a greyscale, including a headshot of
      a person under 'natural daylight' on 'normal' camera settings and bunged
      these together as a 'Shirley' and sent it to print, setting the media to
      gloss generic, photo quality.

      Look at the result under a decent light. Is it too red? go back into the
      printer settings and change the 'gloss generic' setting and dial back the
      red. Was it too pale (not enough ink)?, increase the saturation. Tweak
      away and save it.

      Note: Some may view this a laborious and costly exercise, but potholes in
      the road cannot be filled in with by the Transport Minister simply sending
      an email - someone still needs to pick up a shovel. Same same as thinking
      you can calibrate without using any ink.. sorry.

      Once you're happy with the result, save it. Repeat with the matte paper.

      (Now I know that with Epsons if I do this, it works, irrespective of the
      paper brand - the images will all look the same. However if I tell the
      Epson I'm using Iford paper for one print and Fuji for the next, the colours
      will be wildly different. Why do you do that Epson - it's crazy! If we go
      popping in the brand and style for each paper type on an Epson, we'd have to
      calibrate each one.. total madness.. but a good way for Epson to sell
      profiles! Epson really got to annoying me..)

      Next, grab one of your unaltered digicam images at random , using these
      print settings above, send it to print. Sit back and be amazed at how good
      the image looks.

      I've had people who have every calibration device known to man, every
      software calibration tool loaded and follow meticulously all the chants and
      arm gestures. They've risked everything and tried this method only to
      discover all their past image adjustment was simply fighting both ends of
      the snake. Consider: you calibrate a profile for importing pics, you alter
      the way it looks by having a monitor profile 'adjust' the image to look
      good, you have another calibration profile adjusting the printer.. now,
      should one go wrong - which is it? Could it be they're all adjusting each
      other to give you what you had in the first place? (and that's not even
      going anywhere near the 'hidden' profiling done by the OS, browsers and
      graphics cards)

      Next step is to shut down ALL image tampering your PC/Unix/Mac/Other does
      and calibrate the screen - use software or the monitor hardware, no one
      cares.. but make the screen match the print as closely as possible.

      Looks pretty OK, hey? <glares balefully at the Eye-One>

      Don't fret that your monitor is now 'off'. Odds are that 90% of the folks
      viewing your images on the web do not have their monitor calibrated and even
      if they do it'll still not look anything like yours. Different phosphors,
      video cards, Shell enhancements, browsers - they all impact colour. If it
      looks OK to your eyes, it's OK.

      That's it.

      If you plan on using Joe Bloggs Printing Services to have Pegasys prints
      made, no bother - make an 8x10 filled with 4x5 rows of those shirleys on the
      same page, but tweek each to create a colour ring (0 correction, +5 Red,
      +5Red+5Blue, etc) Flatten it and save as a jpg 100%. When you first send
      these guys a digital file, make it this one - check the print when it comes
      back - if say the +10Green+5Blue looks best, before you send these guys your
      images to print batch apply these colour adjustments to your files and send
      them off - you've just applied a profile to their printer :)


      There is no dark art to this, no hardware required, just a set of eyes and a
      change of thinking. Try it and see..
      Mind you, I don't know your PC or printer so I couldn't advise what may
      complicate things or what may fight you - it's no different from talking to
      'that' person via email who has to upload every attachment he wants to send
      you to an online fileserver 'coz he somehow can't send attachments with his
      email program. How the heck do I know what software has fouled things up?
      All I know is all the students who tried this stopped pratting about with
      the other methods and whizzed through their work with less stress and more
      success, and wondered why they'd ever bothered with all that graphic design
      nonsense in the first place. Their work was noticeably better and colours
      looked much more natural.

      A final word on OS's, browsers and video cards. A lot of modern OS's employ
      tweaks to 'correct' colours and smooth jaggies - I don't like this. 3D
      graphics cards do the same, often sacrificing colour accuracy for high frame
      rates - I don't like this either. Then the new Safari browser as I've said
      before, employs some clever algorithms to tidy up images and make them look
      nice for the viewer - yeah, not happy with that too. When I am tampering
      with images I want to see all the warts, I do not want the gamma being
      corrected and the tones smoothed - I NEED to see the faults to correct them.
      Apparently I am also blessed with Very Good Eyes so I *can* see problems and
      I do not like it when they're being hidden, especially when I'm trying to
      make the best images I can.

      It's no different than were I doing audio editing while my audio card
      decided I should have '3D effects' turned on whilst using a Cathedral
      profile to make it sound awesome. The first time I hear my efforts
      reproduced on another machine without these enhancements (impediments) I'd
      hang my head in shame and wonder how I could have shared such a ghastly
      audio track with the world.

      Most folk don't realize their computers are doing this, wouldn't even know
      how to check to see if it were the case.. but that's not how it should be.
      Anyone working as a pro should know precisely what gear they're using and
      how it's being used. it's kinda part of the job description.. but no shame
      to those who are unaware - that's what asking is all about, trying to find
      out what is what and working with new information.


      Like I said at the get go, this effort is cheap and requires no purchase,
      It only involved people giving it a go and seeing for themselves. Other
      photographers have also found their way to this method all by themselves
      which heartened me as I read of more and more people 'discovering' this
      way - it showed they too were meeting success and had also followed a
      similar logical path. Anyone can try it and if they don't like it they can
      ignore it and buy someone elses hardware, books, training courses etc.

      it's an alternative method - might be what you want, might be worth
      exploring.. up to you ;)

      hope it helps someone

      k
    • David Dyer-Bennet
      ... I never ran a color line; but I know what control strips are. And that proper use of them was one of the big differences between a pro lab and a consumer
      Message 2 of 28 , Dec 1, 2011
        On Thu, December 1, 2011 03:43, Karl Shah-Jenner wrote:
        > I thought I was alone with my take on colour management but it seems
        > others
        > have 'discovered' the same thing as I.
        >
        > I'd also state straight up that I taught photography as a science course,
        > so
        > the emphasis was not on following what I say, but in having students TEST
        > what I say - compare it to other methods, compare it to 'what they know'
        > and
        > evaluate the results as objectively as possible. That is what science
        > is..
        > degrees don't make a scientist - science is a philosophy of analysis.
        >
        >
        > So firstly... if you're a graphic designer working with colourmetrics,
        > you've a set of colours that are limited to your printer, and graphics
        > printers are generally 4 colour.
        >
        > This means: photographs will never reproduce well
        > Your calibration is based on inksets used in specific printers.
        > You will pay dearly to buy profiles.
        > You will be outputting to a very tiny selection of printers.
        > Photographers will hate your work and say you do not understand colour.
        >
        >
        > We are photographers. We work with many more inks than this, we don't
        > like
        > spending money, and we DO understand colour, just differently than
        > graphics
        > guys understand it.
        >
        > I was thinking about this one day while I was running a control strip
        > through the RA4 machine. For those who are unaware of the process, a
        > batch
        > of 'control strips' are bought from Kodak, Fuji or elsewhere that are
        > simply
        > lengths of RA4 paper, frozen, that have been exposed to give a selection
        > of
        > colour swatches. Instructions on the box include (specific to each batch)
        > standard colour correction variables - ie, each batch of paper is
        > different
        > so even though the exposure of the paper was done under a specific,
        > carefully monitored light source, the paper will not represent these
        > colours
        > 100% accurate from batch to batch.

        I never ran a color line; but I know what control strips are. And that
        proper use of them was one of the big differences between a pro lab and a
        consumer lab (the pro lab will be more consistent AND closer to "right").

        > Running these through the RA4 machine each day you'd then pop the control
        > strip under a densitometer and check how close the colours were to what
        > they
        > were supposed to be (allowing for the included variation) then you'd head
        > back to the RA4 machine and tweak the chemistry..
        >
        > This was a number of days after Fuji Australia had failed to reorder E6
        > control strips and we'd run out.. 4 weeks wait and we neeeeeed these
        > things
        > to get the chemistry right! Kodak had none either (unbefreakingleavable)
        >
        > I got around this pretty easily by grabbing a batch of frozen film which
        > had always produced reliable colours, then I shot a few rolls of a Gretag
        > card under controlled lights (flash with voltage monitoring) at a
        > specified
        > distance at a specified exposure with a specific camera. - all carefully
        > noted in case I needed to go through the process again at a later time.
        > It
        > is critical you use exactly the same setup, any variations *here* will
        > affect stuff *there* - how you going to know which was which?
        >
        > After this, I snipped off a few frames and ran these with the last control
        > strip through the chemistry. Popping them under the densitometer, I
        > calibrated the control strip, then adjusted the values against the stock I
        > shot.. I calculated what the correct values for my control strips were,
        > adjusted the chemistry based on the last Fuji control strip then checked
        > mine again. Pretty close to perfect.
        >
        > Noting the various values for My Control Strips, the rest of the rolls
        > shot
        > were snipped up and frozen to be used daily.. When the Fuji control
        > strips
        > finally came in I checked the chemistry as we'd been using it against what
        > it was supposed to be and it was as though we'd been using the Fuji's all
        > along.
        >
        > Back to the RA4 saga..
        >
        > I was tossing all this around in my head along with what I knew was being
        > taught about colour management to students and I had a bit of an epiphany
        >
        > Firstly, aside from the control strips, NO ONE sticks their prints under
        > the
        > densitometer unless they're testing papers! No final print is ever
        > checked
        > this way - they're viewed under a controlled 'daylight' light source by
        > eye,
        > but never a densitometer! We only calibrate the 'printer' - not the film,
        > not the lighting conditions, nothing but the printer (RA4) and then as we
        > print we eyeball the results and tweak the filtration until we get the
        > print
        > looking right. Once your light is right, for that entire roll of film (if
        > the subjects were shot under the same light) no further tweaking is
        > necessary.
        >
        > Sure we may filter light when shooting, and we may select specific film
        > stocks, but these are always to get 'best looking' results, not '100%
        > accurate' results (impossible anyway). Who filtered to eliminate the sky
        > colour in the evening? No one. Unless you were shooting for colour
        > accuracy, in which case you'd have been better off shooting in a studio..
        > even then, your film stock would let you down. Remember how we picked
        > Kodak
        > for reds, Fuji for greens etc? What did accuracy have to do with it??
        > The
        > closest film to accurate was Konica 100 and no one used that (that's an
        > objective analysis done by a compulsive film tester who blew loads of cash
        > testing every film available on the market talking ;)
        >
        > Ultimately, we went for what LOOKED right.
        >
        > Anyone who took a leaf and compared the leaf it's self to the print under
        > a
        > densitometer deserved to be dragged off to Trembling Willows and placed in
        > a
        > room with rubber wallpaper. We photographers unlike graphics folk, go for
        > what *looks* right. The managing director of advertising at Coke
        > doesn't
        > care if the logo looks green under fluro lights, what he cares about is
        > that
        > the logo looks exactly the same - exactly - as the pantone swatch value
        > for
        > his logo colour under the same lightsource, so all coke logos, coke labels
        > and coke party hats .
        >
        > We came to digital imaging as photographers long after the graphics guys
        > did
        > and we adopted their tools - which was all there was - and we basically
        > copied their techniques without ever asking if it was the right way..
        > after
        > all there was a huge learning curve and the graphics guys seemed to have
        > it
        > nailed. but the fundamental philosophic difference was overlooked..



        > This set me to work trying to find a more appropriate method of colour
        > management for photographers than that we were using. I was mixing with
        > graphics and printer guys not long after this at a Canon printer
        > repair/setup training course and I mentioned I was on this path - I was
        > soundly congratulated by all and sundry as (in their words) they were
        > heartily sick of photographers and how little they understood of colour.
        > (/hangs head in shame) The individuals who created all on Ilford
        > Australia's colour profiles were there, the biggest distributor of wide
        > format printers were there.. they all said the same thing.
        >
        > The thing was, once I nailed it I didn't actually have anything saleable
        > for anyone, it's actually very easy.
        >
        >
        > First thing to understand is printers, as these are often the intended
        > final output device for photos. More on screen colour later..
        >
        > dpi means nothing, ppi means everything.. and printer manufacturers
        > confuse
        > the two to confuse you. DPI is how many splats of ink per inch the
        > printer
        > may use to make up a colour. Tamper with this value by restricting the
        > number of colours the printer can select and you'll lose your colour
        > range.
        > Canon doesn't let you near this value (nor should they) Epson does.
        > Great
        > for Graphics folks to limit their colour range, a disaster for
        > photographers. leave this alone.
        >
        > Media. Basically there's gloss (needs more ink squirted per drop), matte
        > (needs lots more ink squirted per drop) and plain (doesn't need much).
        > All
        > changing the media should do is change the amount squirted out per drop.
        > Canon and almost everyone else abides by this simple rule, Epson does not.
        > Don't believe me? Change the media setting and run three prints through
        > on
        > the same media, the colours will look pretty much the same out of a canon,
        > just more or less (paler or ink sloshing across the paper). Do it with an
        > Epson and watch the colours actually change. Epson like photographers.
        > Epson sells many, many profiles to photographers. Photographers love
        > Epson. Epson is a wealthy company. (Epson is Seiko)

        Okay, the alarm bells are starting to ring here. Epson doesn't sell
        profiles to photographers; they give profiles for Epson media and standard
        Epson printers. If you want a profile unique to your own printer, or for
        a combination of ink, printer, and paper that crosses company boundaries,
        you can either make it yourself, or use one of a number of commercial
        outfits that make custom profiles. But Epson isn't selling profiles
        anywhere I've ever heard of. And thus there is no benefit to Epson from
        making this "hard"; what Epson benefits from is satisfied customers.


        >
        > Quality. Draft (skip some lines (low dpi), make tiny drops, go fast).
        > Standard (don't be too fussy, put a reasonable amount of ink
        > down, use maybe a few more colours and quirts)
        > Graphics ( let the rip go stupid on saturating the more
        > perceptually 'vivid' colours, use lots of ink, avoid subtle tones please
        > RIP)
        > Photographic (ok guys, fire up the 'good' rip, be careful
        > with
        > colours, lay down reasonably heavy drops (check the 'media type') and use
        > all the dots you need to get the colours goodest)
        >
        >
        > Photographers should have their printers set to photographic quality,
        > gloss
        > or matte and nothing else.
        >
        > Set the PPI on the image before sending it to print and get it to bang on
        > 300ppi for the intended image size. If using an Epson and you go looking
        > at
        > dpi, set it to maximum, but restrict the print size to whatever it is you
        > intend, ie an 8x10 image should be sent through as 2400x3000 pixels, image
        > size 8x10, dpi= max. do not send 4000ppi images to print or your printer
        > will hate you..

        While for extreme enlargements you can probably do better in your own
        software than in the printer, I find sending original-size images to my
        printer for ordinary print sizes to be the best practice. There are very
        modest gains in sharpness from excess data, and skipping the resizing step
        in the workflow saves me from a range of possible mistakes (saving the
        wrong thing, possibly the small version over my master version).

        > Now the colour side of things.. this bit is actually short.
        >
        > I made a swatch of colours, RGBYMC and a greyscale, including a headshot
        > of
        > a person under 'natural daylight' on 'normal' camera settings and bunged
        > these together as a 'Shirley' and sent it to print, setting the media to
        > gloss generic, photo quality.
        >
        > Look at the result under a decent light. Is it too red? go back into the
        > printer settings and change the 'gloss generic' setting and dial back the
        > red. Was it too pale (not enough ink)?, increase the saturation. Tweak
        > away and save it.
        >
        > Note: Some may view this a laborious and costly exercise, but potholes in
        > the road cannot be filled in with by the Transport Minister simply sending
        > an email - someone still needs to pick up a shovel. Same same as thinking
        > you can calibrate without using any ink.. sorry.
        >
        > Once you're happy with the result, save it. Repeat with the matte paper.
        >
        > (Now I know that with Epsons if I do this, it works, irrespective of the
        > paper brand - the images will all look the same. However if I tell the
        > Epson I'm using Iford paper for one print and Fuji for the next, the
        > colours
        > will be wildly different. Why do you do that Epson - it's crazy! If we
        > go
        > popping in the brand and style for each paper type on an Epson, we'd have
        > to
        > calibrate each one.. total madness.. but a good way for Epson to sell
        > profiles! Epson really got to annoying me..)

        Again, Epson doesn't sell profiles.

        And I don't even know what you mean by saying "I tell the Epson I'm using
        Ilford paper". The only meaning I can see is that you're using an Ilford
        profile? But that should be in Photoshop, not in the printer (at least
        that's the preferred workflow for everybody I've talked to about this).

        > Next, grab one of your unaltered digicam images at random , using these
        > print settings above, send it to print. Sit back and be amazed at how
        > good
        > the image looks.
        >
        > I've had people who have every calibration device known to man, every
        > software calibration tool loaded and follow meticulously all the chants
        > and
        > arm gestures. They've risked everything and tried this method only to
        > discover all their past image adjustment was simply fighting both ends of
        > the snake. Consider: you calibrate a profile for importing pics, you
        > alter
        > the way it looks by having a monitor profile 'adjust' the image to look
        > good, you have another calibration profile adjusting the printer.. now,
        > should one go wrong - which is it? Could it be they're all adjusting each
        > other to give you what you had in the first place? (and that's not even
        > going anywhere near the 'hidden' profiling done by the OS, browsers and
        > graphics cards)

        Not if you're doing it right. The opposite, in fact -- with proper
        profiling, what's going on is each device is coming as close as it can to
        properly representing the colors recorded in a file. If you start nudging
        each one individually, *that's* when you end up chasing your tail.

        Your approach also makes your files unique to you, not usable by anybody
        else. Because they encode all the adjustments you've made to your
        personal environment.

        > Next step is to shut down ALL image tampering your PC/Unix/Mac/Other does
        > and calibrate the screen - use software or the monitor hardware, no one
        > cares.. but make the screen match the print as closely as possible.
        >
        > Looks pretty OK, hey? <glares balefully at the Eye-One>
        >
        > Don't fret that your monitor is now 'off'. Odds are that 90% of the folks
        > viewing your images on the web do not have their monitor calibrated and
        > even
        > if they do it'll still not look anything like yours. Different phosphors,
        > video cards, Shell enhancements, browsers - they all impact colour. If it
        > looks OK to your eyes, it's OK.
        >
        > That's it.
        >
        > If you plan on using Joe Bloggs Printing Services to have Pegasys prints
        > made, no bother - make an 8x10 filled with 4x5 rows of those shirleys on
        > the
        > same page, but tweek each to create a colour ring (0 correction, +5 Red,
        > +5Red+5Blue, etc) Flatten it and save as a jpg 100%. When you first
        > send
        > these guys a digital file, make it this one - check the print when it
        > comes
        > back - if say the +10Green+5Blue looks best, before you send these guys
        > your
        > images to print batch apply these colour adjustments to your files and
        > send
        > them off - you've just applied a profile to their printer :)
        >
        >
        > There is no dark art to this, no hardware required, just a set of eyes and
        > a
        > change of thinking. Try it and see..

        This is where we were before color management became available. I have to
        say that color management works monumentally better than this for me.
        --
        David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...; http://dd-b.net/
        Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
        Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
        Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
      • Karl Shah-Jenner
        ... profiles to photographers; they give profiles for Epson media and standard Epson printers. If you want a profile unique to your own printer, or for a
        Message 3 of 28 , Dec 1, 2011
          David Dyer-Bennet read my excessively long post and commented:


          >Okay, the alarm bells are starting to ring here. Epson doesn't sell
          profiles to photographers; they give profiles for Epson media and standard
          Epson printers. If you want a profile unique to your own printer, or for
          a combination of ink, printer, and paper that crosses company boundaries,
          you can either make it yourself, or use one of a number of commercial
          outfits that make custom profiles. But Epson isn't selling profiles
          anywhere I've ever heard of. And thus there is no benefit to Epson from
          making this "hard"; what Epson benefits from is satisfied customers.


          Here in Oz they did sell profiles, they had a seperate firm develop them,
          but then they were onsold, I made the mistake of presuming it was the case
          the world over. .




          >While for extreme enlargements you can probably do better in your own
          software than in the printer, I find sending original-size images to my
          printer for ordinary print sizes to be the best practice. There are very
          modest gains in sharpness from excess data, and skipping the resizing step
          in the workflow saves me from a range of possible mistakes (saving the
          wrong thing, possibly the small version over my master version).

          here again you're right to a point, the printers rip will be better often
          than a cheap, bought RIP unless it's for a specific non-photographic purpose
          like an architects RIP. My point was as I alluded, sending excessively
          large images to a printer will just upset it. I also still feel it's good
          practice to store printable images at the 'optimum' pixel count for given
          sizes

          I'll confess I have Irfanview batch rip all my printables straight to
          folders labeled 8x10's, 6x4's, largescreen and email within subfolders.
          THis is done in a DOS batch process with one click so my brain disengages ..




          >And I don't even know what you mean by saying "I tell the Epson I'm using
          Ilford paper". The only meaning I can see is that you're using an Ilford
          profile? But that should be in Photoshop, not in the printer (at least
          that's the preferred workflow for everybody I've talked to about this).

          Whatever software package is used, the printer dialogue box will still
          present it's self and that's where people will select the profile (paper
          type).



          >> the way it looks by having a monitor profile 'adjust' the image to look
          > good, you have another calibration profile adjusting the printer.. now,
          > should one go wrong - which is it? Could it be they're all adjusting each
          > other to give you what you had in the first place? (and that's not even
          > going anywhere near the 'hidden' profiling done by the OS, browsers and
          > graphics cards)

          >Not if you're doing it right. The opposite, in fact -- with proper
          profiling, what's going on is each device is coming as close as it can to
          properly representing the colors recorded in a file. If you start nudging
          each one individually, *that's* when you end up chasing your tail.

          Might be just what I've seen, but the first step in any courses I've been on
          has seen the instructor telling the students we begin by profiling the
          monitor. Say we follow this step, then we go to the printer.. Straight up,
          they've utterly ignored the OS and the graphics card's intervention -
          utterly. No mention at all. Next thing is people start working on the
          images based on what they see.. and when it doesn't print quite right the
          fiddling starts.

          The graphics folks do every step according to densitometers and colour
          analysers, so they don't even need to see the images at any point, it's all
          colourmetrics to them - as soon as us photographers start making adjustments
          at any point along the path we're fouling up their carefully designed path.

          Now sure, if you only fiddle one aspect, one variable in your path then
          you'd be minimising the chance of errors as you say, but.. Let's say at the
          monitor calibration point you have the OS saturating the colours up.. so you
          tweak the monitor to tone them down according to your Spider/Eye-One. That's
          two variables changed. The Video card is also smoothing and dropping colour
          data, so now we're at 3 variables.

          At this stage though the image is unaltered, but we have 3 'profiles' at
          work already. Now we go look at the image and start changing it to look
          'better'. We send it to print and it's not quite what we expected - what do
          we change? We've already done the workflow profiling and it should be bang
          on.. so we start changing settings in the printer - now we're making 2
          changes based on 4 different system profiles, two of which we have access
          to, 2 we do not.

          I've still had no answer from anyone whether Quartz (in Apples) colour space
          and management can be turned off ..
          http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/graphicsimaging/conceptual/drawingwithquartz2d/Introduction/Introduction.html

          My method is just starting with the printer, calibrating that and then
          having the monitor 'best represent' what the printer produces. I honestly
          couldn't think of a better way to do it as a photographer.



          >Your approach also makes your files unique to you, not usable by anybody
          else. Because they encode all the adjustments you've made to your
          personal environment.

          Here I apologise as I laugh and contemplate the discussions I've heard at
          pro printers and photo kiosks as arguments break out over profiles, colour
          spaces and flared tempers go head to head over who's right and who's wrong
          about image files.

          My image alterations are minimal (most of the time there's no alterations
          done from camera to print, since the printer is 'profiled' at day 1) and
          sure, I cannot hand an image to a graphic dude without them having to do
          some work, but then that's the way it always was, the relationship between
          graphics companies using photographs in publications - they did that side, I
          did the picture taking side. If they have a clue then it's a
          straightforward process for them to make the image print ready and look as
          good as it can..

          Me, I don't want to know about 4 colour print process - I'll always hate the
          results, just as any E6 shooter who saw their lovely slide projected with
          all that lovely gamma was dissapointed when they saw their darker tones
          descent to black. Projected V reflected is never what we want.

          Again though, loading other folks tagged images into my PC I can happily
          show them the *same image* loaded into 4 different programs all looking
          utterly different. version 1 applies a colour space alteration, version 2
          applies a colour space + profile, version 3 ignores colour space and
          profile, version 4 applies a profile and ignores colour space.

          but back to printing - the end goal of all photos - the graphics dudes
          prints will look wrong to me as he has his colour management set for a 4
          colour printer. and that's the gist of colour management for
          all-platform-total-100%-portability, restricting the colour space to the
          lowest common denominator to ensure ALL output looks the same! If you do it
          the 'right' way this is what you're aiming for

          I do not want that, I want the full gamut of the 8 or more ink set printer
          available to me. So by not employing a software profile I have no tags
          clipping the image colour range and my images will preserve the full gamut
          of whatever the camera was capable of producing.

          THis method is not as strange as it initially seems, it's 'working
          backwards' against the graphics method, but don't forget, graphics workflows
          are designed to start at the monitor stage as they input values to create
          their colours.



          >This is where we were before color management became available. I have to
          say that color management works monumentally better than this for me.


          I've never encountered anyone who started at the printer and worked back
          before, and my recollection of events was that photoshop was well
          established before any of us had access to a colour printer (or even a
          colour PC) at home

          just saying..

          k
        • Gregory
          In searching for a presence on the internet, I found this 501(c) organization. It s called Creative Commons allowing members to offer their work under various
          Message 4 of 28 , Dec 2, 2011
            In searching for a presence on the internet, I found this 501(c)
            organization. It's called Creative Commons allowing members to offer their
            work under various licenses. You can access the website here;
            http://creativecommons.org/

            Has anyone heard or know anything about this site?

            Gregory
          • David Dyer-Bennet
            ... Ah, of course; I should have thought of that as a possibility (and thus had less alarm bell and more oh, different ). ... In theory, I certainly believe
            Message 5 of 28 , Dec 2, 2011
              On Thu, December 1, 2011 19:36, Karl Shah-Jenner wrote:
              > David Dyer-Bennet read my excessively long post and commented:
              >
              >
              >>Okay, the alarm bells are starting to ring here. Epson doesn't sell
              > profiles to photographers; they give profiles for Epson media and standard
              > Epson printers. If you want a profile unique to your own printer, or for
              > a combination of ink, printer, and paper that crosses company boundaries,
              > you can either make it yourself, or use one of a number of commercial
              > outfits that make custom profiles. But Epson isn't selling profiles
              > anywhere I've ever heard of. And thus there is no benefit to Epson from
              > making this "hard"; what Epson benefits from is satisfied customers.
              >
              >
              > Here in Oz they did sell profiles, they had a seperate firm develop them,
              > but then they were onsold, I made the mistake of presuming it was the case
              > the world over. .

              Ah, of course; I should have thought of that as a possibility (and thus
              had less "alarm bell" and more "oh, different").

              >>While for extreme enlargements you can probably do better in your own
              > software than in the printer, I find sending original-size images to my
              > printer for ordinary print sizes to be the best practice. There are very
              > modest gains in sharpness from excess data, and skipping the resizing step
              > in the workflow saves me from a range of possible mistakes (saving the
              > wrong thing, possibly the small version over my master version).
              >
              > here again you're right to a point, the printers rip will be better often
              > than a cheap, bought RIP unless it's for a specific non-photographic
              > purpose
              > like an architects RIP. My point was as I alluded, sending excessively
              > large images to a printer will just upset it. I also still feel it's good
              > practice to store printable images at the 'optimum' pixel count for given
              > sizes

              In theory, I certainly believe in optimizing to the point of insanity and
              then storing that version for future use. For the ultimate-quality
              prints; mostly even my hardcopy isn't pushing for ultimate quality; either
              I'm lazy, or else I've learned too much about printing (so that "ultimate"
              is getting to be quite a lot of work).

              > I'll confess I have Irfanview batch rip all my printables straight to
              > folders labeled 8x10's, 6x4's, largescreen and email within subfolders.
              > THis is done in a DOS batch process with one click so my brain disengages
              > ..

              It's tremendously useful to be able to disengage the brain from things
              that don't actually need interactive intelligence.

              >>And I don't even know what you mean by saying "I tell the Epson I'm using
              > Ilford paper". The only meaning I can see is that you're using an Ilford
              > profile? But that should be in Photoshop, not in the printer (at least
              > that's the preferred workflow for everybody I've talked to about this).
              >
              > Whatever software package is used, the printer dialogue box will still
              > present it's self and that's where people will select the profile (paper
              > type).

              Perhaps a lot of people will, but it's not what I've been taught is the
              recommended workflow; I do the profile processing in Photoshop and turn
              off the adjustments in the printer.

              Anyway, I think we've established that we are indeed talking about output
              profile selection, which was what I wasn't sure of.

              >>> the way it looks by having a monitor profile 'adjust' the image to look
              >> good, you have another calibration profile adjusting the printer.. now,
              >> should one go wrong - which is it? Could it be they're all adjusting
              >> each
              >> other to give you what you had in the first place? (and that's not even
              >> going anywhere near the 'hidden' profiling done by the OS, browsers and
              >> graphics cards)
              >
              >>Not if you're doing it right. The opposite, in fact -- with proper
              > profiling, what's going on is each device is coming as close as it can to
              > properly representing the colors recorded in a file. If you start nudging
              > each one individually, *that's* when you end up chasing your tail.
              >
              > Might be just what I've seen, but the first step in any courses I've been
              > on
              > has seen the instructor telling the students we begin by profiling the
              > monitor. Say we follow this step, then we go to the printer.. Straight
              > up,
              > they've utterly ignored the OS and the graphics card's intervention -
              > utterly. No mention at all. Next thing is people start working on the
              > images based on what they see.. and when it doesn't print quite right the
              > fiddling starts.

              The monitor profile controls the OS and the graphics card's intervention.

              > The graphics folks do every step according to densitometers and colour
              > analysers, so they don't even need to see the images at any point, it's
              > all
              > colourmetrics to them - as soon as us photographers start making
              > adjustments
              > at any point along the path we're fouling up their carefully designed
              > path.

              Not in a properly color-managed workflow. A good printing plant will
              produce the "right" colors for the numbers in the file, just as a properly
              profiled monitor/graphics card will display as close as it can to the
              "right" color for the numbers in the file.

              > Now sure, if you only fiddle one aspect, one variable in your path then
              > you'd be minimising the chance of errors as you say, but.. Let's say at
              > the
              > monitor calibration point you have the OS saturating the colours up.. so
              > you
              > tweak the monitor to tone them down according to your Spider/Eye-One.
              > That's
              > two variables changed. The Video card is also smoothing and dropping
              > colour
              > data, so now we're at 3 variables.

              Nope; you set the monitor characteristics to neutral first, then the
              profile controls the rest.

              > At this stage though the image is unaltered, but we have 3 'profiles' at
              > work already. Now we go look at the image and start changing it to look
              > 'better'. We send it to print and it's not quite what we expected - what
              > do
              > we change? We've already done the workflow profiling and it should be
              > bang
              > on.. so we start changing settings in the printer - now we're making 2
              > changes based on 4 different system profiles, two of which we have access
              > to, 2 we do not.

              I'd never dream of changing the printer parameters at that point. If
              absolutely necessary, and it is sometimes, I'd add adjustment layers in
              the image, named as applying to a particular printer/paper combination.

              > I've still had no answer from anyone whether Quartz (in Apples) colour
              > space
              > and management can be turned off ..
              > http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/graphicsimaging/conceptual/drawingwithquartz2d/Introduction/Introduction.html

              I don't touch Apple stuff myself.

              > My method is just starting with the printer, calibrating that and then
              > having the monitor 'best represent' what the printer produces. I honestly
              > couldn't think of a better way to do it as a photographer.
              >
              >
              >
              >>Your approach also makes your files unique to you, not usable by anybody
              > else. Because they encode all the adjustments you've made to your
              > personal environment.
              >
              > Here I apologise as I laugh and contemplate the discussions I've heard at
              > pro printers and photo kiosks as arguments break out over profiles, colour
              > spaces and flared tempers go head to head over who's right and who's wrong
              > about image files.

              I've printed the same files on two of Ctein's Epson printers (a 9800, and
              I think the little one for the first proof was a 2400), my R800, and
              Costco's 7800 (using Ilford rather than Epson paper, but with a custom
              profile for that) and gotten beautiful matching.

              A lot of people mess up to the point of applying profiles twice and things
              like that, but if you do it right, it works much better than anything
              else.

              > My image alterations are minimal (most of the time there's no alterations
              > done from camera to print, since the printer is 'profiled' at day 1) and
              > sure, I cannot hand an image to a graphic dude without them having to do
              > some work, but then that's the way it always was, the relationship between
              > graphics companies using photographs in publications - they did that side,
              > I
              > did the picture taking side. If they have a clue then it's a
              > straightforward process for them to make the image print ready and look as
              > good as it can..

              Ah, that may also be important. A photo being prepared for print gets the
              full exhibition-quality printing treatment, meaning everything I know how
              to do. This rarely ends up being less than 2 image layers and 4
              adjustment layers, usually with layer masks. Half an hour to (obscenely
              large numbers here).

              > Me, I don't want to know about 4 colour print process - I'll always hate
              > the
              > results, just as any E6 shooter who saw their lovely slide projected with
              > all that lovely gamma was dissapointed when they saw their darker tones
              > descent to black. Projected V reflected is never what we want.

              I don't think I've had anything of mine reproduced in color offset -- back
              when I did yearbook and magazine stuff we were B&W. But even photographic
              prints from slides weren't very good, unless you went to exotic processes
              AND expert printers. Basically, if you wanted prints you were much better
              off shooting negatives (as wedding photographers did for example). I know
              the printing industry was mostly too ignorant to work from negs
              effectively, so magazine work and such was always slides, at considerable
              cost to the results.

              > Again though, loading other folks tagged images into my PC I can happily
              > show them the *same image* loaded into 4 different programs all looking
              > utterly different. version 1 applies a colour space alteration, version 2
              > applies a colour space + profile, version 3 ignores colour space and
              > profile, version 4 applies a profile and ignores colour space.

              Most of them are wrong; they're bad viewers. I can look at images in
              Photoshop and Irfanview and Firefox and they all look the same, which is
              as it should be.

              > but back to printing - the end goal of all photos - the graphics dudes
              > prints will look wrong to me as he has his colour management set for a 4
              > colour printer. and that's the gist of colour management for
              > all-platform-total-100%-portability, restricting the colour space to the
              > lowest common denominator to ensure ALL output looks the same! If you do
              > it
              > the 'right' way this is what you're aiming for

              No, that's not how it works at all. However, if low-gamut processes are a
              part of your plan, you do have to consider them, and decide if you want to
              make separate versions for that, or just accept limitations overall.

              I ignore them, since my uses are photo-quality prints plus online. Offset
              printing isn't relevant to me any more.

              > I do not want that, I want the full gamut of the 8 or more ink set printer
              > available to me. So by not employing a software profile I have no tags
              > clipping the image colour range and my images will preserve the full gamut
              > of whatever the camera was capable of producing.

              You've got a large basic misunderstanding of color management going here.
              Also possibly a misunderstanding of where the real choke-points in color
              space are.

              Here's how my workflow goes:

              RAW file is converted in ACR or Bibble Pro into Prophoto RGB color space
              16 bit channels. That's a huge space, but with 16-bit channels doesn't
              compress things particularly.

              That is then manipulated in Photoshop or Bibble Pro until I realize I'm
              making it worse instead of better :-).

              If I'm printing locally, I print from Photoshop (I basically use Bibble to
              prepare things in bulk for the Web) directly, using an appropriate printer
              profile.

              If I'm sending to a lab to print, I follow their instructions, which
              nearly always are to convert to sRGB color space and jpeg level 10. This
              is a smaller color space than Prophoto RGB -- but big enough for the final
              print. The big space is needed while working the image, not so much for
              the final result.

              > THis method is not as strange as it initially seems, it's 'working
              > backwards' against the graphics method, but don't forget, graphics
              > workflows
              > are designed to start at the monitor stage as they input values to create
              > their colours.

              Modern color-managed workflows are intended to handle everything, but
              photos are their primary actual use, and the implementers know this.


              >>This is where we were before color management became available. I have
              >> to
              > say that color management works monumentally better than this for me.
              >
              >
              > I've never encountered anyone who started at the printer and worked back
              > before, and my recollection of events was that photoshop was well
              > established before any of us had access to a colour printer (or even a
              > colour PC) at home

              I was using HP color printers for at least two generations before I got
              Photoshop (it existed, at least in the Mac world, but I didn't jump into
              it until I think version 3 in the Windows world). I used Corel Photo
              Paint for my first few years working with scans (I started around 1993 I
              think).
              --
              David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...; http://dd-b.net/
              Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
              Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
              Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
            • David Dyer-Bennet
              ... Wow; somebody just hearing about Creative Commons for the first time just now? I m kinda surprised. Yes, they re very well known. Wikipedia for example
              Message 6 of 28 , Dec 2, 2011
                On Fri, December 2, 2011 10:56, Gregory wrote:
                > In searching for a presence on the internet, I found this 501(c)
                > organization. It's called Creative Commons allowing members to offer their
                > work under various licenses. You can access the website here;
                > http://creativecommons.org/
                >
                > Has anyone heard or know anything about this site?

                Wow; somebody just hearing about Creative Commons for the first time just
                now? I'm kinda surprised.

                Yes, they're very well known. Wikipedia for example uses their licensing
                terms as the standard. They're one of the licensing choices in the Flickr
                drop-downs, too. They're front and center in the IP discussion.

                (Note that what they're doing is trying to provide licenses that
                accomplish various things people want done, within the current legal IP
                framework.)

                I've released a number of my photos under CC terms (I mostly use
                CC-BY-SA), and it's those photos that I think are most likely to still
                exist 50 years after I'm dead. I've even sold usage rights in a book to
                an image I'd put up under CC license; the author found it on Wikipedia.
                --
                David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...; http://dd-b.net/
                Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
                Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
                Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
              • Emily L. Ferguson
                ... It s a great way to give your stuff away and give people the impression that anything on the internet is free. -- Emily L. Ferguson
                Message 7 of 28 , Dec 2, 2011
                  At 8:56 AM -0800 12/2/11, Gregory wrote:
                  >In searching for a presence on the internet, I found this 501(c)
                  >organization. It's called Creative Commons allowing members to offer
                  >their work under various licenses. You can access the website here;
                  >http://creativecommons.org/
                  >
                  >Has anyone heard or know anything about this site?
                  >
                  >Gregory

                  It's a great way to give your stuff away and give people the
                  impression that anything on the internet is free.
                  --
                  Emily L. Ferguson
                  mailto:elf@...
                  508-563-6822
                  New England landscapes, wooden boats and races
                  http://www.landsedgephoto.com
                  Check out my Spring daily photograph project at:
                  http://tinyurl.com/3a6m7g6
                  And Summer:
                  http://tinyurl.com/22juo5s
                  Autumn now complete here:
                  http://tinyurl.com/26pdgz9
                  Winter concluded here:
                  http://tinyurl.com/2co5wkg
                • Trevor Cunningham
                  It s the foundation for the information revolution.
                  Message 8 of 28 , Dec 2, 2011
                    It's the foundation for the information revolution.

                    On 12/2/11 7:56 PM, Gregory wrote:
                    > In searching for a presence on the internet, I found this 501(c)
                    > organization. It's called Creative Commons allowing members to offer
                    > their work under various licenses. You can access the website here;
                    > http://creativecommons.org/
                    >
                    > Has anyone heard or know anything about this site?
                    >
                    > Gregory
                    >
                  • PhotoRoy6@aol.com
                    That is how the profiles given by Epson are set up now. You plug them into Photoshop and pick the no adjustment in printer menu. Epson started this by the
                    Message 9 of 28 , Dec 3, 2011
                      That is how the profiles given by Epson are set up now. You plug them into Photoshop and pick the no adjustment in printer menu.  Epson started this by the time I got the R-1800 which means Epson started this method ca 2006.   Before that with the Epson 1270 (ca 2000) the canned profile was in the printer menu. Some experts claimed their was double profiling going on if one were using the later versions of Photoshop so Epson went to the no adjustment option.
                      Roy
                       
                       
                       
                      In a message dated 12/2/2011 12:06:29 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, dd-b@... writes:
                      Perhaps a lot of people will, but it's not what I've been taught is the
                      recommended workflow; I do the profile processing in Photoshop and turn
                      off the adjustments in the printer
                       
                    • Tina Manley
                      Amen, Emily! I ve been traveling and am just catching up. I can t imagine using Creative Commons for anything except giving away your work for nothing. Tina
                      Message 10 of 28 , Dec 5, 2011
                        Amen, Emily!  I've been traveling and am just catching up.  I can't imagine using Creative Commons for anything except giving away your work for nothing.

                        Tina

                        On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Emily L. Ferguson <elf@...> wrote:
                        At 8:56 AM -0800 12/2/11, Gregory wrote:
                        In searching for a presence on the internet, I found this 501(c) organization. It's called Creative Commons allowing members to offer their work under various licenses. You can access the website here; http://creativecommons.org/

                        Has anyone heard or know anything about this site?

                        Gregory

                        It's a great way to give your stuff away and give people the impression that anything on the internet is free.
                        --
                        Emily L. Ferguson

                        --
                        Tina Manley, ASMP
                        www.tinamanley.com
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.