Re: filmscanners: Which Buggy Software?

[rafeb <rafeb@channel1.com>]

At 02:49 AM 7/17/01 +0100, Tony Sleep wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 22:33:07 -0400  rafeb (rafeb@channel1.com) wrote:
>
>> Nope.  Dan's approach is to go by the numbers 
>> (RGB values, or L*a*b values, or CMYK values) 
>
>Oh, that still.  I don't see any major contribution to road safety here: 

<snip>

>It's this chaos that ICM is supposed to provide a thread of sanity through, 
>but the final stage, repro/print, mostly hasn't caught up and it remains an 
>area of profound drain bramage IME. In the 6 years I have been doing this 
>stuff, there has been infinitesimal progress there, and supplying dig 
>images remains a game of Russian Roulette.


Tony, I don't pretend to have the answers, though we 
do seem to share some frustration with the process.  
You and I are playing in different leagues, however.

I can only say this:  I've been happily ignoring the 
ICC party-line, and mostly get the results I'm after 
without a lot of bother.  But it's true, I'm mostly 
self-sufficient, do my own printing, and don't need 
to share files with others.

OTOH, on the rare occasions when I have sent files 
out for printing, or to share with others, I've 
not been terribly disappointed or surprised.

What success I do enjoy at this digital-darkroom 
stuff, I attribute mostly to a handful of simple 
principles that are mostly traceable to Dan M.  
End of story.  It's not for everyone, but it works 
for me.


rafe b.