Author Topic: Curiosity  (Read 18591 times)

AdvancedArtist

  • Guest
Curiosity
« on: March 29, 2013, 02:22:24 AM »
So lets break this color/separation thing down..

What is color?
How does it work?
How is a pixel different from vector?
Why is Adobe PhotoShop the last tool you want in your separation tool kit? Unless you want to do major work arounds which is why we have had so many problems with things like Sim Process. I hate those two words Simulated Process they have lead an entire industry into ignorance. Even further, thousands of shops have turned away billions of dollars in work and clients because of the Simulated Process ignorance over the last 15 years or so.
Why do PhotoShop separators need big bucks to separate?

Want answers... post up.

« Last Edit: March 29, 2013, 02:25:47 AM by AdvancedArtist »


Offline blue moon

  • Administrator
  • Ludicrous Speed Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6362
Re: Curiosity
« Reply #1 on: March 29, 2013, 12:07:07 PM »
I'll continue with some of your points and add few of my own . . .

I think your point of using Corel instead of Photoshop is most likely valid unless, as you said before, you know how to set up the color profiles that will be directly related to the equipment one is using. I don't see many of us doing that!

There are few other issues with Corel though. Most ppl use photoshop so Corel would be another expense and another program to learn. I've also heard of many ppl complaining how the program is not stable and it has issues. So for Photoshop users, Corel is often not an option. It does however have a distinct advantage in several areas (price, ease of use (as I am told), and now it seems ability to remove the color calibration presets).

At the end of the day though, no software will be as flexible as the actual separator. A person doing the job will have some forethought and will be able to lay down a solid yellow and add a little bit of red to create the gold color. Most programs just split those and remove the red component from the yellow thus potentially generating gaps in the print. Even the most powerful separation software on the market ($15K) still only splits colors. It does it better than other packages, but when ti is done, it still needs to be adjusted.

To us, pursuit of high end prints is worth the little extra we have to spend and pay to have our work separated manually. To many, push button seps are all they need, but I have seen highest end push button seps and they can't compare with the stuff we get from Dan. I know the skill and time needed to separate the work we send and I do not find the price he asks to be big bucks. As a matter of fact, I have told him on more than one occasion that he is too cheap!

pierre
Yes, we've won our share of awards, and yes, I've tested stuff and read the scientific papers, but ultimately take everything I say with more than just a grain of salt! So if you are looking for trouble, just do as I say or even better, do something I said years ago!

Offline mk162

  • Ludicrous Speed Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 7804
Re: Curiosity
« Reply #2 on: March 29, 2013, 11:09:08 PM »
$15K for sep software better do it as good as dan, or it's not worth it.  it would be cheaper to train an employee to use a plugin better, or sep from scratch.

that being said, I think to date PS has been the best sep option for raster images.  I have done a few jobs with Simple Seps Raster and it works great, some jobs don't turn out right, but i know that ahead of time and don't take it to the press

Corel is a great tool, I would rather not own Adobe products, but they are the standard in many industries, so it's a must.

Offline RisingSunGraphics

  • Verified/Junior
  • **
  • Posts: 26
Re: Curiosity
« Reply #3 on: March 29, 2013, 11:43:50 PM »
I find these kind of questions fascinating, if for anything, because they stir up so many different emotions/thoughts/viewpoints that are in my opinion, too complicated.  Then again, maybe I like to keep things simple.

In the case of screenprinting, color is the ink you're putting onto the shirt, plain and simple.  Everyone gets too mucked up talking about gamut and the like but it all comes down to one thing and that's ink flowing through mesh, nothing more.  When people start talking about how the color on the monitor translates into the color on the tee, they tend to make it more difficult than it needs to be by getting into the technical aspects of how a computer reproduces or presents colors on the screen forgetting that the final product is going to be made with ink, not pixels and the color gamut on the screen has no effect on the inks you'll be putting down onto the tee.

To answer how it works; if you understand how the inks reproduce color on the tees, you don't need to know about how colors work inside a computer.  You only need to know how the inks work on the tee in whatever percentages you're using.  For instance, 10% of red on top of 100% of yellow on top of 100% base looks like what?

Pixels are raster, therefore based in resolution.  Vectored is by definition based in mathematics and can be altered without losing clarity giving you a cleaner line regardless of how large you make it.  Rastered images cannot do this.  The simple answer is rastered is dirty, vectored is clean although that's far too general for most people to adopt.

Photoshop is the first tool I want in my toolbox.  I don't know who told you it's the last but every designer/separator I've worked with in my entire career turns to Photoshop to do their raster seps, nothing else.

To answer your last question, refer to the sentence you wrote immediately before it.

To illustrate Pierre's point as to why the high dollar separations programs don't really work and it all comes down to a human being, see the picture below of one of my seps.  Programs can't do this kind of work, only humans can.





Offline screenxpress

  • !!!
  • Gonzo Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2425
Re: Curiosity
« Reply #4 on: March 30, 2013, 09:56:09 AM »
Ummmmm, where can I get one of those?   :P
Anything important is never left to the vote of the people. We only get to vote on some man; we never get to vote on what he is to do.  Will Rogers

Online Frog

  • Administrator
  • Ludicrous Speed Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13967
  • Docendo discimus
Re: Curiosity
« Reply #5 on: March 30, 2013, 10:07:04 AM »
Ummmmm, where can I get one of those?   :P

Your local escort service?
That rug really tied the room together, did it not?

Offline kingscreen

  • Gonzo Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1161
Re: Curiosity
« Reply #6 on: March 30, 2013, 10:47:48 AM »
I think Pierre made two great points. First being that, for most, push button seps are all that are needed. And the second is, even the highest end push button steps don't compare to a talented manual separator. I think at the end of the day it all depends on the individual artwork and the client's desired result.
Scott Garnett
King Screen

Offline Command-Z

  • !!!
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 956
Re: Curiosity
« Reply #7 on: March 30, 2013, 11:39:53 AM »
Everything I do is a workaround.  :P  I don't know how may things I've taught myself how to do in PS that I eventually learn an easier way.

Photoshop is the best illustration software out there (with the possible exception of Corel's Painter.) Vector programs are indispensable for drafting, type and graphic shapes, but for the hand-painted or airbrushed look, vectors simply don't compare. Yeah, you can make some pretty killer art in vector apps that don't look like they're vector, but it's still bending vectors and applying fills. Hand-blending and natural brush strokes can't be done in vector. You can't mix pixels like pigment unless you are in a pixel editing environment.

Vectors are overrated. Many shops mistakenly ask for vector art, when high-res raster files will do. This comes from laziness of not wanting to explain the intricacies of resolution to a layman... asking for a "vector file" of a photograph or painting (I've seen it many times) only confuses the matter. Any 300 ppi file that I've ever done can be reproduced on a billboard.

Each sep job is different. Each will require a different approach. I've used a couple of plug-ins and they work fine for the basic jobs, but like Pierre said, they don't know when to make the underlying colors thicker or thinner. In the end, a good separator can surgically give attention to specific areas in a design using paintbrush, airbrush and other photo-editing tools that the vector programs simply don't have.

I'm actually really impressed with what can be done in Corel Draw. Honestly, I think it's superior to AI in many ways. Being able to sep raster images directly in Draw is huge and a boon for most shops just getting into halftones. But Photoshop will always be the software of choice for the artist who seps their own work or the sepper who needs to edit their seps directly in the channels using raster editing tools... especially if attention needs to be given to a certain area of the channel.

Plug-ins are great tools for those just getting their feet wet. But like any DIY solution, it's only going to get you so far before you hit the ceiling of what is possible. Eventually, you'll want to graduate to hiring a pro or learn how to sep manually in Photoshop, where you have total control of the image.

Design, Illustration and Color Separation for the Imprinted Apparel Industry for over 20 years. SeibelStudio.com
 Custom art not in the budget? Check out Bad Bonz Designs

Offline tpitman

  • Gonzo Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1059
Re: Curiosity
« Reply #8 on: March 30, 2013, 11:59:46 AM »
Corel is not an option for Mac users, unless they want to load Windows on their Mac. I've got it on mine to use with Ghostscript. I did use it for credit card processing until Square came along, and I've got an older version of CorelDraw on there, but I never use it.
There's pretty much nothing you can't do in Photoshop. I've done a lot of offset print work in Photoshop. The only real impediment is file size on large format work.
Work is the curse of the drinking class . . .

AdvancedArtist

  • Guest
Re: Curiosity
« Reply #9 on: March 30, 2013, 12:34:59 PM »
Interesting replys for the record I am talking about color and not push buttons seps. Push button is nice but understanding the process is even better even as some of you have pointed out.

What if it was really actually very simple, but in the development of the process of raster separations some errors were made in understanding color as it relates to screen printing? Causing the process of separations to become something that is far more difficult than it ever should have been. I am not pointing fingers relating to anyone is this thread I am just asking.

Case in point. For years we have heard you can only do Simulated Process in PhotoShop. Which was false information coming out of a lack of understanding relating to color. I have installed a 16 year old copy of CorelDRAW 8 on my system and separated flawlessly with it.

So looking at the facts and history it is very possible that what this Industry has come to believe and understand about color, color separations and applications could contain even more false information.




Offline RisingSunGraphics

  • Verified/Junior
  • **
  • Posts: 26
Re: Curiosity
« Reply #10 on: March 30, 2013, 01:08:14 PM »
Ummmmm, where can I get one of those?   :P

They sell these every where but they're damn expensive!  ;D

Offline Homer

  • !!!
  • Gonzo Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3171
Re: Curiosity
« Reply #11 on: March 30, 2013, 01:29:02 PM »
Ummmmm, where can I get one of those?   :P

you wouldn't know what to do with it pops haha...

...keep doing what you're doing, you'll only get what you've got...

AdvancedArtist

  • Guest
Re: Curiosity
« Reply #12 on: March 30, 2013, 08:30:25 PM »

To illustrate Pierre's point as to why the high dollar separations programs don't really work and it all comes down to a human being, see the picture below of one of my seps.  Programs can't do this kind of work, only humans can.


Would you be open to exploring this comment in greater detail? What if a program could do it say in 45 seconds? What if a program had sufficient separations options working with correct color models and math so that an image like the one you provided was a piece of separation cake? What if you could virtually instantaneously separate an image like the one you attached into 2 colors, 4 colors or 6 colors with multiple Pantone colors for the flesh if that is what you wanted?
« Last Edit: March 30, 2013, 11:36:34 PM by AdvancedArtist »

Online Frog

  • Administrator
  • Ludicrous Speed Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13967
  • Docendo discimus
Re: Curiosity
« Reply #13 on: March 30, 2013, 08:40:37 PM »
If that were the case, and it happened to be your program, then perhaps discussions about it may be better placed in our Product Promotion section.
If however, you have some general information pertaining to the art and science of separating colors for screen printing, you have an eager audience.
(for that matter, even posts about your specific program(s)  generally have a pretty good, receptive audience. ;) )
« Last Edit: March 30, 2013, 10:53:59 PM by Frog »
That rug really tied the room together, did it not?

Offline Chadwick

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
Re: Curiosity
« Reply #14 on: March 30, 2013, 09:35:43 PM »
Interesting discussion Tom.
 8)