Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or diapositve) (by 2006) ?

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:yQE8h.2837$Yy1.476@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> babelfish <babelfish2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Then I should send you a Colorthink screenshot of our profile matched
>> against Costco's as proof of the difference. You would clearly see that

>> we
>> have about a 20 percent greater gamut volume, mostly in dark saturated
>
> I would have agreed with you a few months ago, but they have moved to a 
> richer
> gamut themselves.
>
> http://www.drycreekphoto.com/custom/enhanced_labs.htm
>
> Many, if not most of the Costco labs now use this.  Did you compare
their
> enhanced profiles or their standard [from only a couple of months back]?

You're assuming a lot. These profiles don't represent richer gamuts at
all. 
They're made through the use of more color patches in the profile targets.

One makes a profile by first printing a target of anywhere from about 300
to 
1400 or more color patches and the results are read by a spetrophotometer 
into software that builds the profile. But using more patches does NOT 
increase the dmax or the gamut of the device being profiled. It only gives

the profiling software more information to go on to build a more accurate 
profile, and this may not even be the result. Simply having more patches
to 
profile doesn't even necessarily result in a better profile as it can 
increase the numbmer of spikes and erroneous data. The printer needs to be

linearized to behave well first, and a number of other things, including
the 
averaging of multiple runs through the spectro, make for smoother and more

accurate profiles. But none of these things give you greater gamut or
better 
blacks any more than measuring something in millemeters rather than inches

makes something larger.

We've been at the cutting edge of color management, making profiles and 
profile targets for many years. Unlike Drycreek, we don't sell profiles on

the cheap because we know that to do it right it takes more work than
people 
are typically willing to pay for, so we leave it up to highly paid 
consultants who do it right. I know that it would cost thousands to
properly 
color manage each location for Costco rather than the nearly free 
self-promotional service that Drycreek provided to them and other bottom 
feeders. To give you an idea of my experience in this, we're the sole 
producer the coveted HCT color targets for Hutchcolor Consulting, used for

high end scanners which sell around the world for up to $600 apiece. Color

management training by Hutchcolor sells for thousands per day and Costco 
people never got anything like this. We do high end drum scanning, fine
art 
reproduction and retouching for ad agencies, pharmaceuticals and museums.
I 
know what I'm talking about where it comes to color management. It's hard
to 
not sound like a snob here, but my fur goes up when I see so many gullible

people buying into stuff they know little about because it's packaged well

at an attractive price.

> Still, I will be glad to do side by side comparisons pretty soon.  I
value 
> the
> quality over the price, in general.  I think you are likely correct, but
> Costco does offer an incredible value for a color profiled option, and I

> must
> do the due diligence to rule them in or out.

There's no question that Costco and their ilk are cheap and a good bargain

for many people - kind of like fast food and certainly better than doing 
your own printing at home at this stage. However, don't be fooled into 
thinking that they can perform quality work or even custom operations.
Their 
expertise and equipment options are severely limited by design in order to

make money at price levels near the cost of materials alone. Anyway, the 
cost of doing quality imaging is in the expertise alone, not the machine. 
Would you trust someone who does accounting for the price of pencils? It's

insulting.