Forums | MacLife

I've used it for several jobs now and the press output seems fairly accurate, but I still don't have much faith in it. For those more familiar with it, please tell me the advantages/disadvantages of using Colorsync (using Adobe Illustrator, Photoshop, InDesign/Quark).

Also, how well calibrated are Apple Cinema Displays out of the box? Are they ready for pro work, or do they require heavy color calibration?

After two decades in the graphics business on the production side of things, and much effort spent striving for consistent, predictable color, my position is a definite "It all depends." I once freelanced for a company that had an aggressive color management policy: every file came with specific instructions as to which profile to load when opening, which profile to convert to when saving, etc. The list of profiles available in Photoshop was extensive. I asked the manager how much I could depend on the screen color and his reply was an unambiguous "It's perfect. That's what you will get when we proof it." What this meant in the real world was that every image was wrong by exactly the same degree of color shift, so that when I came back the next day and found the whole stack in for a second round, we were able to use the fall-back system (matching the proof to the original in a light box, using our eyes and judgement and pulling curves accordingly) with some confidence.

The myth of color management is that there exists a "device-independent" color space, out there somwhere, that can serve as a standard from which all other color spaces are then translated. The flaw, of course, is that, mere mortals that we are, our only access to this magical color space is through a device (this would include our eyes as well). The theory is that each device in your work flow is profiled to measure its output in terms of this one standard and thus, every device will know how to create the same color from one space to the next.

It's a good theory and color sync does it as well as is possible. The two hangups are: 1) it must be a top-down system, with every item in the work-flow chain aggressively profiled on a consistant basis and any link that is outside of your control turns everythign into a lottery; and 2) devices change.

If your output devices are known, and you can produce profiles of them that accurately reflect what they do to color, you can then use these profiles in Photoshop to create conversion targets that will compensate accordingly. Of course, this requires a monitor that is 'calibrated'; otherwise, your source information will be converted to target information with no certainty that it was accurate to start with. Which raises the question of "calibrated to what?" And, there's always the final destination to consider: if you are controlling the final product, you have a range of options to choose from, but if you are preparing files for a press somewhere else, good luck. And if your product is heading for the web, all your management in the world won't help some guy in Souix City with an old monitor that pushes everything to green.

My response to the question about Apple Cinema displays is the same as for color management in general: calibrated to what? Ideally a different device would require a different profile, to produce a screen display that reflects what will happen to your image when it is output. Or, working from the other direction, using a single screen profile which theoretically shows the "actual" color, then converting to each device profile, depending on output destination. Apple Cinema Displays are no better or worse than the profiles that drive them. Using the internal calibration tools you can always achieve a pleasing, vibrant display. It's relationship to where the file is heading can only be determined through trial and error, and a good pair of eyes.