Automated Sep software

[dirkdiggler]

none are better than hand seps from photoshop, IMO.  That's what we use.

[TCred]

Ok, Color me 6 shades of stupid, how do you install this?

I would also like to know.

[AAMike]

I downloaded full spectrum and it doesnt tell you where to put the files

[jvanick]

it's considered an 'script' by photoshop.

extract it into the 'adobe photoshop'/Presets/Scripts directory and restart photoshop.

it will show up in File-Scripts

how to use it, well no idea. LOL

[Full-SpectrumSeparator]

none are better than hand seps from photoshop, IMO.  That's what we use.

There is no "hand-sep" method to capture the correct tonal blends unless you utilize the mathematical color processing methods of photoshop's tools which can accurately capture the blends you want.   Then you are only quality-controlling your gradient/halftone/print combinations from that point.   Art and Print are things that can cross-over with each other but they qualify each other -- if you switch colors in the screen during production it is a creative choice unless the job called for that and then it is a scientific choice,  if you put two colors in one screen its going to come out different but blending artistically but during printing, but its using print-process to make new creative art -- you can then scan the result you like and reproduce that one exactly - with science and its printing with science the art you already made.   But the purpose of reproducing already-finished art into color separations/halftones/ink/screens or whatever print method - is a scientific purpose or process of reproducing and repeating and original pattern that doesn't change or changes only as much as the tolerance level you want and then you want the reproductions to be repeated the same as your approved print-sample.     

For example, index-mode is the only way in photoshop to get complex multi-tone blends without doing layer-processing techniques that would take hours and hours to run even for just 3 custom colors.    You can't select the correct gradients with color-range for those colors to blend properly, at all (unless they are specific colors and not just any custom colors) --  there isn't a layer-blend trick or  other filter/effect that can capture any custom-color and its blends to other custom colors especially 2 or more... without utilizing mathematical color-processing tools like the index mode and then converting to your separation gradients and then to halftone combinations - and there is where some arbitrary factors come into play but still you want science to inform those variables like what angles and halftone combinations, print sequence and inks, dot-result-quality-control,  -- you can print the index as-is in various resolutions with various diffusion types but then also there is testing to see what produces more accurate reproductions and that is all quality-control science,  there may develop more robust and repeatable methods that work even more automated or with more ease and accurate results using multi-tonal ordered-dithering custom-color indexing algorithms... there may be user-input so are they still "hand-seps" ?   

I think the whole discussion over "manual" vs. "automated" is too confusing because there is no qualification applied to what is meant by "manual" or hand-seps or what automations are doing that are different or perhaps the same as a manual separator only automatically done.   However, there will always be factors of material science and how we make tools and repeat forms that become faster and better than a hand-made or hand-done method if the purpose is to achieve a uniform and repeated outcome.   But if the hand-done method is simply going through the same steps for the same precision, it is like manual printing compared to automatic printing - they can achieve the exact same results and one will just be faster than another and require different quality-control etc.    But a manual print might have more emotional or sentimental and other values that are not about the exact-repetition of the final product - in fact both the manual and auto results could appear the same, or the manual could be done where it allows some differences from print to print and accepted in the outcomes and it might have more value to the end-user - that is a cultural aspect, but nothing to do with the science of repeating or copying original patterns or creations.      Can we simply move on and start discussing what is meant by "manual/hand-seps" and how it is supposedly different or "better than"  automated procedures?    Perhaps we're talking about the same thing.    But there needs to be clarity about Art vs. Print, and creative/arbitrary/guessing decisions vs. informed/logical/scientific decisions.   There is grey-area for Artistic-printing and printing-creatively to achieve new original patterns, and grey-area for "educated guesses" or trial-and-error/experience/wisdom-based decisions... but we need to be specific that it is in one end of the spectrum or in the middle like that. 

Let's make some separation challenges.   I'll post very simple examples and see what you mean by hand-seps and show the automated but perhaps manually-selected methods that I think in my opinion will probably be just like the hand-seps method or surpass it in measurable factors.   But the sweeping generalizations about so much of this stuff just seems too vauge and too absolute to call conclusive, or must be qualified further to say in one case or another it is better or worse, and what is the measured better/worse variable?

Are any professional artists/color-separators/printers willing to test their best manual-separations against some automated methods, and do they have the original art and their manual-seps and the print examples to make measurements from and compare to see how close to the original the manual method is compared to the automated method -- but we should be fair and know if we're simply testing the same methods but one is automated and the other was done by a precise human operator... because then we aren't testing or comparing anything except that one happened in less time and without user input compared to the other.    I just wonder do printers even compare the print to the original with more than just their eyes?   I've seen "award winning" prints that were done by manual separators spending hours tweaking and yet a simple automated separation produces seps and final print results that are visibly much-closer to the original, so even if using your eyes is there any comparison between the manual and the automated methods being done and deciding which to go with...   why doesn't anyone print full-color calibration tests??   

To be honest with you, there are a lot of printers out there doing amazing work that beats any manual separator method, saving time and money, artists can focus more on actually creative tasks like art,  and 90% of these printers don't go on forums or say anything to anyone about how great these things are working, because it is a fiercely competitive industry and they are taking the work from all their competition and don't want them to know what they are using to do it.

I am fully willing to compromise on what seems to be a very sensitive issue if we can just clarify how we use these terms... because I'm sure there are manual separators out there using the same methods I use and just they either automate them in their own actions or just repeat the steps manually the same each time for certain cases.   But if I need to get to work every day and it is a certain distance, and if it makes sense to just get a car instead of walking or using a bike, perhaps I am still transporting the same distance and it is just happening in less time, and I didn't use my legs but my feet to push gas pedals and my hands and fingers to turn a wheel and press buttons for turn-signals and such. 

   It would be like saying nothing is better than walking with Nike shoes on, In my opinion, compared to running or driving with Nike shoes on.  That's what we use, we have a whole team of walkers with those shoes and maybe we get to the same destinations as people that run  or drive with those shoes, but it better in our opinion this way.

    Does anyone else see the confusion of terminology and unqualified (yet seemingly conclusive or objective) statements that I see, and how this doesn't help the discussion but adds to the division and confusion of what might actually be the same underlying reality??

[Dottonedan]

Full, Sprectrum,

While each post is jam packed with info, I think you're going to have to decrease the analogies and narrow down what you're saying. It all gets way too confusing to stay with you (I'll speak for myself) and no the group.

I have a hard time with keeping my post more concise myself and I lose people even though I think I'm very clear. Going into extensive detail to explain or get everyone to understand can get people lost even though the effort is a just cause.

[Full-SpectrumSeparator]

Full, Sprectrum,

While each post is jam packed with info, I think you're going to have to decrease the analogies and narrow down what you're saying. It all gets way too confusing to stay with you (I'll speak for myself) and no the group.

I have a hard time with keeping my post more concise myself and I lose people even though I think I'm very clear. Going into extensive detail to explain or get everyone to understand can get people lost even though the effort is a just cause.

There were only 2 analogies in there which weren't related to screenprint but using other examples.

I'll use the manual/auto for screenprinting example then.

What the other member said was:  "none are better than hand seps from Photoshop, IMO. thats what we use."

What if I came into a discussion about Automatic screenprint presses and said:  "none [no screenprints] are better than manual printing with Newman Roller frames, IMO. thats what we use." 

Do you see the non-sequitur there? 

1. You can screenprint using Newman Roller frames on manual or automatic. - fact
2. You can screenprint the same results on a manual or automatic press. - fact
3. You can also screenprint and get the same tensions and results with other brands or generic or hand-made screen frames. - fact
4. If matching the same print results in detail/color quality on manual and automatic, the only difference is one is faster, less manual labor, etc. (might use energy in other ways - electricity, etc) - but end-results can be the same.  - fact

So if all those things are facts, how can one possibly draw a conclusion that all screenprints will always be "better" done manually rather than automatic, and what does the Newman Roller frames have to do with the "better" part if you can use other frames and get the same results?    What if the automatic press actually more often produced "better" results than a manual operator.. uh oh, wait is that why we use automatics now too because they were invented and then they could be at least more reliable in repeating the right results compared to human operators that might not always operate perfectly even if they "can" match the results of an automatic, in practice with human-error worked in maybe they are more often going to make mistakes, along with the speed factor, and suddenly you have automatic printing.   

Do people go around the industry today saying that automatics are useless and not what the pro's use and will never be as good as a manual print? 
No, that would be insanity, because both the theoretical and scientific and in-practice real-world evidence shows that automatics can improve lots of factors about speed, efficiency, quality, repeatability, etc and impact the bottom line - even though a lot of technical R&D and innovations and "breaking the rules of what manual printing presses do" to get to the point in automatic-press technology we have today... and uh-oh, we have electric automatics and all sorts of new automatic technology competing with the "Tried and true" automatic technology...   am I allowed to use screenprint analogies if they just really work and make sense out of the separation discussions?

I think it fits perfectly.   So what am I missed about automatic vs. manual screenprinting being a different analogy to automatic vs. manual color separating?   I've done a lot of both... it seems a great starting point to clarify how we use these terms and need to be more specific about what factors we are comparing.

[Homer]

Soooo do what now?

Thanks JV, I will try that tomorrow.

I use corel for everything. Thanks to Tom and AA, I only work with monochromes. I make /separate as I design so when I'm done, it's ready to print. But I would love to give this a shot in PS and see what happens.

[Dottonedan]

Ok. I stand corrected.

[1964GN]

Full, Sprectrum,

While each post is jam packed with info, I think you're going to have to decrease the analogies and narrow down what you're saying. It all gets way too confusing to stay with you (I'll speak for myself) and no the group.

I have a hard time with keeping my post more concise myself and I lose people even though I think I'm very clear. Going into extensive detail to explain or get everyone to understand can get people lost even though the effort is a just cause.

This ^

I have the attention span of a two year old

[jvanick]

Full, Sprectrum,

While each post is jam packed with info, I think you're going to have to decrease the analogies and narrow down what you're saying. It all gets way too confusing to stay with you (I'll speak for myself) and no the group.

I have a hard time with keeping my post more concise myself and I lose people even though I think I'm very clear. Going into extensive detail to explain or get everyone to understand can get people lost even though the effort is a just cause.

This ^

I have the attention span of a two year old

totally agree.  most of his posts are TLDR  (too long didn't read)

[Frog]

Full, Sprectrum,

While each post is jam packed with info, I think you're going to have to decrease the analogies and narrow down what you're saying. It all gets way too confusing to stay with you (I'll speak for myself) and no the group.

I have a hard time with keeping my post more concise myself and I lose people even though I think I'm very clear. Going into extensive detail to explain or get everyone to understand can get people lost even though the effort is a just cause.

This ^

I have the attention span of a two year old

totally agree.  most of his posts are TLDR  (too long didn't read)

The first time I noticed a trend of really, really long posts (by another industry member) I also soon found out he was a user of Dragon speech-to-text software.

[UltraSeps]

All I can say is that its not Rocket Science guys.  Excessive and convoluted theory is not required.

Just start with a decent set of basic seps, automated or not.  Then learn to use just a few functions in Photoshop well, such as Levels, Curves, Dodge and Burn tools and especially how to effectively make use of the Apply Image function which is VERY important to understand and how to effectively use its variables as to how it relates to channels and before long, you will have achieved color separation nirvana.

[Colin]

Yup.

[Full-SpectrumSeparator]

All I can say is that its not Rocket Science guys.  Excessive and convoluted theory is not required.

Just start with a decent set of basic seps, automated or not.  Then learn to use just a few functions in Photoshop well, such as Levels, Curves, Dodge and Burn tools and especially how to effectively make use of the Apply Image function which is VERY important to understand and how to effectively use its variables as to how it relates to channels and before long, you will have achieved color separation nirvana.

So how come we never had a decent set of basic seps to begin with, even if working in channels with all those methods and tools you discuss (which I know fully and have worked with for years, especially trying to use quikseps and Ultraseps) --- why did we never have a good decent set of basic sep ingredients to start with???

Until SSR for Corel came out and we showed the HSB separation methods gave better ingredients, then you updated Ultraseps to v2 adding the default color-range HSB curves (which still aren't the right ones, silly Steve!) and suddenly it was working a lot better because people didn't have all their color destroyed and no way to add it later without hours of convoluted teachings and tools that don't work... but why didn't you know that all along with the magic and industry standards, I thought quikseps and Ultraseps were the best ever nothing could ever be added or done to make it better?   

Let's keep it simple,  why did we only get vastly-better separation-ingredients in our channels after sim process #3 in UltraSeps v2, which was only released after I put out the SSR for Corel and photoshop and taught the HSB manual separation methods... and why did you use the default color-range ones when the selective-color ones are the correct curves?    You're still doing it wrong and causing people to make corrections they don't need to make. .... oh and let's not forget, why are you charging hundreds for what are defaults accessed right within the native program??   

Yes it is not rocket science, but if the separation automation uses color science then it is very easy and you don't need to be in separation hell or nirvana, you are in print-nirvana because your seps-to-rip-to-screens works great without fussing around.

Why did you not have the correct separations for 10 years until I came along and exposed the errors and taught the proper basic-sep-set to start with?