TSB
screen printing => Separations => Topic started by: Printficient on March 08, 2016, 06:35:06 AM
-
What is the best? What do you use? Why?
-
I use UltraSeps. It provides a great starting point with lots of options for most separations. I always have to adjust things before I'm finished, but that should be expected with any software. The more I use it, the quicker I get and better understanding of which direction to go in.
Steve was also very quick to get back to me with questions and help the few times I needed it. He also has a ton of tutorials on YouTube.
All the sep programs come with free trials that give you full access to the program so you can really try them out.
There are lots of other threads in the past discussing them as well.
-
Ultraseps. Steve is great and the price can't be beat.
-
Ditto on the UltraSeps; but, you need to know how to tweak the seps for the best results, even though out of the box is pretty darn good. You might get 17 colors from one routine, but it has 4 different whites, 3 blacks, 2 reds, and single blue, purple, aqua, etc... so you get to choose the ones you want for your needs. Yes, there will be some testing, but you're not a rookie. Now, I already knew how to do this before UltraSeps came out, but it's so much faster for stepping customers art. Our own creations, we build ourselves the old fashioned way.
Steve
and yes, Steve Roginski is very good at support...
-
I started and still have Sep Studio but after using ultra seps, I find myself only using that one now. Ultraseps has many more options to get the final result you want.
-
"Best" depends on your qualifications and quantifiable measurable factors related to what is determined to be "better" or "worse" in a given situation.
I use the separation plugin for photoshop that I created myself, and occasionally the one I developed for Corel, but my own photoshop version is officially open-source and free for any use so you can try it out. When I get to making new videos I will show how to install and run some tests, separation modes, etc.
There are many reasons why I created my own and why I use it, and why I don't use the other programs.... after deleting a few hundred words I just wrote, I will say that I simply won't get into the "Why" on this forum or in this thread, at this time, or in any manner that might be construed as me being offensive or heated or with anything other than love and respect for the industry and that everyone plays a part and shares what they do and we're all better for it, good or bad, the industry grows, end of story. I'll share what I have to offer, I will talk and work with anyone, out of service and co-operation, I have no profit-motives and I'm not in a competition. I work as a regular artist/separator/screenprinter at a local small shop, and a pizza delivery driver, and I don't earn any royalties or income from the corel project, or anything else as my products on my web page are all free now and open-source, and so in my other time invested in screenprint research and developmment, or in other arenas like art and music or computers and programming, video or digital light-table experiments, I realize I'm just an experimental person who has a passion for tinkering and exploring and going down the path where something leads me once I've taken an interest in it and dig into it... I'll just share what I do openly and move on. There was never any reason for all the drama about color separation programs that has happened in various discussions in the past. I'll do my best to not contribute anymore to anything but a positive spirit of evolving progress and growth for this art/print medium we seem to all have a great passion and love and appreciation for, no matter what form it takes, in forums like this. Thanks for letting me share.
Direct link to free download of the full separation toolkit plugin I made for photoshop: http://adobe.ly/1PhT5wI (http://adobe.ly/1PhT5wI)
Direct link to free color wheel test image: http://adobe.ly/1hjMcNJ (http://adobe.ly/1hjMcNJ)
-
Another vote for UltraSeps from me.
Steve WILL get back to you to answer your questions. And he is a forum member here with years of Screenprinting experience.
Having said that, I wish I were better with the plugin for basic spot color seps. I waste too much time with them, still doing them the way I learned years ago.
But it isn't a problem with UltraSeps, it is a problem originating from an area just above my ears. Stepping up my game with the plugin is on my ToDo list.
-
Another vote for UltraSeps from me.
Steve WILL get back to you to answer your questions. And he is a forum member here with years of Screenprinting experience.
Having said that, I wish I were better with the plugin for basic spot color seps. I waste too much time with them, still doing them the way I learned years ago.
But it isn't a problem with UltraSeps, it is a problem originating from an area just above my ears. Stepping up my game with the plugin is on my ToDo list.
for simple spot colors I just select them with the magic wand tool (or color range, but I seem to have better luck with the wand) and save them as the separate channels. I've never actually tried the US routine.
Steve
-
Sonny:
What type of images are you wanting to separate?
Full bright colors? (nascar etc)
Pastels? (watercolors, etc)
Vector art? (all cmyk and blends n stuff)
Museum quality paintings?
-
I'm a FullSpectrum user.. I appreciate that UltraSeps is satisfactory but I don't know what tool that is included in Photoshop that can replace information (tweak) that was taken out destructive, during the Sep process. The only tweaking I see possible is to remove more info or blur/sharpen the remaining info that was left after the original pull
Sent using Tapatalk
-
Direct link to free download of the full separation toolkit plugin I made for photoshop: [url]http://adobe.ly/1PhT5wI[/url] ([url]http://adobe.ly/1PhT5wI[/url])
Direct link to free color wheel test image: [url]http://adobe.ly/1hjMcNJ[/url] ([url]http://adobe.ly/1hjMcNJ[/url])
Thank you for this, though I don't know where to start. I do have one of your old tuts on pulling colors manually in PS, greatly appreciated and used on a number of occasions. As for the past, bygones are bygones, and being civil is always the best practice, unless of course, under actual physical attack, lol. I like the Photoshop stuff, and I'm a Mac guy, and Corel as you know doesn't port to Mac, so I haven't looked into the offerings too deeply, and no thanks, I'm not going to run Windows in the background. Thanks again, I look forward to future posts...
Steve
Steve
-
Full Spectrum has been kicking but for us!
-
FullSpectrum,
I personally thank you for the post. I'm with you. Im looking forward to seeing you around more often with your excellent information.
Thanks
Dan
-
"Best" depends on your qualifications and quantifiable measurable factors related to what is determined to be "better" or "worse" in a given situation.
I use the separation plugin for photoshop that I created myself, and occasionally the one I developed for Corel, but my own photoshop version is officially open-source and free for any use so you can try it out. When I get to making new videos I will show how to install and run some tests, separation modes, etc.
There are many reasons why I created my own and why I use it, and why I don't use the other programs.... after deleting a few hundred words I just wrote, I will say that I simply won't get into the "Why" on this forum or in this thread, at this time, or in any manner that might be construed as me being offensive or heated or with anything other than love and respect for the industry and that everyone plays a part and shares what they do and we're all better for it, good or bad, the industry grows, end of story. I'll share what I have to offer, I will talk and work with anyone, out of service and co-operation, I have no profit-motives and I'm not in a competition. I work as a regular artist/separator/screenprinter at a local small shop, and a pizza delivery driver, and I don't earn any royalties or income from the corel project, or anything else as my products on my web page are all free now and open-source, and so in my other time invested in screenprint research and developmment, or in other arenas like art and music or computers and programming, video or digital light-table experiments, I realize I'm just an experimental person who has a passion for tinkering and exploring and going down the path where something leads me once I've taken an interest in it and dig into it... I'll just share what I do openly and move on. There was never any reason for all the drama about color separation programs that has happened in various discussions in the past. I'll do my best to not contribute anymore to anything but a positive spirit of evolving progress and growth for this art/print medium we seem to all have a great passion and love and appreciation for, no matter what form it takes, in forums like this. Thanks for letting me share.
Direct link to free download of the full separation toolkit plugin I made for photoshop: [url]http://adobe.ly/1PhT5wI[/url] ([url]http://adobe.ly/1PhT5wI[/url])
Direct link to free color wheel test image: [url]http://adobe.ly/1hjMcNJ[/url] ([url]http://adobe.ly/1hjMcNJ[/url])
Ok, Color me 6 shades of stupid, how do you install this?
-
We are a Corel based shop here and I love Simple Seps and all of the Advanced T plug ins. Awesome stuff and great support. I've been wanting to learn PS so I guess I too need to look into Ultra Seps or Full Spectrum.
-
none are better than hand seps from photoshop, IMO. That's what we use.
-
Ok, Color me 6 shades of stupid, how do you install this?
I would also like to know.
-
I downloaded full spectrum and it doesnt tell you where to put the files
-
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
-
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??
-
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, 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.
-
Soooo do what now? :o
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.
-
Ok. I stand corrected.
-
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 :)
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
Yup.
-
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?
-
Look, this forum will not be held captive for anyone's personal agenda. Perception or otherwise, doesn't matter.
You are aware of our motto here as I think you have quoted it, so we expect everyone to live by them. Don't allow your emotions to over shadow your wealth of experience and intelligence. Don't name call or attack and we can enjoy your presence and post.
-
I have to stand by Steve on this one. For a very small price he delivers an easy, let me stress easy, way to get you on the path to seps that deliver great results. None of this is learned overnight. Also, most of the sep artists I have worked with over the years learn from every strike off they see. I think there are a few, like Dan that have it dialed in to get the results from the gate but that is years of learning. As far as the personal attack, you might have motivated Steve to do the Sim process #3 and that is a good thing. Competition is good and we benefit from that race to be the best which in turn gives our customers a better product in the end. My ego and beliefs stood in my way for many years. I learned to listen more and speak less and appreciate the knowledge of the people around me. It has made me a better human.