Video Adobe Photo Shop Separations Channels VS Layers

[mk162]

I agree, and the main issue here is THERE IS MORE THAN ONE WAY TO SKIN A CAT.

This reminds me of the Corel vs Adobe, Mac vs PC crap that always goes on.  It doesn't matter if you use MS Word to color sep, if it gets done and the customer likes it and you get paid, who cares how you do it.  These are only tools to get a job done.

I have tried QuikSeps, EasyArt and Simple Seps Raster...hands down the best so far is SSR, but I haven't run that many images through it.

[inkman996]

What I like is on top of the debates there is videos demonstrating exactly what is being argued. The video in this thread was pretty neat and showed a lot of proof about the channel issues. Tho that does not have me convinced a seasoned separator is handcuffed by this, obviously there is ways to still sep in channels and come out correct.

[Full-SpectrumSeparator]

 

[Dottonedan]

It's been suggested that as a forum owner, I shouldn't voice my own personal opinions of what I think of your videos. Sort of like " if you can't say anything nice" don't say anything. So I'm not saying anything anymore so that I play nice.

[AdvancedArtist]

Dan instead of posting your opinions why not help us get to the bottom of this for the sake of the Industry. Let us evaluate you result against HSB and the understanding we are working on. It is possible we have not perfected this yet. With you in the mix we might get more done faster. Help us help the Industry lets make color something every screen printer can approach with solid understanding and put end to days of confusion.

[Dottonedan]

No.

[AdvancedArtist]

Nothing further your honor the defense rests its case here and now.

[Dottonedan]

RGB = Additive Light Mixture.      A Black Neutral Greyscale Layer in RGB Mode is the exact same thing as the single-channel version of one of those channels as a spot-channel, or as a greyscale.      The Black layer composite being shown in layers is perfectly representative of the actual ink % levels especially at flat-line zero dot-gain simulation.   As opposed to multi-channels or greyscale which shows a LIGHTER on-screen simulation of the actual ink % levels in the channel, or if it's white over a black shirt color it does the OPPOSITE.   Therefore channels do not by their very nature show accurate simulations of ink % levels, period.    The Red, Green, Blue are ADDED together as COLORED LIGHT.    Therefore 50% of green light (darker than white), plus 50% of red light, + 50% of blue light = 50% GREY simulation.      The channels are not being "multiplied" together as BLACK.   


In another thread you went so far as to say that the tone-curve tool in photoshop cannot "CLIP" out or re-assign values... when if you knew how the tone-curve tool works and maybe if you read the posts before that one you would see the answers given, and YES you can clip % values with the tone-curve tool.  NO Dan it does not just push the lighter % into the darker areas, you CAN actually just CLIP out the % you don't want, or just re-assign them.


It's obvious you like to call things hocus pocus and snake oil.   But so far the "information" you are sharing to "refute" the supposed snake-oil, is nothing but hog-wash.


Do you not understand how the application actually works with additive light and subtractive virtual simulations??


I think I have personally shown twice now the factual, mathematical ---- ERRORS that arise when SPOT-CHANNELS are used to show BLENDED CONTENT.    They are meant for SPOT-colors.    As soon as you try to show blending you face all the problems with a zero-dot-gain simulation showing dot-pull instead of the actual ink % levels that are there... unless it's white over black.   In fact, I can take the same 2 channels, one as white, the other as black, and the white one shows as gaining while the black shows as being lighter.   WTF.    Tell me how that makes any logical sense at all.       The same gradient, it would be ripped to the same halftone values, and yet the darker colors show as if they will somehow have dot-LOSS, and the lighter ink values will show dot-GAIN.

I'm really disappointed I thought you knew more about these things but post after post shows the opposite.



EDITED by blue moon without posters consent to clean up. See post below for more info.

You have something to sell. You're selling Simple Seps Raster using this method (and all residual products and offerings that follow with it).


Me, I offer sep services as only 1/3rd of of my offerings and even that business over the last 5 years has dwindled down due to automation. Eventually, those users come to separation businesses for 1 out of 10 sim process jobs. So that whole market is not a all that great to be in anyways. Your thing here is not the end of separators and more likely will never effect me at all outside of what I conceder to be misleading.


I'm busy enough without having to type articles and videos convincing people to use my services. You and Tom on the other hand, have to sell your products, ideas, methods. You go ahead and take the time to do so. It's the others that need convinced. I'm already convinced.

[AdvancedArtist]

Looking at the video and information which is presented free of charge and is very enlightening, in fact it blew my mind coming to understand this. Why? Because having worked as an Art Director and having struggled with these channels so many times in my own ignorance I would go to extremes to avoid this sort of work. Now I know why!

Back in the day we just did not have the budgets or time to separate in those channels. I could safely estimate that we wasted hundreds of man hours every year in two ways..

1. Vectoring when we did not need too. $$$

2. Jumping thru hoops trying to work with Sim Process in channels when we did. $$$

I would estimate that we wasted at least 400 man hours a year and piles of cash on vecotorizing services and separation services. These issues also included the several times a year we had tear down the press and get the separations fixed. Which again fixing the seps in those channels was a night mare.

From a business stand point the way this has been approached, understood and applied in this industry has been disastrous. Take those issues that we had in our shop and then multiply it across the entire industry. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

We have clearly demonstrated that the issues with channels is one of the reasons why we as an Industry have had so many problems with this Sim Process or raster separation.

Look at what has been revealed over the last several months the Hocus Pocus was in the old school understanding and methods of separation. This is the misleading side of color separation in this industry not the information we are presenting.

Understanding that hopefully you can understand that is not just about plug-ins and products. As I have said before I am well aware of the fact that the people that use our information use it to make a living and provide for their children. In my mind that is the core of understanding from which I do everything that I do.

[Dottonedan]

I don't believe you.


Do I believe the HSB method a good thing and works?  Yes.
Do I believe Simple Seps Raster a good thing and works?  Yes.
Do I be in the way the language used by you and Tom to illustrate or portray the use of Photoshop and the use of channels? No.
Do I believe photoshop...or now, just "channels" is the wrong way to go?  No.


I don't believe you.


What you say is convincing to those who don't know and it helps build trust in you to leave using Channels and use your methods.  Cool.   Those who have been using and struggling with channels and go to using layers and hsb or now hwb processes and simpleseps and whatever scripts are next is up to them. More power to them. It don't bother me if they leave channels. I'm not defending channels or my own processes or techniques. I have things I do in both. Layers, RGB, CMYK, Grayscale, Calculations, I do whatever gets the jobs done with whatever method. I don't stick to just one method. Channels is only the means to the end. I don't really care if I use channels, rgb, cmyk, hsb, bbb er whatever. If I see that it makes sense for me, I'll use it. If I see that a product you sell is beneficial for me to purchase. I'll purchase it. I have no issues with that. I'm not clinging to channels or anyone method.


For everyone else, It's their business and processes and techniques. They are free to run about the internet and use whatever the next best thing is. You make this into some battle between good and evil.


Your battle here, is much like the old, Mac Vrs PC and Corel Vrs Illustrator.  Remember how "passionate" you would get over those Corel Vrs Illy debates? Pfft. Who cares what you use today? Well, I mean, I know you cared, (cuz you specialized in and sold stuff for Corel) so, it was obvious you had more of a need to promote using Corel over Illy.


As for me and my house, I will continue to use channels and any additional method. I will continue to dabble in testing out using hsb or hwb but until I see something that comes up that is better than channels for me, I will continue to use them. I'm all for change and something better too, but from what you and Tom show in the vids. I'm not leaving my own methods just yet, but I'll keep watching for the light.

[AdvancedArtist]

Dan probably the best thing for you to do is just chill out and let this unfold. With all the of posting, un posting, post editing you are doing it is becoming clear that you are struggling with this topic. Further, so far you have not been able to contribute any scientifically accurate information either for or against your position or ours. You are also unwilling to have your results qualified or tested both of which we are fully open too concerning our results and position relating to the work flow discussed in this thread, we have nothing to hide or convolute. The reason for that is because we are open to the truth and getting to bottom of this based on facts alone.

Also I would like to know how your conduct in this thread is any different from what was going on in the old threads we all moved out of? Seems like were getting some of the same here at least in this thread. You edited out a post in which you made some statements which drew some mathematically and work flow related correction responses to your post. Now those responses from myself and others look to be unmerited or have no content related to them. 

[Dottonedan]

Well, at least this gives you an opportunity to look like the better man. I'll try to keep you looking good.

[AdvancedArtist]

Oh Dan comon man look all the peeps sepping, look at the eyes opening, look at the understanding starting to come forth. Look at the potential of dot gain control and non destructive editing of each sep plate, look at the color not being slammed off the mark with dot gain control that really works.

The Smell of Napalm In the Morning - Apocalypse Now (4/8) Movie CLIP (1979) HD

[Inkworks]

This keeps getting lamer.

Good products and techniques stand on their own without having to belittle others.

[AdvancedArtist]

Since I participated in this forum that was supposed to be an escape from the former forum.. I have had my posts and titles edited. Why? I have been railed on and accused of this and that when clearly myself and my friends have presented nothing but purely factual information. So who is really being belittle here? You cannot even read the posts that generated most of the issues they have been edited or deleted.

Do you know what it is like to make an exact and perfect statement based in absolute logic and science only to have edited by an individual with self based motives? These threads are all over board with an admin and other others trying to cover their #&$.. because they cannot back up their voodoo with math or science.

I came here to try and open this up.. apparently your more interested in conduct than reality.

Our work here is done... Enjoy the Voodoo!