[imann08]

I checked the search and couldn't find any thread on Dan Margulis' new book. I find that odd here. I expected people to be talking about it non-stop. Am I missing something or is it just not being talked about?

If not, I wish it were being discussed. I'd love to hear the Photoshop users opinion on the book and some discussion on the different methods etc.

What gives?

BTW, hello to everyone I know well here. I haven't been around for a couple of months as I have been busy with other things but I could never disappear forever.

[DCobb]

I bought the book when it first came out. The release date of the book had been delayed about a week. However, I have not done anything with the book. I just recently finished his LAB Color book.

dc

[imann08]

Originally Posted by DCobb

I bought the book when it first came out. The release date of the book had been delayed about a week. However, I have not done anything with the book. I just recently finished his LAB Color book.

dc

I have read the LAB book many times myself. I am a big fan of Dan Margulis and LAB. I owned the previous version of Professional Photoshop and didn't like it for a number of reasons.

First, it was out of date when I bought it last year. It was written in 2002 I think.

Second, it wasn't nearly as easy to grasp as the LAB book I had read and was much more frustrating. The fact that it was in CMYK didn't help my situation as I am more competent with RGB and especially LAB now.

The new book is much much better in my opinion. It works in RGB mainly instead of CMYK and it is much easier to understand. He has gotten better in explaining things. I consider it a very good book now as opposed to the previous version which I didn't like much. Knowing all three colorspaces is very important. Most stick with one and avoid the other two. He does a great job at explaining when to use what colorspace and why.

[imann08]

Is there some rule against talking about this subject that I am unaware of? I figured more people would be talking about this.

[JettyJ]

Hello, brand new member here. I'm about 2/3rds through the book and am enjoying it. I didn't read the previous versions but have read the LAB book. It certainly isn't a 'light' read and I've needed to go over a few sections a couple of times at least. The real 'a-ha' moment came for me when I realized that part of what he is saying is that in any image, there are distinctions in every possible channel (R,G,B,C,M,Y,K,L,A,B) that can be used to get a better final result. It's very worthwhile to learn to be able to 'see' in all these channels regardless of what colorspace you usually work in.

[CJ Swartz]

Originally Posted by imann08

Is there some rule against talking about this subject that I am unaware of? I figured more people would be talking about this.

No rules against talking about knowledge here! I think you're just ahead of a lot of us! I know we have a few folks here who really understand Photoshop, and they post an occasional explanation as to WHY some technique will get us the effect we are looking for, but a lot of the work/play that goes on here is based on just learning some techniques that work without having to understand the WHY. I have learned from Dan Margulies' work posted on the internet, and I've searched for his explanations on subjects over the years. I'm not sure why I haven't bought his latest books (the LAB book was discussed a bit here last year), but I imagine it's a combination of laziness and worry that I just won't "get it".

When the LAB discussion came up, I found that the dgrin.com forum had chapter summaries written up by members and discussion threads for the book, and I checked now to see that they are doing the same for this book also -- they have summaries for the first 7 chapters already linked.
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=48066

I'm going to read thru those posts and then decide if I can successfully understand his book enough to buy it.

[Ant]

Dan is a tard. His views on color spaces are ridiculous. Perhaps that is why so many new digital imaging people are so full of misinformation.

[CJ Swartz]

Ant,

Okay, I'll "bite". Please give some examples of Margulies "misinformation", and some better ideas that you have read/learned/invented. Who/what have you read, seminars/workshops attended, that have offered better information?

[JettyJ]

I was just about to bite but CJ beat me to it. Why do you find his views on color spaces so ridiculous?

[Ant]

Originally Posted by CJ Swartz

Ant,

Okay, I'll "bite". Please give some examples of Margulies "misinformation", and some better ideas that you have read/learned/invented. Who/what have you read, seminars/workshops attended, that have offered better information?

well that was easy enough. ok, he is not an all out tard HOWEVER...
some examples and the context included


sRGB

Posted on photo.net

Harvey S , feb 02, 2007; 04:03 a.m.
I've been reading Dan Margulis' latest book, Professional Photoshop (Fifth Edition) - The Classic Guide to Color Correction. Unfortunately, he's made me start to wonder if I should switch all my color space settings to sRGB, throw away my monitor calibrator, and adopt Curves as my religion.

While I don't find his writing style objectionable, he can take a lot of space to explain something. I'm a little surprised at how glowing most of the reviews of his book were on Amazon. However, he certainly has made me begin to think much more about basic concepts such as color space, channels, RGB vs. CMYK, etc. Maybe this is his intent -- not to necessarily bring you over to his sometimes extreme way of doing things, but to simply make you question many of the basic ideas behind color correction in particular and digital photography in general, and to then decide for yourself. If this was his goal, then I think he's succeeded.

Andrew Rodney , feb 02, 2007; 10:18 a.m.
Keep reading and you'll toss your Tivo and auto and go back to the life of the Amish. Seriously, he's way off base with the sRGB stuff and I'm blue in the fact arguing with him despite showing him clearly that there are all kinds of capture and output devices that exceed sRGB and that sRGB was NEVER built for Pro use. I even submitted a message dated way back in 1998 by Michael Stokes of HP who in writing a number of times states this clearly (I'd be happy to copy and paste if anyone wants to read this public thread from the ColorSync list).
When it comes to color management, you're best to ignore Dan big time!

Andrew Rodney Author "Color Management for Photographers" http://www.digitaldog.net/

Andrew Rodney , feb 02, 2007; 06:19 p.m.
Here's the tread (full in context) from Dan's so called Color Theory list:
Re: MacbookPro & Cinema Display Color Syncronization

On 1/25/07 4:32 AM, "Laurentiu Todie" wrote:>

> 2) sRGB WAS the compromise color space of old CRTs, isn't anymore > (LCDs can have twice the brightness of CRTs, therefore more light > colors)

With respect to sRGB, its useful to look at the origins and design. This is a synthetic color space like all the RGB working spaces Adobe installs. Its all pure math. Define the RGB chromaticity values, a white point and a tone response curve which is often called (incorrectly depending on the design of the space) gamma. Such synthetic spaces are built because its they are based on a theoretical, predictable device behavior. The behavior defined can as specific as the ambient light under which this theoretical device exists. In the case of sRGB, the chromaticity is based on a pretty darn old technology (P22 phosphors), the so called gamma is really two TRC's (there's a tweak in the shadows), the white point is OK but the reference media (the conditions this CRT display reside, the contrast ratio etc) isn't anything like an LCD. There?s only one true sRGB output device, its an emissive CRT display in a very fixed condition and environment.

Now, for some useful info about sRGB, from the man who designed it. I have a post from the Colorsync list dated November of 1998 which may clarify some interesting debates about sRGB, notably its usefulness to pro?s:

On 11/30/98 8:56 AM, "Stokes, Michael" wrote: Jeff and Andrew, I just ran across a couple of threads you wrote in response to a query about sRGB. Being the color scientist behind this effort at HP, I would like to clear up some apparent misconceptions. 1. sRGB is not base on "standard" "typical" or any other type of PC monitor, but is directly derived from the HDTV standard ITU-R BT.709/2 2. sRGB does represent not only average PC monitors, but is within the factory tolerances of almost all CRTs on the market today, including Barco professional CRTs. This is due to the shared family set of P22 phosphors which almost all CRTs use today. While this "family" of P22 phosphors has some differences between manufacturers, these differences fall within each manufacturer's factory tolerances. Saying that sRGB chromaticities are "quite small" is simply saying that CRT phosphors in general are quite small. 3. While the 2.2 gamma was directly derived from HTDV, it has been independently verified by Sony, Barco and others to represent the native physical state of CRTs today. It is also very close to the native human perceptual lightness scale when viewing CRTs. This combination makes this gamma the optimal for CRTs to physically operate at. This also goes a long way in explaining the compatibility with Windows and PCs in general since these systems have not imposed any arbitary or proprietary system adjustments. 4. The white point again is derived directly from the television industry and is the standard is televisions and also in many aspects of photography. Achieving a bright enough D50 white point to comfortably adapt to continues to be a technical challenge for CRT vendors. 5. I agree that there is a different in gamut shapes between sRGB and press CMYKs. This is due the the difference in gamut shapes of CRTs in general and press CMYKs in general. Since sRGB represents the native physical condition of CRTs, this is an obvious outcome. I also note that the sRGB gamut in general is significantly larger than press CMYK gamuts an most areas other than cyan. 6. I agree that if I am in a high-end graphic arts D50 only workflow, that sRGB is not the optimal solution and neither HP nor Microsoft claims it to be so. On the other hand, it is the optimal solution for any display-centric workflow such as desktop publishing in the office or home, the world wide web or any assortment of workflows where a display plays an integral part. 7. Claiming that pure cyan in sRGB converts to 78% cyan in press CMYK is completely dependent upon which gamut mapping technique you are using. I am assuming you are using whatever is in Photoshop. I can tell you that this is not the case for the gamut mapping in our own printers. 8. We've worked very hard with Pantone to provide a solid physical and scientific foundation for their RGB representations. I am at a loss to explain your criticims on this front and your implicit request that Pantone base their CRT RGB palettes on something other than established standards, physics and science. I would appreciate some input on this one. 9. Your statements that "However, I've been told that the original color scientist from HP that proposed this colorspace has stated that it has gone too far, that this was a proposal ONLY for the web. . .not for printing or cameras or scanners. I've also heard the even Microsoft is kinda backing away from sRGB for ANYTHING other than the web." are simply untrue and I would appreciate knowing where to go to straighten this out. I have never said that sRGB is not for printing or cameras or scanners. I believe sRGB provides an excellent, robust and fundamentally sound solutions for these mass markets. HP has a lot of evidence both internally and with real customers to support this. We also have many partners in the camera, scanner and desktop printer businesses that have independenty confirmed this. I also believe that Microsoft has not backed off from sRGB in any way. 10. A better web site for sRGB information is at www.srgb.com 11. I would very much like to have a discussion on the difference between display spaces and editing spaces. I agree that a larger editing space would be helpful, but am skeptical from my own scientific research if this can be done in a 24bit encoding by simply changing the chromaticities without resulting in other problems. Would you and Rodney be interested in such a discussion? 12. Characterizing our efforts as hoodwinking seems a bit stretched since we've gone out of our way to conform to existing international standards, sound physics, and state of art research results. I just wanted to clarify a few things and hope this helps, Michael Stokes HP

In a following post (answer to Jeff Schewe):

> sRGB reflects the characteristics of the average PC monitor. If you are > producing graphics to be viewed on the Web, sRGB will reflect what most > viewers see. The downside to sRGB is that it has a limited color gamut > and cannot represent as many colors as other color spaces. It is NOT a > good choice for Professional prepress users since too much CMYK gamut > lies outside of it". I have told Adobe and their quote is factually accurate, but possibly not as informative as it could be. I do agree that when using a purely prepress D50 CMYK workflow, sRGB is not the optimal solution.

I think we're in agreement that sRGB is mainly or primarily targeted at the mass market and not the high end professional market (for all of the many sound reasons you gave above). Any questions? I think it puts sRGB in the historic perspective it deserves.

Andrew Rodney Author "Color Management for Photographers" http://www.digitaldog.net/

(from a review of his book by John Ruttenberg at DigitalGrin)

Dan doesn't shy away from controversial topics, but when he enters battle he is always well armed. For example, he doesn't think much of automated color management which aims to calibrate monitors to each other and to printers (and presses) by way of spectrometers. He shuns the use of many of Adobe Camera Raw's features. He famously denies that there is much advantage in 16 bit mode. He explains why very little is lost in sRGB or even CMYK vs color spaces with wider gamuts. In every case, his reasoning and experience throw light on the subject and result in practical insights. You might not agree completely with all his controversial opinions (MOST DEFINITELY), but you ignore them and his reasoning at peril of confusion and misunderstanding. OR, LISTEN TO EVERYTHING HE SAYS AND MISUNDERSTAND, MISUSE AND FOREVER PULL YOUR HAIR OUT


Much of what Dan says is fine for home users, those sending their files to walmart or for posting on the web and the occasional business card or wedding invitation that might be printed off-set. Also, a lot of what he says is correct in many regards (ie. a color blind person could color correct very well using his by the numbers). But, much is just his opinion and/or simply not true. sRGB for example - never a pro space. clipped and limited. 16bit? You retouch....no loss? debateable. file dependant and how much are you manipulating that file?

Like Katrin, Dan also simple has bad taste. Gearhead, technophiles imo, the both of them. I'd poke my eyes out if I had theirs. I guess there is a reason they make all those floral print couches in pink.

[imann08]

Originally Posted by CJ Swartz

No rules against talking about knowledge here! I think you're just ahead of a lot of us! I know we have a few folks here who really understand Photoshop, and they post an occasional explanation as to WHY some technique will get us the effect we are looking for, but a lot of the work/play that goes on here is based on just learning some techniques that work without having to understand the WHY. I have learned from Dan Margulies' work posted on the internet, and I've searched for his explanations on subjects over the years. I'm not sure why I haven't bought his latest books (the LAB book was discussed a bit here last year), but I imagine it's a combination of laziness and worry that I just won't "get it".

When the LAB discussion came up, I found that the dgrin.com forum had chapter summaries written up by members and discussion threads for the book, and I checked now to see that they are doing the same for this book also -- they have summaries for the first 7 chapters already linked.
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=48066

I'm going to read thru those posts and then decide if I can successfully understand his book enough to buy it.

I think one of the reasons that it is less discussed here is that this is more a forum for fixing damage as opposed to color correction. Many of the photos are B/W.

As far as you getting the books, I think you should. They are difficult for sure but they aren't impossible. I have to read things many times to get them but other things come fairly easily. Understanding why things work helps me very much. Simply knowing the steps to something doesn't do much for you in the long run I think.

I have been on DGrin quite a bit. I have actually posted in a few of those chapter reviews that they have done. I just like this site as well and was hoping that people would be talking about here as well.

You should get the books though. Especially the LAB book. LAB is very good for images suffering from severe colorcast. With the other book, it goes over all the colorspaces which is good. Each one gives you options that the others just don't have. I know it makes me feel more comfortable once I learn it.

Oh, and everyone has trouble with these books somewhere or another so if you do then you will be like everyone else.

[imann08]

In response to Art, you could have said the same thing as that last post did with the word because. As Margulis states, no one who disagrees with him can come up with examples that prove their point.

I noticed that you used a quote from someone using the difference between CRTs and LCDs as the reason why sRGB doesn't work anymore. That makes no sense whatsoever. Why sRGB is good has nothing to do with a monitor. It has to do with the conversion from RGB to CMYK. You could have a monitor that looked like it was in the exclusion blending mode and it wouldn't matter.

Also, it should be recognized that he does not think that sRGB is the best profile to use. He simply says that it is probably the best among the ones you get with Photoshop. If you fall short in the gamut you can make it up once you get to CMYK. If you start with a larger gamut in RGB, then that is not an option. Photoshop does it for you and it doesn't always do it right. He, unlike others, gives examples of this in his book.

[JettyJ]

First off, the Pro Photoshop book is geared towards color correction and not color management. There is overlap, of course, but they are two distinct things. Also, he is not touting sRGB as the right colorspace for everyone to be using, he just points out when it might be the best of some bad choices. Color management as a whole is not an exact science and there are so many different inputs, outputs and translations that there is bound to be controversy. Not everybody agrees with Andrew Rodney either. Besides, regardless of colorspace, a thorough understanding of channel structure and curve editing (which are main points of the book) are powerful tools to help get your images to where you want them to be. I couldn't care less about his artistic taste or talent - it's of no importance within the context of the book.

[mdavis]

I have little respect for those who refuse to read opinions on both sides of an argument. Dan Margulis understands perhaps better than anyone how to use color values in RGB, CMYK, LAB to evaluate accuracy of a given color. His background is mired in 8-bit and pre-press work and he is a bit reluctant to adapt the inherent advantages that others claim exist in the 16-bit and large colorspace world. Having said that, no one can deny that very very few images in nature (outside of garishly colored dyes, fluorescents, etc.) will exceed sRGB colorspaces. He also I feel, correctly and repeatedly requests real world photos that prove that 16-bit is visible superior to 8-bit when making ordinary editing moves in Photoshop. Few of his detractors have ever been able to supply such evidence.

Andrew Rodney sells books on Color Management, not color correction. He has a vested interest in his chosen field of expertise which is explaining monitor calibration and all the mathematical, theoretical advantages of big colorspaces, big bit depths and big ticket toys. One can learn from both of these guys. Rodney corrects color by having a "perfectly calibrated" monitor and relies on visual accuracy of an "eyeballed" image being correctly interpreted by the printer. Margulis, on the other hand, can teach a color-blind person using a black & white monitor to turn out very fine color balanced work by knowing reasonable channel values for known surfaces.

Both men have their points. But if you really want to dig deeply into really knowing how to handle channel blending, masking, calculations, apply image, blend-if sliders, false profiles and a raft of professional color correction techniques that have long since passed the rest of the world by, then read Dan's "Professional Photoshop 5th Ed.". Oh, yeah, and Rodney's book is a good read as well. You ought to know both, not pitch your tent in one camp.

[edgework]

Dan's actually moderated his opinion of the Color Management industry in recent years; I don't believe he still consideres the whole lot to be a bunch of snake oil salesmen. Just some of them.

I have no qualms about voicing my enthusiastic endorsement of Dan's work. He is rightly placed among the top eschelon of those who have invented the modern digital color/prepress workflow and his influence is so pervasive that it now extends to 2nd and 3rd generation color gurus who might not even know a lot about him or his writing.

I've been in prepress since the early 90s, and I've worked in places that claimed to have top-down color management and really made an effort to do just that, places who thought that's what they were doing but didn't have a clue and places that could have cared less. In all versions, the bottom line is this: the correct color is whatever contract proof the client signs off on. In a shop with consistent color management, at least when the jobs were off, they were all off the same degree.

The best color management system has always been a sharp pair of eyes and a good relationship with a printer you trust. Workflows that no longer involve CMYK still come down to the same thing: someone has to be satisfied, and the files will be tweaked until they are.

The strength of Dan's approach is that, regardless of what the profiles are showing you on your monitor, the tweaking will be necessary, and it will always involve the same principles. Those are the things he teaches you.