[11.19.2002]
Interview with Don Hutcheson: Part 3
Jeff: What software do you use/recommend to profile your monitors?
Don: For nearly two years I've used ICC Display with better luck than any other software, but ProfileCity recently removed the very tools (RGB curves and "custom white point") that I liked it for! You now have to buy a more expensive product called BasICColor Display to get the same results.
Meanwhile Monaco, GretagMacbeth and OptiCal are closing the gap and today I can get good results on a CRT with several products. The one remaining unique feature of BasICColor Display is its four-point approach to white balance, which can make all the difference on an Apple Cinema Display. But it can also lead to more color banding that other software.
Jeff: One thing you've been out about for a long time is your love of Apple's Cinema Display for color critical work. Many colleagues are stunned on principal by this recommendation. You state it has "higher brightness, better shadow detail, crisper blacks, stunning sharpness, and healthier ergonomics." The most obvious critique to using an LCD is the viewing angle...
Don: Agreed. Controlling your viewing angle has to be learned when moving up to the Cinema Display. And three people can't see the same thing on it at once. But give an ACD user a good profile and a balanced viewing booth and you'll never get them to go back to CRT. The viewing angle issue just melts into insignificance compared to the other advantages. And if you can't afford the ACD, get the Apple 17 inch display. It's just as good, only smaller.
Jeff: Andres Maldonado, product line manager at NEC-Mitsubishi, stated in October 2002's ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING magazine that "...LCDs are not as good at reproducing color consistently across the entire screen, and color gamut is narrower than it is on a CRT." Do you dispute these statements, or find them negligible in the case of the Cinema Display?
Don: On the first point I disagree. My experience is to the contrary. CRTs quickly develop hot-spots that vary in color across the screen. But from what I've seen LCDs tend to be much more stable with no tendency to colored hot-spots, although they may vary a little in brightness from side to side.
On the second point he's technically correct. Today's LCD's red and blue filters are generally less saturated than CRT phosphors, but the difference is small and only matters when you're looking at brilliant fluorescent magentas or deep blues that can't be printed anyway. In practice I don't perceive any lack of gamut and I suspect that an LCD's color gamut may actually APPEAR wider because of the monitor's higher brightness and greater visual contrast.
Jeff: I think most people who criticize the idea haven't even worked with one!
Don: My feelings, too. Plus there's the price issue and a sort of inverted snobbery. "If I can't afford it it can't be any good." That's why I encourage people to buy the Apple 17 inch display instead. Same benefits as the ACD. Same useful real-estate as a 21 inch CRT. More affordable.
Jeff: Let's talk about another recommendation you make that some professionals may react to: using an RGB workflow, even for a CMYK end-target. In the days when cross-media publishing are fast becoming the rage, this isn't as controversial a suggestion as it once was, but could you give a quick list of your arguments in favor of staying in RGB, and the reasons why people resist?
Don: It's just better in every way.
Here's a summary of advantages.
The logical explanation goes like this.
Why do people resist? I guess it's only natural to resist change, and there's obviously a cost involved in re-training existing CMYK workers. But the funny thing is that once they make the switch, most people I've trained have said "That was easy. Why didn't we do this years ago?"
Jeff: Well, I sometimes like to correct the black channel of a CMYK document, and RGB obviously doesn't have one.
Don: True. But once you switch to RGB you quickly realize you don't need to edit the black channel as a separate entity. You can achieve the same effects in RGB - only better.
About the only valid argument is if you want to make a black-only drop shadow, in which case you have no choice but to convert to CMYK first. But black-only drop shadows are an ugly anachronism that don't deliver the advantages most people think.
For example, instead of protecting against gray-balance drift on press, a black-only drop shadow actually highlights press drift! If the drop shadow stays neutral but the pots and pans go slightly green, the eye will see something's wrong. But if the shadow and the pots drift in the same direction, you probably won't notice.
And if the rosette pattern in the shadow doesn't match the picture it looks fake.
And if the press is slightly out of register you may see a white line between the pots and the shadow that a CMYK shadow won't show.
In an RGB image, black-only drop shadows can be replaced with more natural 4-color drop shadows, created extremely easily and safely with equal-RGB values. Remember, any equal-RGB pixel will automatically be converted into a perfect gray by the output profile, so even the most complex equal-RGB drop-shadow will create a beautifully smooth, absolutely neutral 4-color drop shadow that looks far more convincing than one in black-only.
^ return to top
« return to interviews list
« return to resources list