DAN MARGULIS APPLIED COLOR THEORY

 

Is Newspaper Production Quality Declining?

 

 

From: Ron Kelly

Date: January 5, 2012 12:13:08 PM EST

Subject: [colortheory] newspaper reproduction

 

In a recent thread, Dan Margulis wrote,

 

Also, newspaper production, since color became common about 15 years ago, has been subject to turf wars. Should the photographers be responsible for correcting their own work before handing it in, or is this a prepress function?

Dan:

 

Upon attending one of your classes a few years ago, a comment was made that there were two people present out of about ten of us total, from the newspaper business. They were there, if I recall correctly, of their own initiative, and possibly expense.

 

It's been my observation that certainly locally, and nationally also, the reproduction quality of newspapers has declined.

 

The local paper, who shall go nameless, is a pile of mud. I'm guessing that there *is* no prepress department any more, and that the files run almost straight out the camera; "separations" are determined by the platemaker RIP. What else could account for the terrible quality I see?

 

Could anyone with insider experience care to comment? Is there in fact some one out there who is responsible for preparing files to print? What expertise do they have?

 

The irony to me is that, with papers struggling for profits and they're very existence, they generally undervalue the thing that could benefit them a great deal: quality reproduction of images.

 

If I'm wrong, then I would expect the costcutting to continue, and newspapers to revert to black-plate-only

publications; there's no doubt that would save even more money than just laying-off people.

 

I'm thinking of getting an iPad and just going that route for all publications, but I'm reluctant to personally put another nail in the coffin of the web offset. The environmental cost to newsprint is *only* worth it if the images look good, IMHO.

 

Ron Kelly

___________________________________________________________________________

 

From: Boris Feldblyum

Date: January 5, 2012 6:58:26 PM EST

Subject: Re: [colortheory] newspaper reproduction

 

I have a feeling that most people don't care about quality and

craftsmanship. A culture (I am blushing using this word) of whatever.

Everything is made in China, etc.

 

There was a picture of the Maryland State Senate Chambers in yesterday's

paper. First page, above the fold.  Converging verticals, 5-10 degrees

roll, part of the 2nd floor gallery is pitch dark because of a burnt out

bulb.  It would take even me under 5 minutes to straighten the lines and

copy-paste the bright part of the gallery over the dark one. Would this be

cheating?

 

I guess if I were a photographer and could not afford to wait half-a day

for five union guys to screw in a light bulb, I would find a different

angle. But would anybody care?

 

Sorry for sounding like an old geezer, but I really am not sure what is the

solution, if any.

 

Boris Feldblyum

___________________________________________________________________________

 

From: Henry Davis

Date: January 5, 2012 8:23:45 PM EST

Subject: Re: [colortheory] newspaper reproduction

 

My opinion is:  the real conditions of the scene at the time of the 

shot are that shot.  I'm not against improving the scene post-exposure 

but going beyond minimal improvements needed due to lighting 

conditions becomes more debatable.

 

Quality and craftsmanship apply to the skills of the photographer - 

some conditions require better skills.  Some conditions just can't be 

conquered by skills.  That's not an excuse for poor craftsmanship for 

all conditions.

 

Henry

___________________________________________________________________________

 

From: Dan Margulis

Date: January 6, 2012 6:17:21 PM EST

Subject: Re: [colortheory] newspaper reproduction

 

Ron Kelly writes,

 

Dan:

 

Upon attending one of your classes a few years ago, a comment was made that there were two people present out of about

ten of us total, from the newspaper business. They were there, if I recall correctly, of their own initiative, and possibly expense.

 

Your class initially was of eight, which is the maximum, not ten. I looked at the roster and don't recall where everyone came from, except for yourself, one police forensic specialist, and Vladimir Yelisseev, who is from Russia. So there may have been newspaper people present.

 

The basic observation, however, is correct. Newspapers started to print color in a big way in the 1990s and as you might expect they were not good at it. Many advertisers at that time were not good at it either, and relied on the newspapers to get the color right. Many did not understand that the same quality one expects from a magazine is not attainable on newsprint.

 

Also, at this time most newspapers had severe limitations as to the number of pages in which color could appear. This was before serious advertising was feasible on the web, so there was a lot of pent-up demand for color advertising in newspapers. Many newspapers were in a position they don't like to be in, of having to turn down advertising because they didn't have the press capacity to print as many color ads as the advertisers wanted to buy. Then on top of that they were having to use that precious space to run make-goods for ads that did not come out well color-wise.

 

Consequently, the newspapers had a desperate need to improve their color knowledge and probably a quarter of the people attending ACT in the last century. But then the web came along and devastated the newspaper economy. So from that point on, I rarely saw newspaper people attending U.S. classes and when they did they were paying their own fare. Things were a little better in Canada.

 

It's been my observation that certainly locally, and nationally also, the reproduction quality of newspapers has declined.

 

The local paper, who shall go nameless, is a pile of mud. I'm guessing that there *is* no prepress department any more,

and that the files run almost straight out the camera; "separations" are determined by the platemaker RIP. What else

could account for the terrible quality I see?

 

That's likely part of it. We had a thread a couple of years back in which it was pointed out that many newspapers, in a desperate attempt to save money, are reseparating incoming files so that they will print with Maximum GCR, which cuts their inking costs dramatically at the price of lack of controllability and quality. Also, some have laid off all but essential production personnel--after all, automated correction is just as good, right? And press maintenance is put off.

 

I don't think that it's a lack of interest in quality; rather, these newspapers are failing and when their financial position is this precarious they do things that would be silly in normal circumstances.

 

I'll bet you, though, that the advertising looks better than the editorial color.

 

Could anyone with insider experience care to comment? Is there in fact some one

out there who is responsible for preparing files to print? What expertise do they have?

 

The irony to me is that, with papers struggling for profits and they're very existence,

they generally undervalue the thing that could benefit them a great deal:

quality reproduction of images.

 

If I'm wrong, then I would expect the costcutting to continue, and newspapers to

revert to black-plate-only publications; there's no doubt that would save even

more money than just laying-off people.

 

Well, that sums it up, except for going back to B/W which is hyperbole. But basically if you are right they will make more money from better print quality. Unfortunately, the newspapers think that you are wrong.

 

Dan Margulis

___________________________________________________________________________

 

From: Brian Pylant

Date: January 6, 2012 10:09:49 AM EST

Subject: Re: [colortheory] newspaper reproduction

 

I've been saying for quite some time now that American culture has

(de-)evolved into one that values "more" to the almost complete exclusion of

"better." There are exceptions, of course, but this mentality is rampant

throughout our society and has an incredibly negative impact on almost every

aspect of our daily lives -- not to mention the work that we do, and the

price point at which we're expected to do it.

 

Brian

___________________________________________________________________________

 

From: Ron Kelly

Date: January 6, 2012 9:00:21 PM EST

Subject: Re: [colortheory] newspaper reproduction

 

On 01-06-2012, at 4:17 PM, Dan Margulis wrote:

 

I'll bet you, though, that the advertising looks better than the editorial color.

 

Dan,

 

You are spot on with that remark.

 

This is what I am observing in my local paper: excellent print quality on supplied ads,

for example, high end automobile stuff. National campaigns for cell phones, ditto, fashion

ads also.

 

This tells me that the printing press is not to blame. I have no idea whether the local photographers

are shooting RAW or jpeg, or processing their images in any way before submitting them.

 

The local hockey team is tepid, and I'm not just referring to their on-ice performance. They have

very pale complexions, often cyan or green.

 

The very worst stuff is probably the black-and-white stuff. It's too dark, with no contrast.

 

I guess I should screw up my courage and offer them a course, not that they'd likely buy it, but

what's there to lose? Is there anything I should know about teaching?

 

Cheers,

Ron Kelly

___________________________________________________________________________

 

From: John Denniston

Date: January 7, 2012 12:35:47 AM EST

Subject: Re: [colortheory] newspaper reproduction

 

Hi Ron,

 

A little history might be needed here.

 

When the newspaper I worked for went completely digital in 1995 there

were 3 goals.

 

First was to eliminate chemistry because we were moving to offsite

editorial offices where no chemicals under any circumstances were allowed.

 

Second was to eliminate the strangle hold the engravers union had on

prepress picture preparation.

 

Third was to make the process of rgb to cmyk so simple a person with no

experience could do the job after 4 or 5 hours of training.

 

The first two we accomplished within 6 months. The third took some time

because for some reason ;-) the engravers were not exactly free about

telling us the mysteries of creating separations so I spent my evenings

and weekends asking questions on listervs like this one.

 

It took almost 5 years but with photoshop actions, quick keys, and some

apple scripts we were, with 2 relatively unskilled people, able to

exceed the quality and quantity (by about 3 times) of 40 skilled engravers.

 

It all hinged on our photographers being able to produce quickly, high

quality rgb's. A lot of time was spent training them in colour

correction skills. As their skills improved the reproduction improved.

We found it relatively easy to semi-automate rgb to cmyk if the rgb's

were of good quality.

 

I've been retired 10 years now but from what I hear the prepress work at

The Province and its sister paper the Vancouver Sun is still being done

by anyone they can find, in one case a secretary made redundant by tech

change but with a grandfathered union job guarantee.

 

So is the colour as good as it used to be before I retired? Sometimes

yes and sometimes no but this is not because of the automation of

prepress rather it's outsourcing the entire layout of the paper from the

editorial offices in Vancouver to the chain's layout division 2000 miles

away in Ontario, or when they're too busy, to a company in Pakistan. Who

knows how many times they forget to change preferences from say the

Montreal Gazette to the Vancouver Sun before sending pages to press?

 

Which all leads back to the original question that started this thread,

the question of ethical retouching. If a newspaper photographer can't

prep his pictures so they can be separated automatically into quality

cmyk's the reproduction will usually be crap and at best a crap shoot.

The photographer must not only have very good colour correction skills

but understand the ethics of journalism, the philosophy of image making

and take responsibility for using them.

 

Regards, John

___________________________________________________________________________

 

From: Jacob Rus

Date: January 7, 2012 12:51:06 AM EST

Subject: Re: [colortheory] newspaper reproduction

 

Boris Feldblyum wrote:

I have a feeling that most people don't care about quality and

craftsmanship. A culture (I am blushing using this word) of whatever.

Everything is made in China, etc.

 

For more discussion of this "culture of whatever", I recommend Lewis

Mumford's 1934 book Technics and Civilization.... it's hardly a new

phenomenon.

 

Cheers,

Jacob Rus

___________________________________________________________________________

 

From: Eric Nunn

Date: January 7, 2012 8:07:21 AM EST

Subject: Re: [colortheory] newspaper reproduction

 

This has been a very interesting thread, although it has necessarily been a bit  "newspaper-centric".

 

However, in my career, spanning some 44 years in repro, starting as a process camera operator, then scanner operator, then EPC system operator, then a Photoshop operator for want of a better term, and now workflow colour management consultant...a euphemism for semi retired...the vast majority of the originals I worked with were transparencies. So there was little opportunity for the photographer to make any amendment outside of the camera.

 

So our aim generally was to achieve "faksim", facsimile reproduction to the transparency, the assumption being that the transparency had been chosen for positive reasons. The target in general was good quality print, sheetfed, web offset as it evolved and gravure.

 

In reality that meant making aesthetic changes, removal or easing of castes, adjustment of gradation and contrast and correction and enhancement of colour to achieve the "faksim" that the client perceived in the original...adjusting for the "rose coloured glasses" of the client was very much part of the skill of a good operator.

 

Despite the varying targets we were actually judged on the proof. In the early days flatbed proofing presses were used, fine for single colour press matches but as wet on wet four colour machines became the norm and especially the rise to prominence of web offset printing, this proofing method had major failings. So eventually it came down to photomechanical proofs, Cromalin and Matchprint in the main.

 

When you look back on it now it is laughable really, making a "contract proof" from powder applied to sticky coatings...but that was the best we had. So the client would be given this "one size fits all" proof, which in reality only applied to a tiny proportion of the target conditions it was used for, to make a judgement as fit for press.

 

But the point was, we did make lots of amendments to the original, both aesthetic and technical to get the client tick. And good companies tried to build in the parameters that were required for good printability, chiefly under colour removal to ensure correct TAC and good adaption to gradation to give the image "room to breath" in print. And these two requirements are still fundamental today.

 

Due to the need to "expose to the right" in digital photography, most images suffer from blocked or heavy threequarter tones. Especially in newsprint. So information and detail is there in the file but not necessarily in the right place tonally. (I hardly need to mention this in this forum!)

 

So opening up the tone range to ensure good midtone to shadow rendition in RGB is the pre-requisite followed by conversion to the correct CMYK profile to ensure the accurate translation of the RGB look to press ready colour numbers should result in much better consistency on the run. This applies to both colour and B/W images of course.

 

When I look back and realise that for most of my time in repro, our traditional working methods were actually wrong, going directly to some notional standard CMYK and working in that space, producing a proof that had little to do with the actual likely print condition and compare it to what is achievable today, I do smile. Oh, to have had back then the techniques we have today...

 

We have more power at hand today than ever before, but we have a less structured industry than ever before and every year we have new kids on the block who have less knowledge about colour than ever before.

 

There really is no excuse for poor or declining end quality, by applying the techniques often discussed on this forum, teamed with the power of colour management, any printed product should be able to sing from the page, loud and clear!

 

It is a sad fact that the people who need the knowledge the most are often most blind to the fact.

 

Cheers

 

Eric Nunn

___________________________________________________________________________

 

From: Ron Kelly

Date: January 10, 2012 4:27:30 PM EST

Subject: Re: [colortheory] newspaper reproduction

 

John

 

Thanks for the detailed answer.

 

It's too bad that, having pared down 40 engravers to just a few people, it was not

realized that paying for training of the remaining people would be a good thing;

someone has to know how to do things!

 

How many times have we heard "We're reducing and outsourcing, but quality and

service will not be affected"?

 

In today's paper again, a national campaign that looks excellent; elsewhere in the paper

is terrible. The difference is that the people in one workflow are good, know what they are

doing; the other has got some bizarre process where the quality is abysmal, and the people

managing it and paying for it don't notice or don't care, or both!

 

It's costing them just as much money to print crap as quality.

 

Respectfully,

Ron Kelly

___________________________________________________________________________

 

From: Henry Davis

Date: January 10, 2012 5:49:09 PM EST

Subject: Re: [colortheory] newspaper reproduction

 

On Jan 10, 2012, at 4:27 PM, Ron Kelly wrote:

 

It's costing them just as much money to print crap as quality.

 

Yes, but it's "push-button".

 

Henry

___________________________________________________________________________

 

From: John Denniston

Date: January 10, 2012 11:32:55 PM EST

Subject: Re: [colortheory] newspaper reproduction

 

On 1/10/2012 1:27 PM, Ron Kelly wrote:

 

having pared down 40 engravers to just a few people, it was not

realized that paying for training of the remaining people would be a

good thing;someone has to know how to do things!

 

Hi Ron,

 

I left out a layer behind the thinking that was going on at the time.

 

Management didn't want to have anyone on staff who knew how to do

things. Acquired skills gave employees the ability to bargain for higher

wages.

 

The original goal was to have the photographers send their raw files

into the system to be prepped by one of the many semi-automatic software

programs we tried. However, the NC2000 camera which we used at the time

was diabolical in its interpretations of colour. Almost every picture

required extensive photoshop corrections. See Rob Galbraith's web page

for a full description of its horrors although I think even he left out

the camera's trick of turning black polyester cloth into light blue.

 

I became photo editor after being a photographer so I fought and was

successful in getting the photographers to do the photoshop work. They

would know what the original colours were; darkroom techs or engravers

wouldn't. If I'd come from tech side, or maybe the word side, I might

have fought for the techies or the engravers but I didn't. I still think

it was the right decision.

 

I should also point out that when I say I fought for the photographers

it was meant in the strongest sense. Often it was all out war in

meetings that turned into screaming matches between the back shop, me,

the IT department and the parade of dubious colour consultants who

arrived hoping to sell us their latest calibration equipment that never

worked in the demo but would definitely work once we bought it and

installed it with the latest upgrades. The digital revolution in

photography at newspapers was not a group of like minded people trying

to do a good thing. It was a battle of entrenched groups trying to

protect their jobs for as long as they could by any method possible as

all of us realized by the late 1990's that newspapers didn't have much

of a future.

 

Regards, John