Ken Rockwell on Color Management

Ken Rockwell now claims that color management is for wimps. Just say no - it's

not needed. And to support his position he shows an image from a D70 compared

to a non-color managed scan of a print. But the print scan looks dreadful - the

kid has a green cast that makes him look ill. Is Rockwell crazy? Or has

decades of shooting Velvia blown out his ability to perceive green?

 

My monitor is calibrated and the straight D70 shot looks much better. How does

this comparison look to other folks on their monitors?

 

http://kenrockwell.com/tech/color-management/is-for-wimps.htm

On my monitor the D70 shot looks a little red, the scan looks fine. Definitely not a green cast in the scan photo.

On my monitor, Rockwell's two images have about identical color. The print scan looks a bit contrastier ... if "contrastier" is a word.

 

 

I paid dealer employee net for a MonacoOptix XR kit and it has definitely made my viewing monitor more accurate. That having been said, I cannot get my monitor to precisely agree with what is coming out of my Epson printer in terms of color, contrast or density. Given that the two viewing mediums- CRT v. paper print- are so different, this doesn't suprise me.

 

 

The MonacoOptix XR kit has certainly saved me more in paper and ink than it cost. However, I'll more often than not wind up with a test print and sometimes two.

 

 

Also, I'd note that if I'm printing from a digital camera image I've shot in Adobe RGB, I'm more likely to hit a keeper on the first print from my Epson 2200. If I'm scanning from a transparency or negative I'm more likely to have to make a test print.

 

 

Similarly, the machines at my store make C-prints. They respond best to sRGB images from digital cameras.

What Rockwell knows about color management fits into a baby size thimble. He is a man with

many opions, not all of which are grounded in reality.

What I know about color management would probably be lost inside a baby sized thimble too, but I sort of agree with Rockwell on this one.

 

I see a lot of people totally confused about color management and getting themselves into all sorts of trouble by trying to do things they don't understand, actually making thgings worse.

 

I'm still not using any color management and I'm pretty happy with the colors of my prints. I'm not making prints of frabrics for manufactures so I don't need absolutely precise colors and I doubt that many people do. My flesh tones look like flesh tones, my whites are white and my reds, greens and blues look natural.

 

Maybe I'm just not fussy enough about color. Perhaps that does come from shooting slide film (and color negative), where every film gave a slightly different color rendition, none of them 100% "accurate". That never really used to bother people too much.

by the way, what's this Kenwood-bashing on this iste everytime his name is mentioned some one comes up and, well is not so positive about this guy?

He's clueless. The role of color management is to produce the same color matching over

any number of devices and do this consistently. He says he uses color management on his

display. OK. He says you don't need profiles. So how does one convert to an output color

space for every device? Oh, send it sRGB, not.

 

Here's a sample of an interview with Bill Atkinson that explains perfectly WHY color

management is necessary. It's just a snipit but sums up in two minutes what Ken doesn't

get. Send him the link and ask him what he's smoking.

 

http://luminous-landscape.com/video_journal/vj15-colour.shtml

 

This dweb writes:

 

"I invented the world's first dedicated digital color-space conversion chip back in 1990

with TRW"

 

Bill invented a LOT of the Mac OS, Hypercard, MacPaint and his own color management

engines. Thomas Knoll wrote much of Photoshop and would laugh Mr. TRW out of the

room (oh, he also wrote ACE, the Adobe Color Engine and much of Adobe Camera RAW).

He can claim that because for many of the common photographic tools everything is tooled already toward a form of color management. you take a common PS digicam and take a picture and upload it to your computer and tell windows to print it on your hp printer. you will get pretty good results. but here is why.. the little PS probalby used sRGB for the in-camera creation of the jpeg. then, windows probably just saved that whole file including the tagged colorspace (if tagged is what it does) and when you print it.. most common consumer grade printers default to converting their prints from sRGB colorspaces. .. so you are working in a color managed environment.. but many just dont' realize it.

 

so he can say you don't need it safely because stupidware takes over. and for many people who don't know enough about managing digital color workflows,, keeping it simple probably IS the best way to go. making the jump into CUSTOM color profiles is not such an easy thing for some and not necessarily cheap.

 

Ken Rockwell is a strange fellow. he is either smartish and assumes his target audience is comprised of PS digicam operators, or people who similarly like things simple. and tools his 'lessons' around that assumption.. OR he is deluded and misunderstands what he is doing and thinks he knows a lot.. either way I wouldn't consider his stuff anything to learn from because I don't think his work is exceptional. and if I am going to learn online,, I had best think I have something to learn from the person.

If your color management scheme works for you to your satisfaction (even if that in reality means you have no explicit scheme that involves doing anything specifically for color management) then great. If not then obviously you need one.

 

For myself using PhotoShop to edit (including color correction) and print at home on a very good inkjet printer specifically meant for photos that has required that I profile both my monitor and printer to get results that satisfy me. Your mileage may vary,...

As someone who isn't very interested in printing his own work, but is increasingly interested in sending images for people to view and in sending prepared files for labs to print, maybe Mr Rockwell could advise me on

 

1. How I might put material onto the web or onto CD from my computer whilst maximising the chances that what the "audience" sees is close to what I want them to see.

 

2. How I can send a lab a file that I know will produce a print that looks like I want.

 

If he can tell me how to achieve these things without some form of colour management then I won't buy a Spyder or whatever and I'll shred Andrew Rodney's book which I'm finding hard going and I'd like to stop.

What he does say is "buy though my links so I make more money off of you". Have you

Noticed that he first line in that URL is "I get my goodies at Ritz, Amazon and Adorama.

It helps me publish this site when you get yours from those links, too."

 

 

 

the sRGB / JPEG approach he advocates is fine if all you want is a very simple dumbed

down approach for snapshots that you really don't care about, but at that point you have

to really wonder what's the point of buying an expensive camera?

 

It is more than a bit misleading to say he advocates a position that "color management is

not needed" as you find out that he uses a Colorvision system to calibrate and profile his

monitor. profiling and calibrating your monitor: calibrating your monitor is the basic and

largest step in color management. my experience is that the gretagmacbeth and X-rite/

Monaco equipment to be more reliable than Colorvision but then again I don't have a

financial stake in advocating any of these systems --and KR obviously does.

 

After that he is letting his lab of choice do or dictate the color management for him and

he definitely is engaging color management when he wants a high quality print and uses

Calypso's provided profiles.

 

I can't fault KR for his capitalistic motivations or his embrace of P.T Barnum's sage

marketing advice; "there's a sucker born every minute."

What struck me about his article is that the two images look quite different to me. The scan has a greenish cast on my monotor. But the cast that I see isn't nearly as important as the fact that they are different. I guess it's just a matter of how picky you are about colors. And I suppose I'm pretty picky. And I don't find color management to be all that confusing.

Well, he also says in the same article:

 

"Ditto for people still wasting their time with inkjet printers, which went obsolete back in 2004. I send all my prints out. It's faster, costs less, lasts forever and looks much, much better."

 

Lasts forever? Looks better? ?

 

I can make outrageous statements too (please donate). My $40 Canonet is quieter, easier to load, and delivers indistinguishable pictures from a Leica M with Leica lens. Heck, only the latest Leica Ms even have autoexposure, making the Canonet a *better* camera for real users.

I 'd call the scan a bit more on the blueish cyan side, at least in the shirt, but well, the difference is visible but for me no reason to get at a labs throat, if it occured between one of my files and their print.

 

I'll get some Epson, I hope Rockwell is right and if he isn't, I 'll buy whatever improves my stuff to the performance of his example. OTOH I've seen money blown on color management and similar with worse results than that, so why shouldn't I hope and try?

As a side note, for those of us who use and want to no more about color management, you can not find a better book than Andrew Rodney's book Color Management For Photographers.

It seems like KR bashing is fashionable, but at least I give the guy credit for attempting to do objective comparisons instead of subjective, SWAGs at which lenses are better, etc. There's to much "legend" on the forums and a lot less scientific fact.

A bashing is what he deserves. He?s either looking to build controversy and attract

attention to himself or he?s pretty clueless. Let?s look at some of the statements made on

his site:

 

> Color Management is for Wimps

So he kind of started it...

 

> I shoot and print, never waste any time with profiles or spaces, and

> everything looks great.

 

Define looks great? Does that mean that EVERY TIME he prints the same numbers to the

same or different devices they appear the same? Others have commented that the two

images on his site don't appear the same. End of story there. And on a color managed

browser with a superb profile, they don't match on my end either.

 

> Color profiles and color spaces are for dweebs.

 

So then he discusses sRGB which is of course a color space. So what's he trying to do here

with the sentence? Get attention of prove he's clueless.

 

> I invented the world's first dedicated digital color-space conversion chip

> back in 1990 with TRW, and even I don't bother color managing anything except

> my monitor.

 

Translation: I want you to know I know what I'm talking about because way back in 1990, I

did something that has nothing to do with modern imaging or color management. Oh. I do

color manage my display. So he's using a color profile that defines a color space. He's

again talking out of both sides of his mouth.

 

> No photographer needs to do color management manually any more. Color

> management is already built into everything by designers who know what they're

> doing.

 

Absolute nonsense and again, saying something different than the sentence above ( I don't

bother color managing anything except my monitor.).

 

If you believe what he's saying is true, why do we have SO many posts from photographers

who's images don't match what they see in a web browser or when they print their images?

Obviously they are not drinking Ken's Koolaid or they are color blind.

 

> Mess with profiles and color spaces and you'll probably get bad results. Leave

> it all alone, and you'll get great results.

 

He backs this up how? Do you see anything to validate this statement? His he using any

"science" to back this up? Does he believe in the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny too? It's

not useful to get into religious debates with people like this because they fall into the

'intelligent science' not real science mindset. For a guy who supposedly built something in

1990, he doesn't seem to back up any claims with empirical proof. On the other hand, it's

pretty easy to show how using color profiles WILL produce color matching to various

devices.

 

> Ditto for people still wasting their time with inkjet printers, which went

> obsolete back in 2004

 

Isn't this enough to dismiss the guy outright? Is he kidding? Come on folks, this is troll

talk.

 

> THE EPIPHANY

 

A few paragraphs of complete BS which we've already said isn't true (the two images don't

match). Enough bandwidth from this looser. He's only interested in gathering attention,

likes the sound of his own voice. If anything, people who know what a bunch of crapola

this is should call this guy what he is, a complete troll.

Earlier in this thread, someone wanted to know why Rockwell is bashed. Well, when you

publish "review-tests" of gear you've NEVER EVEN HELD, well, you're asking for it. Rockwell

does this. Additionally, in one review, a review of a 35-70 zoom, he concludes that you

should skip it and just get a 50mm prime. Right. He doesn't understand that there are angle

of view and subsequent perspective differenced between lenses of different focal lengths. So

go ahead; take his advice.

My question is just what are his tolerances for variation in color. Not everyone has the same "good enough".

"It seems like KR bashing is fashionable, but at least I give the guy credit for attempting to do objective comparisons instead of subjective, SWAGs at which lenses are better, etc. There's to much "legend" on the forums and a lot less scientific fact."

 

Credit for being objective! You'd better read his site thoroughly - he's anything but objective!

The color in the two images is slightly different, but I assume many folks would be happy with it. In general, Ken's advice is relevant for many photographers. The more sophisticated ones, such as those found in this forum, will find some of it over-simplified or plain ridiculous, but that's not his target audience. The fact that he is able to support himself through his website indicates there is some validity in such an approach. If my brothers-in-law who own DSLRs but barely understand fstops and shutter speeds asked me about color management, I'd probably tell them the same as Ken.

I've read Rockwell's pages on and off over the last three years (mostly when a post here on photo.net refers to one), and I don't put much stock into anything I read there.

 

He's as entitled to his opinions as anyone else. But I find his style quite annoying: he goes gaga over anything that works for him, and it becomes Gospel when he writes about it in his (poorly edited) website. He looks down his nose with condescending derision at everything else (inkjet printers, Windows, Adobe RGB). In other words, if he gets it, it's great; otherwise, it's rubbish.

 

The guy would be far better suited writing about fashion than photography.

Whether color management hardware / software can provide you with a significant benefit depends a lot on what you do.<P>

 

For me--and in the film days color issues were a frequent source of annoyance--I really don't see the need. I edit my pictures with a Dell CRT monitor set to 6500K, usually in a fairly dark room, save them as JPG's in sRGB, upload them to Shutterfly or Mpix, <I>tell them not to do any color correction</I> (which is obviously a key point!), and order prints. The color has never been more than ever so slightly different than what I thought it would be. I submit that, for the vast majority of people, even for many serious hobbyists and small-time pros, there's just no need for expensive and/or complicated color management.<P>

 

Of course, if you're a high-end pro doing product shots, or need to be able to get matching prints from lots of different high-end labs, or whatever, maybe you need it.

Check out his 'Alien' gallery:

 

http://kenrockwell.com/nm/aliens/index.htm

 

Read the text below the pics. I think it tells us all we need to know about Ken Rockwell lol.

<I>I was under the impression that it makes no difference who the audience is or their level when posting bogus and technically incorrect information.....This dweb writes:</i><P>I personally think Ken is a bit eccentric, but <b>unlike Andrew Rodney</b>, Ken Rockwell is a legitimate photographer who has some outstanding work and doesn't post adds on photo.net to trump his commercial services. In that respect, Ken has *kinda* earned to right to express his opinions as controversial as they maybe.<P>I will work with CM tools if the workflow demands it, but I sure the hell won't listen to a damn thing A. Rodney says because there practical limitations on being obsessed with color management, as Mr. Atkins properly stated. My countless arguements with digital shooters that you can't match Fuji and Kodak papers in terms of gamut just because you have a profiled workflow being another example. Then again when you work with actual engineers all day long and not desktop publishing interns your perspective is a bit different.<P>As for Mr. Atkinson, if he invented any Mac OS other OSX, he's got nothing to brag about.