Andrew, I was wondering if you had any input on this question?
First off, HOW do you know an image will fit perfectly inside sRGB? You could use a utility like ColorThink and plot the two gamuts, that's pretty darn time consuming. You also have to look at the very simple gamut shapes of synthetic RGB working spaces, and compare them to far more complex gamut shapes from images and output devices.
Next, I don't know what you mean by damage? Any color space conversion will produce data loss.
Next, we don't (yet) have perceptual mapping of simple matrix color spaces so then question then is, mapping from what to sRGB? Mapping sRGB to CMYK, we do have a perceptual mapping available from Lab (the conversion usually goes RGB to the PCS which is usually Lab) to CMYK. Since every output profile manufacturer has their own recipe for a Perceptual mapping, one CMYK profile could do a different job than another even to the same device. That's all thrown away with the baby and the bath water IF you convert back to sRGB.
When you have an sRGB document, its in a Quasi-Device Independent color space for editing that is designed for conversion into an output color space (unless the output device is a display). When you use an output profile for the device supplied to you, you have, as I've said, the necessary information to look at gamut mapping using the three tables in this profile, you can view the results, convert the data and edit it (prior and or after) conversion. In short, you have what you need to work with the document and predict how it should print. Converting to CMYK and back to sRGB simply sabotages all this functionality, results in more data loss and time lost for both you and the lab (don't forget, the sRGB document has to be converted to CMYK all over again). What's the point?
bw, if you see in this thread around posting #27, there's a pretty serious question about why you aren't using a full color-managed process, providing customers with an ICC profile for that and allowing us to submit images in that profile? This gives us full control over profile conversion and rendering intents, removing any mystery from the color matching process for customers who fully understand color management. For customers who don't, you can continue to accept sRGB.
Note that what he said was, even if you use that profile, it may not necessarily match what you see on screen and that's true. How is the display profiled? How are you viewing the resulting output? But, even if we move to a low 90% agreement from print to screen, this is a good thing (a reflective print and emissive display will never match 100%, that would break the law of physics).
The part about a generic profile is discomfiting. There's nothing inherently bad about a so called generic profile, as long as the device it describes and the device itself are in agreement. Look at the canned profiles supplied by Epson for the Pro printers. They work because the profiles are well built but just as importantly, every Epson Pro printer, properly operating behaves so close to a norm that you can't visually see the differences in one or 100 samples. Does this press follow this behavior? That is, can it be kept consistent from day to day or from unit to unit (for all we know, the lab has 4 such presses). If you run a job on a press today and its brother tomorrow, will the same set of CMYK values produce the same color appearance? Will they produce the same color from the same numbers next week and next year? That is the case with well behaved devices (or ill behaved devices that are often calibrated). We had process control in Pro E6 labs yes? We should expect the same from any lab we use, no matter the devices they have.
If in the past, you shot 5 sheets of Velvia of the same scene (exposure) and had your Pro lab process one each day, over the course of 5 days, you could lay each on a balanced light box and they all matched. Yet we all know E6 is a chemical, (analog), ever shifting process. Well good labs used control strips and replenished the lines such that the same latent image produced the same color appearance day after day. This is exactly what we all require in digital (and I'd submit, its actually a lot easier to achieve).
Hi John, as you can see the whole issue of color management is a slippery slope. And this discussion is around advanced users, which we have a lot of, but we also have thousands of general consumers that tend to get overwhelmed by too much information.
All that to say we are looking at ways to support pros and prosumers in a very serious way. We'll have more about that after the beginning of the year and specifically looking for feedback from folks at Imaging USA in January.
The bottom line for now is that unless I can specifically manage the individual presses at all of our worldwide network of printers then I'm not comfortable with making the case that we support a color managed workflow.
bw, if you see in this thread around posting #27, there's a pretty serious question about why you aren't using a full color-managed process, providing customers with an ICC profile for that and allowing us to submit images in that profile? This gives us full control over profile conversion and rendering intents, removing any mystery from the color matching process for customers who fully understand color management. For customers who don't, you can continue to accept sRGB.
Hi John, as you can see the whole issue of color management is a slippery slope. And this discussion is around advanced users, which we have a lot of, but we also have thousands of general consumers that tend to get overwhelmed by too much information.
All that to say we are looking at ways to support pros and prosumers in a very serious way. We'll have more about that after the beginning of the year and specifically looking for feedback from folks at Imaging USA in January.
The bottom line for now is that unless I can specifically manage the individual presses at all of our worldwide network of printers then I'm not comfortable with making the case that we support a color managed workflow.
Best,
--bw
Is there not something in between nothing and 100% pure color calibration on every single printer your company uses?
Today, you give your customers pretty much no guidance at all on color management (at least that I could find). You say to provide an sRGB image and lower your expectations on color reproduction because this is a lower cost printing process.
Unless you aren't really interested in business from those who do understand color management, it seems like there ought to be something more you can do for people who do understand this stuff, particular since the capabilties of your printers is smaller than some other types of printers.
Hi John, I consider what we are currently doing as "something" under the 100% solution (which is not really 100% as all of us here can attest). We have a great number of folks who are soft proofing using the generic HP5000 semimatte output profile with very satisfactory results.
Also, we don't "require" sRGB, we've just found that short of using output profiles the Indigo printers do a pretty good job of reproducing a smaller gamut RRB space rather than something wider.
Please realize as well that Blurb does not offer any live technical support. But I'm open to suggestions that the readers of this forum may have to make it easier to work with Blurb in our current environment.
Is there not something in between nothing and 100% pure color calibration on every single printer your company uses?
Today, you give your customers pretty much no guidance at all on color management (at least that I could find). You say to provide an sRGB image and lower your expectations on color reproduction because this is a lower cost printing process.
Unless you aren't really interested in business from those who do understand color management, it seems like there ought to be something more you can do for people who do understand this stuff, particular since the capabilties of your printers is smaller than some other types of printers.
We have a great number of folks who are soft proofing using the generic HP5000 semimatte output profile with very satisfactory results.
Is the HP5000 semimatte output profile offered, supported and documented by Blurb on your site? Is it on your web site? What other colorspaces do you accept documents in?
No phone support isn't really a problem these days if you have a good online presence (email and forums). That's how Smugmug does it and they seem to have even higher quality support than many who do have phone support (like Adobe or Microsoft).
For reference, Smugmug's printer is EzPrints. EzPrints puts out a profile that is the gold standard that they calibrate all their different sized printers to. It represents the set of colors that they say they can consistently produce on any order. They document what rendering intent and other settings to use in order to properly simulate their printed output in Photoshop's soft proof. It seems like you should do something similar.
Do many people get good results from EzPrints without ever knowing anything about an ICC profile? Yes. Does that mean that not using a profile is the highest probability way of getting good results on all types of images? No.
For example, I shot a soccer season of a team with bright red uniforms. Since I know that my camera (and some printers) sometime have trouble with bright reds, I downloaded their profile and sure enough, these reds were too much for their printers. I could have just sent them in as is and let their rendering intent conversion try to deal with the reds, but I figured I would get better results if, while still in the RAW editor, I reduced the luminosity and saturation of the red uniforms to pull most of them uniform into gamut for the printer (I could do this in a minute or so by changing a whole shoot at once). In the end, this allowed the team parents to get prints with a lot more detail in the reds than they otherwise would have gotten.
In additon, all of the information about what formats we accept are on our site as well, but it's easy for me to provide here. We support JGPEG and GIF RGB images regardless of proflie. The big but here is at we don' honor embedded profiles at this time.
Thanks for the detail on how EZPrints is working with SmugMug users. As we investigate how we can better serve the users here knowing what works for you is helpful.
Is the HP5000 semimatte output profile offered, supported and documented by Blurb on your site? Is it on your web site? What other colorspaces do you accept documents in?
No phone support isn't really a problem these days if you have a good online presence (email and forums). That's how Smugmug does it and they seem to have even higher quality support than many who do have phone support (like Adobe or Microsoft).
For reference, Smugmug's printer is EzPrints. EzPrints puts out a profile that is the gold standard that they calibrate all their different sized printers to. It represents the set of colors that they say they can consistently produce on any order. They document what rendering intent and other settings to use in order to properly simulate their printed output in Photoshop's soft proof. It seems like you should do something similar.
Do many people get good results from EzPrints without ever knowing anything about an ICC profile? Yes. Does that mean that not using a profile is the highest probability way of getting good results on all types of images? No.
For example, I shot a soccer season of a team with bright red uniforms. Since I know that my camera (and some printers) sometime have trouble with bright reds, I downloaded their profile and sure enough, these reds were too much for their printers. I could have just sent them in as is and let their rendering intent conversion try to deal with the reds, but I figured I would get better results if, while still in the RAW editor, I reduced the luminosity and saturation of the red uniforms to pull most of them uniform into gamut for the printer (I could do this in a minute or so by changing a whole shoot at once). In the end, this allowed the team parents to get prints with a lot more detail in the reds than they otherwise would have gotten.
We support JGPEG and GIF RGB images regardless of proflie. The big but here is at we don' honor embedded profiles at this time.
--bw
Simple question. Do you support CMYK documents converted using the profile you provide? If not, why? If so, can users expect the same color as if they sent you the original sRGB file and YOU converted (meaning, are you using the profile you supply)?
Hey Andrew, no we do not. Blurb books are created using our BookSmart downloadable application which takes RGB images and XML descriptions of the layouts, uploads them to Blurb servers which render an RGB PDF that is flattened to sRGB and does not honor the individual embedded profiles of the images.
And I don't mean to be anal about this, but we don't provide a profile. There is a generic HP profile that we link to. That said, the HP RIPs do a good job of coverting sRGB to "Indigo CMYK" so I would say yes our users do get a good reproduction of thier files that have been converted to sRGB. This is exactly why we reccomend sRGB but don't require it because the mapping to the Indigo seems a lot less severe than from a wide gamut RGB space.
Simple question. Do you support CMYK documents converted using the profile you provide? If not, why? If so, can users expect the same color as if they sent you the original sRGB file and YOU converted (meaning, are you using the profile you supply)?
And I don't mean to be anal about this, but we don't provide a profile. There is a generic HP profile that we link to.
I would suggest, that's a bad idea.
Not to be a bad dog, but you're basically lying to users by suggesting its of any usefulness.
Just ask for sRGB and be done. Or handle the color management correctly.
I can't find fault (well too much) with any lab that says "we only accept sRGB". Id love to live in a prefect world where they would take the time and energy to handle images in a modern fashion, and if that is real important to me (or someone else), we'll find a lab that provides this.
I find much more fault in a lab that says "you must supply sRGB but here's this profile to give you an idea we're working using sound color management." That's simply not the case. Its half assed.Its as I said, a big marketing lie.
This is exactly why we reccomend sRGB but don't require it because the mapping to the Indigo seems a lot less severe than from a wide gamut RGB space.
--bw
This I seriously doubt and would love to do some tests and prove one of us wrong. In fact, a far better color space would be ColorMatch RGB. Its gamma encoding is better for CMYK ink on press work, its gamut is a tad bigger than sRGB. ColorMatch uses 1.8 because there is less quatization on the way CMYK. The eye is closer to 2.2 (luminance response) but presses have dot gain. Using a source space that is a little lighter reduces the quantization when you correct for press gain. (few people know that Xerox PARC and Apple used 1.8 as a source space because of the natural dot gain of toner based laser printers.)
Also when a PC user looks at a not color managed ColorMatch Image in their well lit office on their sRGB display there is less of a chance that they will screw with it, a second bonus.
One of our users suggested its usefulness, not us. We do suggest sRGB, as has been stated ad finitum in the string it seems. I've never said we're working using sound color mangement--in fact I've said just the opposite, that we do not support color management.
No offense guys but I'm dropping off of this string. It seems to be going nowhere.
Not to be a bad dog, but you're basically lying to users by suggesting its of any usefulness.
Just ask for sRGB and be done. Or handle the color management correctly.
I can't find fault (well too much) with any lab that says "we only accept sRGB". Id love to live in a prefect world where they would take the time and energy to handle images in a modern fashion, and if that is real important to me (or someone else), we'll find a lab that provides this.
I find much more fault in a lab that says "you must supply sRGB but here's this profile to give you an idea we're working using sound color management." That's simply not the case. Its half assed.Its as I said, a big marketing lie.
My book came out very nice. The audience was my wife, the subject was three years of photos from our family trips to national parks (both family shots and scenery shots), 90 page book and my wife was very pleased with the book quality and color. She wants to make more of these (correction, she wants me to make more of these with some of our other photos).
Well, I decided to wing it and went ahead and ordered it for my client.
She said she's only seen him shed tears three times, and this was one of them (the book was of their daughter - he didn't know I had a session with her and her daughter, so it was all a surprise). So, all in all it was a success. It was shipped directly to her, so I haven't had the chance to see it myself.
I did however get calibration software for Christmas, so setting that up on my monitor is the next step for me.
Thanks for everyone's help. I really appreciate it!
Well, I decided to wing it and went ahead and ordered it for my client.
She said she's only seen him shed tears three times, and this was one of them (the book was of their daughter - he didn't know I had a session with her and her daughter, so it was all a surprise). So, all in all it was a success. It was shipped directly to her, so I haven't had the chance to see it myself.
I did however get calibration software for Christmas, so setting that up on my monitor is the next step for me.
Thanks for everyone's help. I really appreciate it!
Thanks for the update Andrea...I think Blurb should by stock in Kleenex or something with all of the feedback we get when our books are given as gifts :-).
Best and Happy New Year to you.
--bw
I'd like to make a book from one of my galleries, but when I use the Booksmart software (Blurb), the 2008 gallery pictures do not load as thumbs (or import). I have a private gallery (the book is a surprise and I don't want the recipient to see what's coming). I've tried temporarily making the gallery 'public' and repeating the process, but without success.
Oddly, only my January 2008 galleries are having this issue. Booksmart picks up the gallery title, and count of pictures included, but is unable to import anything. I emailed Blurb and they've indicated criteria as:
1) JPG or PNG format (no TIFFs)
2) RGB or grayscale color (no CMYK)
3) Are saved on your hard drive and not on an external drive
4) If you’re using iPhoto, that the library has its default name and is saved in its default location
5) The images have no ICC/color profiles attached, nor any tags, such as keyword descriptions of the pictures.
6) Please be sure that no images are saved as 16-bit files. 8-bit is the default, and you wil probably know if you have save any images as 16-bit. If so, please change those back to 8-bit files.
7) Between 150-300dpi. Images should be between 150-300 dpi (dots per inch or pixels per inch). For instance, a 5x7 image frame should be filled with an image that is at least 750x1050 pixels and no greater than 1500-2100 pixels.
I'm certainly no expert at photography and I understand about 70% of the above rules. I haven't done anything unusal to my photos, although my gallery contains a few scanned pictures of toddler artwork, a handful of videos and a little text that I've added to miscelaneous photos.
I'd like to make a book from one of my galleries, but when I use the Booksmart software (Blurb), the 2008 gallery pictures do not load as thumbs (or import). I have a private gallery (the book is a surprise and I don't want the recipient to see what's coming). I've tried temporarily making the gallery 'public' and repeating the process, but without success.
Oddly, only my January 2008 galleries are having this issue. Booksmart picks up the gallery title, and count of pictures included, but is unable to import anything. I emailed Blurb and they've indicated criteria as:
1) JPG or PNG format (no TIFFs)
2) RGB or grayscale color (no CMYK)
3) Are saved on your hard drive and not on an external drive
4) If you’re using iPhoto, that the library has its default name and is saved in its default location
5) The images have no ICC/color profiles attached, nor any tags, such as keyword descriptions of the pictures.
6) Please be sure that no images are saved as 16-bit files. 8-bit is the default, and you wil probably know if you have save any images as 16-bit. If so, please change those back to 8-bit files.
7) Between 150-300dpi. Images should be between 150-300 dpi (dots per inch or pixels per inch). For instance, a 5x7 image frame should be filled with an image that is at least 750x1050 pixels and no greater than 1500-2100 pixels.
I'm certainly no expert at photography and I understand about 70% of the above rules. I haven't done anything unusal to my photos, although my gallery contains a few scanned pictures of toddler artwork, a handful of videos and a little text that I've added to miscelaneous photos.
I am stuck. Any suggestions?
I am hoping BruceBlurb is out on a well deserved vacation because he is usually quick answering.
I have not had any problems downloading images from SmugMug either in 2008 or in the past anytime.
Hey folks and Happy New Year! My wires got crossed here and I thought Jeff's issue was being addressed directly by Blurb Technical Support. Honestly I don't know the answer to Jeff's issue but please contact me on PM directly and I'll follow up if there are still open issues. Please include your incident number if you would so I can look it up on our internal system.
Best,
--bw
Comments
First off, HOW do you know an image will fit perfectly inside sRGB? You could use a utility like ColorThink and plot the two gamuts, that's pretty darn time consuming. You also have to look at the very simple gamut shapes of synthetic RGB working spaces, and compare them to far more complex gamut shapes from images and output devices.
Next, I don't know what you mean by damage? Any color space conversion will produce data loss.
Next, we don't (yet) have perceptual mapping of simple matrix color spaces so then question then is, mapping from what to sRGB? Mapping sRGB to CMYK, we do have a perceptual mapping available from Lab (the conversion usually goes RGB to the PCS which is usually Lab) to CMYK. Since every output profile manufacturer has their own recipe for a Perceptual mapping, one CMYK profile could do a different job than another even to the same device. That's all thrown away with the baby and the bath water IF you convert back to sRGB.
When you have an sRGB document, its in a Quasi-Device Independent color space for editing that is designed for conversion into an output color space (unless the output device is a display). When you use an output profile for the device supplied to you, you have, as I've said, the necessary information to look at gamut mapping using the three tables in this profile, you can view the results, convert the data and edit it (prior and or after) conversion. In short, you have what you need to work with the document and predict how it should print. Converting to CMYK and back to sRGB simply sabotages all this functionality, results in more data loss and time lost for both you and the lab (don't forget, the sRGB document has to be converted to CMYK all over again). What's the point?
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Note that what he said was, even if you use that profile, it may not necessarily match what you see on screen and that's true. How is the display profiled? How are you viewing the resulting output? But, even if we move to a low 90% agreement from print to screen, this is a good thing (a reflective print and emissive display will never match 100%, that would break the law of physics).
The part about a generic profile is discomfiting. There's nothing inherently bad about a so called generic profile, as long as the device it describes and the device itself are in agreement. Look at the canned profiles supplied by Epson for the Pro printers. They work because the profiles are well built but just as importantly, every Epson Pro printer, properly operating behaves so close to a norm that you can't visually see the differences in one or 100 samples. Does this press follow this behavior? That is, can it be kept consistent from day to day or from unit to unit (for all we know, the lab has 4 such presses). If you run a job on a press today and its brother tomorrow, will the same set of CMYK values produce the same color appearance? Will they produce the same color from the same numbers next week and next year? That is the case with well behaved devices (or ill behaved devices that are often calibrated). We had process control in Pro E6 labs yes? We should expect the same from any lab we use, no matter the devices they have.
If in the past, you shot 5 sheets of Velvia of the same scene (exposure) and had your Pro lab process one each day, over the course of 5 days, you could lay each on a balanced light box and they all matched. Yet we all know E6 is a chemical, (analog), ever shifting process. Well good labs used control strips and replenished the lines such that the same latent image produced the same color appearance day after day. This is exactly what we all require in digital (and I'd submit, its actually a lot easier to achieve).
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
All that to say we are looking at ways to support pros and prosumers in a very serious way. We'll have more about that after the beginning of the year and specifically looking for feedback from folks at Imaging USA in January.
The bottom line for now is that unless I can specifically manage the individual presses at all of our worldwide network of printers then I'm not comfortable with making the case that we support a color managed workflow.
Best,
--bw
Is there not something in between nothing and 100% pure color calibration on every single printer your company uses?
Today, you give your customers pretty much no guidance at all on color management (at least that I could find). You say to provide an sRGB image and lower your expectations on color reproduction because this is a lower cost printing process.
Unless you aren't really interested in business from those who do understand color management, it seems like there ought to be something more you can do for people who do understand this stuff, particular since the capabilties of your printers is smaller than some other types of printers.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Also, we don't "require" sRGB, we've just found that short of using output profiles the Indigo printers do a pretty good job of reproducing a smaller gamut RRB space rather than something wider.
Please realize as well that Blurb does not offer any live technical support. But I'm open to suggestions that the readers of this forum may have to make it easier to work with Blurb in our current environment.
--bw
Is the HP5000 semimatte output profile offered, supported and documented by Blurb on your site? Is it on your web site? What other colorspaces do you accept documents in?
No phone support isn't really a problem these days if you have a good online presence (email and forums). That's how Smugmug does it and they seem to have even higher quality support than many who do have phone support (like Adobe or Microsoft).
For reference, Smugmug's printer is EzPrints. EzPrints puts out a profile that is the gold standard that they calibrate all their different sized printers to. It represents the set of colors that they say they can consistently produce on any order. They document what rendering intent and other settings to use in order to properly simulate their printed output in Photoshop's soft proof. It seems like you should do something similar.
Do many people get good results from EzPrints without ever knowing anything about an ICC profile? Yes. Does that mean that not using a profile is the highest probability way of getting good results on all types of images? No.
For example, I shot a soccer season of a team with bright red uniforms. Since I know that my camera (and some printers) sometime have trouble with bright reds, I downloaded their profile and sure enough, these reds were too much for their printers. I could have just sent them in as is and let their rendering intent conversion try to deal with the reds, but I figured I would get better results if, while still in the RAW editor, I reduced the luminosity and saturation of the red uniforms to pull most of them uniform into gamut for the printer (I could do this in a minute or so by changing a whole shoot at once). In the end, this allowed the team parents to get prints with a lot more detail in the reds than they otherwise would have gotten.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
In additon, all of the information about what formats we accept are on our site as well, but it's easy for me to provide here. We support JGPEG and GIF RGB images regardless of proflie. The big but here is at we don' honor embedded profiles at this time.
Thanks for the detail on how EZPrints is working with SmugMug users. As we investigate how we can better serve the users here knowing what works for you is helpful.
Like I said, more to come in 2008
--bw
Simple question. Do you support CMYK documents converted using the profile you provide? If not, why? If so, can users expect the same color as if they sent you the original sRGB file and YOU converted (meaning, are you using the profile you supply)?
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
OK, got it. We'll see how my book turns out.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
And I don't mean to be anal about this, but we don't provide a profile. There is a generic HP profile that we link to. That said, the HP RIPs do a good job of coverting sRGB to "Indigo CMYK" so I would say yes our users do get a good reproduction of thier files that have been converted to sRGB. This is exactly why we reccomend sRGB but don't require it because the mapping to the Indigo seems a lot less severe than from a wide gamut RGB space.
--bw
I would suggest, that's a bad idea.
Not to be a bad dog, but you're basically lying to users by suggesting its of any usefulness.
Just ask for sRGB and be done. Or handle the color management correctly.
I can't find fault (well too much) with any lab that says "we only accept sRGB". Id love to live in a prefect world where they would take the time and energy to handle images in a modern fashion, and if that is real important to me (or someone else), we'll find a lab that provides this.
I find much more fault in a lab that says "you must supply sRGB but here's this profile to give you an idea we're working using sound color management." That's simply not the case. Its half assed.Its as I said, a big marketing lie.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
This I seriously doubt and would love to do some tests and prove one of us wrong. In fact, a far better color space would be ColorMatch RGB. Its gamma encoding is better for CMYK ink on press work, its gamut is a tad bigger than sRGB. ColorMatch uses 1.8 because there is less quatization on the way CMYK. The eye is closer to 2.2 (luminance response) but presses have dot gain. Using a source space that is a little lighter reduces the quantization when you correct for press gain. (few people know that Xerox PARC and Apple used 1.8 as a source space because of the natural dot gain of toner based laser printers.)
Also when a PC user looks at a not color managed ColorMatch Image in their well lit office on their sRGB display there is less of a chance that they will screw with it, a second bonus.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
No offense guys but I'm dropping off of this string. It seems to be going nowhere.
--bw
My book came out very nice. The audience was my wife, the subject was three years of photos from our family trips to national parks (both family shots and scenery shots), 90 page book and my wife was very pleased with the book quality and color. She wants to make more of these (correction, she wants me to make more of these with some of our other photos).
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
She said she's only seen him shed tears three times, and this was one of them (the book was of their daughter - he didn't know I had a session with her and her daughter, so it was all a surprise). So, all in all it was a success. It was shipped directly to her, so I haven't had the chance to see it myself.
I did however get calibration software for Christmas, so setting that up on my monitor is the next step for me.
Thanks for everyone's help. I really appreciate it!
[canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5] [canon 18-55 f/3.5-5.6]
[canon 35L] [canon 50 f/1.8]
[canon 75-300 f/4-5.6] [canon 430ex]
[various - hoods, CFcards, diffuser]
Best and Happy New Year to you.
--bw
Hi all,
I'd like to make a book from one of my galleries, but when I use the Booksmart software (Blurb), the 2008 gallery pictures do not load as thumbs (or import). I have a private gallery (the book is a surprise and I don't want the recipient to see what's coming). I've tried temporarily making the gallery 'public' and repeating the process, but without success.
Oddly, only my January 2008 galleries are having this issue. Booksmart picks up the gallery title, and count of pictures included, but is unable to import anything. I emailed Blurb and they've indicated criteria as:
1) JPG or PNG format (no TIFFs)
2) RGB or grayscale color (no CMYK)
3) Are saved on your hard drive and not on an external drive
4) If you’re using iPhoto, that the library has its default name and is saved in its default location
5) The images have no ICC/color profiles attached, nor any tags, such as keyword descriptions of the pictures.
6) Please be sure that no images are saved as 16-bit files. 8-bit is the default, and you wil probably know if you have save any images as 16-bit. If so, please change those back to 8-bit files.
7) Between 150-300dpi. Images should be between 150-300 dpi (dots per inch or pixels per inch). For instance, a 5x7 image frame should be filled with an image that is at least 750x1050 pixels and no greater than 1500-2100 pixels.
I'm certainly no expert at photography and I understand about 70% of the above rules. I haven't done anything unusal to my photos, although my gallery contains a few scanned pictures of toddler artwork, a handful of videos and a little text that I've added to miscelaneous photos.
I am stuck. Any suggestions?
I am hoping BruceBlurb is out on a well deserved vacation because he is usually quick answering.
I have not had any problems downloading images from SmugMug either in 2008 or in the past anytime.
Anyone else seeing this?
Markham
www.twitter.com/markhambennett
Best,
--bw