Please note that monitors provide fairly accurate color when the images are saved in an sRGB color space, however, presses are not as reliable...
Well, Mike, thanks for sharing the info here.
At one point, in Mark's email to you, as mentioned above in his email from Apple, I have to say I am a little surprised about his statement re: monitors provide fairly accurate... when the images saved in an sRGB colour space...
It is very tricky statement where it depends on how we define the term "fairly accurate" in monitors. What we don't know if Mark meant by when monitor has been "properly" set up as profiled and calibrated with high-grade calibration hardware. Unless IF the monitor has been proper profiled and calibrated, then his statement would be correct. But IF not profiled or calibrated at all, I am afraid that his statement is incorrect.
Now these days with newer monitors and newer Apple laptops with better monitor technology, it is still need to be properly profiled and calibrated. It just depends on individual's preference, desire and the purpose of such project whatever someone is working on. While majority of Aperture users' are probably mostly professional photographers or those who are into photography savvy, then colour-managed workflow is a norm. For me, it IS absolute A MUST colour-managed workflow.
Although, I do a heavy post-production workflow on MacPro where I always have my monitors calibrated. I don't typically calibrate my laptop, though. Because sometimes I forgot to turn off the automatic ambient light in System Preference in Display section. It is a little inconvenience in that case. Unless if I am being away on photographic trips far from Canada abroad, then it is a different story. But not always bring my calibration device with me. Too inconvenience to haul it around at the airports etc. So colour-managed workflow is a must with MacPro in my studio.
However, other individuals have their own preference, comfort zone and the purpose of such project. Perhaps their workflow set up differently than yours or mine, that is ok.
But in that email you received from someone at Apple didn't make it clear about that statement about 'fairly accuracy'.
Then something else is something else actually--when Apple guy said presses are not always.... Again, that is why it is important that you get monitor properly profiled and calibrated. Once it is done properly, then it is all good. But remember, you need to re-calibrate monitor once a week or every two weeks or once month. In order to get pretty close to printed output, always a good idea to soft proof. If needed to make slightly conservative adjustments to your satisfaction or level of expectation, the output would be fairly close to what it is appeared in monitor. When I mean "fairly close" in comparing the output to what you are seeing in monitor with these post-production images used in that output, in fairness, I would estimate fairly close in terms of anywhere in range between 92 to 95 percent - that is very fair conservative perspective on how close in the output vs monitor. It is truly, really, truly
rare to get the output 100% as obvious and precise as you are seeing in monitor. If that is the case, and if that is true FOR that person achieved this, this probably means takes that person many years to perfect his/her colour-managed workflow for that matter. Never has been that pretty close, but I'd be shocked if I see mine aced right on spot. I'd be lying to you if I get all output perfect as appeared in my monitors. If I did, that would be incorrect statement.
It seems a lot of factors and things to do and things need to require in a thoroughly colour-managed workflow production, it is how it is done. But this can also means save money, effort and time if done properly right from the beginning.
In fairness, I would really wish that guy from Apple should have said a little more obvious and precise with his definition of fairly accuracy with monitors. It doesn't says what kind of monitors he refers to. Low quality, cheap monitors deliver good results? Lot of factors need to be looked at for consideration for yourself.
Of course, as you can tell that colour management topic is pretty heavy, highly technical and everything in deep thinking with world of colours. It takes years for an individual (both pros and non-pro individuals) finally understand what it is all about. Again, technologies evolve rapid for the better in many cases for new monitors, commercial print equips, advanced ink technology, advanced paper production technology... That goes on effortless endless, actually.
Hope some of thoughtfu perspective and experience be of some interest, and it is obvious that this discussion probably will attract some more excitement discussion, the more the better. So that every other Aperture users who have the similar issues, they'll definitely want to come to here... And learn and share.
I also use Blurb too. They are getting better than it was once a couple years ago when Blurb first started. As they add more variety of book sizes, types of paper stock and things like that. This also give someone some flexibility in choosing workflow production using Blurb software or online bookmaking or using PDF to Book service for those who are advanced users that use InDesign layout design app. In that case of PDF to Book, the advanced users would need to download Blurb's preset plug-in to put in InDesign in order to export the PDF output to meet and integrate into Blurb's Preflight Checklist at the time of upload. I use PDF to Book service with InDesign, etc. It is fairly self explanatory and easy to follow steps. Also slightly off topic, but when making Blurb book, to get most out of their product and service with Blurb, in that case, they came up with brilliant resource called Colour Resource Centre designed for making more beautiful books. In that resource centre, it is easy to read and follow.
I would think this probably shed some insights and understanding the basics of colour management, the whole thing all about this, that and the other all together.
I would also want other high-powered hard-core Aperture users share their experience with Aperture Book printing service. I'd be happy to share my experience about making Aperture Book vs. Blurb Book through PDF to Book service. However, I would think the export to PDF from Aperture probably has it's own different setting or slightly different configuration inside the PDF engine on Mac for Blurb book. There has been some discussion about wanting a Aperture Plug In for Blurb Book. blurb has been quiet on it, I take that they probably will not develop a special plug-in for Aperture Users. Sorry if it is a little off topic. But somehow someone in the discussion mention Blurb. so...
Anyhow, hope that helps.
