As the keeper of the largest independent source of Kodak Photo CD information
on the web (Ted's Kodak Photo CD Homepage), I feel I should weigh in on
Brian's article. For the most part, I agree with Brian.
I'll address only a couple of his points:
"Another thing Kodak did right was work with key players such as Adobe
Systems to ensure there was a path to get images from the proprietary
Photo CD to the consumer's computer screen."
That's true. Kodak wrote the Photo CD File Format Plug-In that is used by
Photoshop to load Photo CD images. But I've found a serious inconsistency
in this Plug-In versus other ways of loading Photo CD images. Software like
ThumbsPlus (and many others) load Photo CD images using different Kodak
software and give very different results. Usually much better than Photoshop.
This sort of inconsistency leads me to believe that Kodak doesn't have their
software act together. I get email every day from people thanking me
for figuring out why they could never get decent results from their Photo CD
scans in Photoshop.
"What the folks at Kodak did wrong was keep the Photo CD Image Pac
format out of the hands of image writers."
This point I have to agree with almost whole-heartedly. Kodak did make it
annoying to write Photo CD Image Pacs by pricing the toolkit out of the reach
of many software developers. But one developer apparently did shell out
the bucks, and as a result it is possible to write Photo CD Image Pacs if
you really want to. The application that can do it is called "Graphics Workshop
Pro".
"It's alive and well at more than 140 U.S. photo labs..."
Sure, but as everyone should know, every lab is different. I take my film to
the local Kodak lab, and they tend to do a very poor job of handling my
film. It usually comes back scratched, dusty, and covered with fingerprints.
So it is real important to find a lab that cares, and that isn't always an easy
thing to do. Labs that can afford the Kodak PIW equipment tend to be large
commercial labs that have a high employee turnover rate.
I wish I could include a URL, but alas, that is against the policies of
creativepro. Instead you can use your favorite search engine to
search for Ted's Kodak Photo CD Homepage, and I'm sure you'll find
some interesting information there.
Submitted by Ted Felix on Tue, 01/16/2001 - 07:22.
From our experience, in outputting images for offset printing, the result has always been poor. The separations have too much black, color inbalance in neutrals and grossely overdone unsharp masking. Photoshop's conversion in particularly, I have found to be poor, resulting in great embarrasment to the customer and jobs that had to be re-scanned. In the area of color exactness and quality which is our expertise this kind of image falls in the catagory of that some customers say they can "get away with it". We do not do cheep images we do them right, take the time (and thus the expense) to guarantee their correct. That's what our customers want. CD's don't work for us or our customers.
Submitted by Grant Toyer on Wed, 06/21/2000 - 17:26.
Both of these comments address issues that are not uncommon when working with Photo CD images. The comment on Unsharp Masking is not related to Photo CD, as the Photo CD system does no sharpening at all. If there was too much sharpening, it was a result of post-processing.
Color balance issues are often a complaint, and I cannot dispute them. Attention to detail will solve these and other problems, though, and I encourage users to discover how good Photo CD images can be.
As for the price of commercial scans, they certainly have come down in recent years, but it was not too many years ago that I owned a Crosfield scanner and charged hundreds of dollars for a single scan. It was a different world then.
I have a free essay on my web site on how to open and convert Photo CD images using Adobe Photoshop. You can download a PDF version of that essay by going to my web site, and then to the Essays section:
I have used PhotoCD almost from the beginning for jobs with lots of little photos and also little budget. With the correct procedure and supporting software they come into Pshop needing only a little tweeking.
In our experiences with PhotoCD scans they are not "print ready" right off the CD. Disregarding the different results from the different settings available when opening the images, the images always needed to be sharpened and usually required some minor color/contrast adjustments. If you have the ability and the time to do this you can get very good results from PhotoCD images but this time (and the related cost) needs to be considered when comparing the cost of PhotoCD scans to traditional scans.
In the shoot-out between the PhotoCD and the Crossfield scan, was the PhotoCD scan used "as is" from the CD? While PhotoCD scans are a good value for a skilled professional, they were too often sold to the inexperienced amateur who thought he was getting a finished product for less money, not the raw material he actually received.
I also question the 100x cost of traditional scans. I have never seen an 18MB scan for $300. Maybe 10x?
Kodak PhotoCD was gerat! I still have photos on Kodak PhotoCD and works very well. The format was better, for photographers and designers, than anything we have today
It was a real pitty, a great loss.
I concur: Photo CD is great.
But what's the name of the San Francisco lab that does Pro Photo CD scans for only $9 a piece? That's a good price.
Brian's got a few points
As the keeper of the largest independent source of Kodak Photo CD information
on the web (Ted's Kodak Photo CD Homepage), I feel I should weigh in on
Brian's article. For the most part, I agree with Brian.
I'll address only a couple of his points:
"Another thing Kodak did right was work with key players such as Adobe
Systems to ensure there was a path to get images from the proprietary
Photo CD to the consumer's computer screen."
That's true. Kodak wrote the Photo CD File Format Plug-In that is used by
Photoshop to load Photo CD images. But I've found a serious inconsistency
in this Plug-In versus other ways of loading Photo CD images. Software like
ThumbsPlus (and many others) load Photo CD images using different Kodak
software and give very different results. Usually much better than Photoshop.
This sort of inconsistency leads me to believe that Kodak doesn't have their
software act together. I get email every day from people thanking me
for figuring out why they could never get decent results from their Photo CD
scans in Photoshop.
"What the folks at Kodak did wrong was keep the Photo CD Image Pac
format out of the hands of image writers."
This point I have to agree with almost whole-heartedly. Kodak did make it
annoying to write Photo CD Image Pacs by pricing the toolkit out of the reach
of many software developers. But one developer apparently did shell out
the bucks, and as a result it is possible to write Photo CD Image Pacs if
you really want to. The application that can do it is called "Graphics Workshop
Pro".
"It's alive and well at more than 140 U.S. photo labs..."
Sure, but as everyone should know, every lab is different. I take my film to
the local Kodak lab, and they tend to do a very poor job of handling my
film. It usually comes back scratched, dusty, and covered with fingerprints.
So it is real important to find a lab that cares, and that isn't always an easy
thing to do. Labs that can afford the Kodak PIW equipment tend to be large
commercial labs that have a high employee turnover rate.
I wish I could include a URL, but alas, that is against the policies of
creativepro. Instead you can use your favorite search engine to
search for Ted's Kodak Photo CD Homepage, and I'm sure you'll find
some interesting information there.
Getaway color
From our experience, in outputting images for offset printing, the result has always been poor. The separations have too much black, color inbalance in neutrals and grossely overdone unsharp masking. Photoshop's conversion in particularly, I have found to be poor, resulting in great embarrasment to the customer and jobs that had to be re-scanned. In the area of color exactness and quality which is our expertise this kind of image falls in the catagory of that some customers say they can "get away with it". We do not do cheep images we do them right, take the time (and thus the expense) to guarantee their correct. That's what our customers want. CD's don't work for us or our customers.
The author responds
Both of these comments address issues that are not uncommon when working with Photo CD images. The comment on Unsharp Masking is not related to Photo CD, as the Photo CD system does no sharpening at all. If there was too much sharpening, it was a result of post-processing.
Color balance issues are often a complaint, and I cannot dispute them. Attention to detail will solve these and other problems, though, and I encourage users to discover how good Photo CD images can be.
As for the price of commercial scans, they certainly have come down in recent years, but it was not too many years ago that I owned a Crosfield scanner and charged hundreds of dollars for a single scan. It was a different world then.
I have a free essay on my web site on how to open and convert Photo CD images using Adobe Photoshop. You can download a PDF version of that essay by going to my web site, and then to the Essays section:
www.thelawlers.com
Thank you all for your comments!
Brian P. Lawler
PhotoCD is great for many applications
I have used PhotoCD almost from the beginning for jobs with lots of little photos and also little budget. With the correct procedure and supporting software they come into Pshop needing only a little tweeking.
Good raw material but traditional scans do have added value.
In our experiences with PhotoCD scans they are not "print ready" right off the CD. Disregarding the different results from the different settings available when opening the images, the images always needed to be sharpened and usually required some minor color/contrast adjustments. If you have the ability and the time to do this you can get very good results from PhotoCD images but this time (and the related cost) needs to be considered when comparing the cost of PhotoCD scans to traditional scans.
In the shoot-out between the PhotoCD and the Crossfield scan, was the PhotoCD scan used "as is" from the CD? While PhotoCD scans are a good value for a skilled professional, they were too often sold to the inexperienced amateur who thought he was getting a finished product for less money, not the raw material he actually received.
I also question the 100x cost of traditional scans. I have never seen an 18MB scan for $300. Maybe 10x?
PhotoCD does what its meant
PhotoCD does what its meant to do quite well, it is an excellent piece of software.
Kodak Photo CD a problem for 2009 users
So those who use this format for archives need to make sure they keep the hardware\software to make use of them.
Kodak PhotoCD
Kodak PhotoCD was gerat! I still have photos on Kodak PhotoCD and works very well. The format was better, for photographers and designers, than anything we have today
It was a real pitty, a great loss.