Is Mac Color Correction A Scam?

Factual Questions
1
      • Now I don’t know anything about Macs, except what I could quickly find, but what I’m suposing is this: PC’s can’t do true color correction because you can hook up any monitor, to any videocard, and any printer, that can have any printer ink sources that fit. If there’s a scanner present also, it can be any brand or model and generate different colors itself. Monitors themselves degrade over time, so there’s simply no way a PC OS can take all this into account automatically.
  • Now Macs are supposed to be so much better for graphics work, because (I’ve seen it claimed that) “they have color correction built-in”. So what is this color correction exactly? A Google search for “mac color correction” turns up dozens of software programs for -um, correcting colors on the Mac. It doesn’t seem to me that there’s anything a Mac can do color-wise any other computer can’t, unless Mac monitors, scanners and printers are all calibrated, but I can’t find any mention of that either except on high-end printstations.
    So is this all a crock or what? - DougC
2

I can’t speak to MAC systems but I can to PC’s.

I was briefly self employed doing graphic design work. The graphics programs in question (I know CorelDraw/Photopaint, and Adobe Illustrator/Photoshop have this) have sets of “color profiles” for various monitors. To calibrate scanners/printer the software comes with a “scanner target” that you run through for the software to analyze and determine what the scanner sees vs. what the software knows the target looks like. Then you print that scan of the scanner target and load it into the scanner, software compares and makes adjustments so you get true “What you see is what you get”.

This cannot however adjust for monitor degradation, considering just about any serious graphic artist is not going to skimp on a monitor, they will have a damn good one to start with and will probably keep a close eye on it for color shift and replace it if needed.

So in a nutshell sounds to me like BS, its a function of software that requires a few minutes effort by the user to run the configuration. Otherwise there is no way in hell to magically color correct whatever printer/monitor it plugs into unless it can plug & play detect the peripheral in question and load appropriate color profiles on its own. Even then there would be newer hardware that the computer would not recognize and you’re back to square 1.

3

I’ll say the same. I’ve used Mac’s color correction, and it’s the same nightmare as any other method. You send your work to the same printer but with different papers, or even with different proof/finest print speed settings and the color shifts. The best answer is just pretend to like what you get.

4

Here’s what someone with a little experience says about the utility of ColorSync.
Here’s a more general, and annoying, thread about graphics. Some of the people involved actually know what they are talking about.

5

The point of ColorSync isn’t whether it’s simple or hard to set up; the point is that it’s a universal part of the operating system, available for all programs and devices. Kind of like the way QuickTime works – there’s no sense in reinventing the wheel, because the operating system provides the services.

6

You’re right that there’s theoretically nothing a Mac can do, color control-wise, that a PC or any other computer can’t. The difference is in the degree and quality of support for color management at the operating system level, the level of support for color management in applications available for that platform, and the number and quality of third-party tools for calibration and for creating/maintaining color profiles.

ColorSync has been part of the MacOS for years now. While far from perfect, it’s a whole lot more useful than Windows’ ICM. ICM wasn’t even part of WinNT, which is the OS most graphics professionals who were Windows users used. While the Heidelberg color management engine used in ICM is the same as the one used in certain versions of ColorSync, application access to the features of ICM is extremely limited except from certain Microsoft applications, and in general it’s only possible to get acceptable, predictable results from other applications if those applications implement their own color management scheme (Photoshop, QuarkXPress).

You’re also right that the availability of color management services at the OS level only buys you so much, and that the calibration and characterization of all of the components involved is critical to any serious color management effort. This means not just blindly using the default color profiles that ship with scanners, monitors, and printers, but buying and using the tools to measure the color characteristics of the individual instances of those devices. With printers, it’s also important to calibrate separately for every combination of resolution and paper type you’re using, since different papers have widely different color reproduction characteristics, even with the same printer and settings. Serious color reproduction professionals have closed-loop feedback systems in place to ensure that the characteristics of each and every device in the chain – scanner, monitor, printer, etc. – are known and reflected in the profiles used.

Someone with a thorough understanding of color theory and the tools available for color management can probably get equally good results on either platform. If your name’s not Bruce Fraser or Andy Tisdale, the odds tip in your favor on the Mac, simply because color managment is implemented in a much more consistent way between the OS and the applications (and I’m pretty sure either Andy or Bruce would still rather deal with color on the Mac than the PC).

In short, while the Mac has a definite advantage in the way color management is implemented, most people aren’t doing enough on their own (creating and using profiles specific to their devices) to really derive a whole lot of benefit from that advantage.