View Full Version : ColorFlow - I Give Up

Ed Hughes
11-09-2015, 06:32 PM
It's not that it doesn't do good color conversions -- it does. And it isn't that it doesn't make good profiles and device links -- it does. And it isn't that it doesn't produce useful reports on the devices it measures and characterizes -- it does.

It's the interface. The main thing I need from the UI is for the information in the database to be presented in a sensible manner. I need to be able to find what I'm looking for. I need to be able to sort the information in different ways, filter it, group it. I need the interface to be stable and not move objects around when it feels like it.

This is not good interface design or behavior:


Then, when I want to use a device condition in a process template, I need to be able to find it. This is also not good interface design or behavior:


The ColorFlow is supposed to do two big things. One, it's suppose to give you stable, consistent, and accurate color behavior, and two, it's supposed to streamline and simplify managing your device conditions -- your color profiles, device links, and conversion curves. It does the first quite well, but once you get beyond a handful of devices and substrates, it does the second very, very badly.

12-07-2015, 12:23 PM
I agree and disagree. Yes, managing a large number of substrates by substrate is a pain in the butt. We went down that road for a bit, it got to be unmanageable. Then we decided to really look at things. This might not pertain to you, but when we started to look at the different substrates we began to see many of the per-substrate curves were very similar. We determined with our workflow that we could group the various substrates and still get excellent results.

We were able to reduce to uncoated, coated gloss, coated matte, and 3 unique stocks. We went from 30 substrates to 6. That made things much better.

Maybe you can do the same? You can PM me if you would like more talk about what we did.

12-09-2015, 03:19 PM
Ed, I agree with you about the interface. A few years ago I sat down with Photoshop and redesigned the interface the way I would like it. I sent it to Kodak along with a list of suggested improvements. One of my main complaints is that much of the info is hidden behind several layers of dialog boxes. I think one of my suggestions was a spreadsheet style view of the entire database.

The Kodak dev team seems to have a real aversion to sorting menus. There is also a problem in Preps 7 where the menu of paper sizes is in the order you added them to the database instead of alphabetical order. But that's OK, we just have to remember that 25x38 is about 3/4 of the way down, right between #9 envelope and 13x19. :-)

Ed Hughes
01-28-2016, 05:22 PM
Mark - So even if I got down to six substrates, I have three press families, each of which has its own response behavior. I would have eighteen device conditions, then, and the list would still be unsorted, it would still be unsearchable, and it would change arrangement for no apparent reason. That's the issue. The interface is just bad.

Jamie - yes. So much yes. You like a spreadsheet view, I like a nested hierarchy. Po-tay-to po-tah-to. It's a freaking database.

Bill Hahn
02-29-2016, 07:32 PM
Ed, you may want to take a look at how the interface has changed under Prinergy 7.5.

I agree the interface needs a great deal of improvement but at least there are some additional ways to look at the plate and print curves, device conditions, color setups, etc.

I'm not saying it's perfect, it's far from it.

Ed Hughes
03-03-2016, 05:56 PM
Hey Bill, yes, I just started poking around in 7.5 a couple days ago, and those new tabs are nice additions. The core complaint is still unaddressed though -- no sorting, no filtering, no finding -- just a big-assed flat list of all the things. It's still just like having a database you can only view as tab-separated text.