Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

271 years before Pantone, every color imaginable in an 800-page book

thisiscolossal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 41 posts

Re: 271 years before Pantone, every color imaginable in an 800-page book

#11

Post by Waterluvian »

bragr wrote: post #10
Waterluvian wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The good news is that it’s not a real problem. If Pantone provides no value, just don’t use it. You can still type in any HSV, RGB, etc. you want.

That won't help you when you go to have those printed and they need to select inks. Or you want matching clothing items and need corresponding dyes.

That’s true. So if you need help mapping a digital colour to chemicals that will produce a similar colour on certain materials in certain light conditions, maybe there’s a service to be rendered.

I generally support the business arguments of this issue. The monthly fee seems kind of ridiculous and the work was done a long time ago and was included for free.

But too many times have I seen people warp the truth into a cute sound bite about having to pay to use colours. They’re not colours, they’re mappings.

Re: 271 years before Pantone, every color imaginable in an 800-page book

#12

Post by pessimizer »

Waterluvian wrote: post #11
bragr wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That won't help you when you go to have those printed and they need to select inks. Or you want matching clothing items and need corresponding dyes.

That’s true. So if you need help mapping a digital colour to chemicals that will produce a similar colour on certain materials in certain light conditions, maybe there’s a service to be rendered. I generally support the business arguments of this issue. The monthly fee seems kind of ridiculous and the work was done a long time ago and was included for free. But too many times have I seen people warp the truth into a…

The mappings are for the monitor, and are not accurate because they can't be.

Pantone isn't selling mappings, they're selling formulas for colors. The reason you're paying for mappings is because they are mappings for workable representations of those formulas for colors.

If you never do anything for print, you don't need spots or Pantone.

Re: 271 years before Pantone, every color imaginable in an 800-page book

#13

Post by bcardarella »

Waterluvian wrote: post #11
bragr wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That won't help you when you go to have those printed and they need to select inks. Or you want matching clothing items and need corresponding dyes.

That’s true. So if you need help mapping a digital colour to chemicals that will produce a similar colour on certain materials in certain light conditions, maybe there’s a service to be rendered. I generally support the business arguments of this issue. The monthly fee seems kind of ridiculous and the work was done a long time ago and was included for free. But too many times have I seen people warp the truth into a…

You're vastly underestimating the complexity of this problem. In tech we're a bit spoiled because of how digital everything in our orbit is. This is why Pantone licensing for the web is so stupid. But when you go into industries that have physical products the cost these companies would have to do proper color matching on their own is where Pantone's system makes sense. They simplified, codified, standardized, and commoditized what used to be a painstakingly costly exercise.

Re: 271 years before Pantone, every color imaginable in an 800-page book

#14

Post by Waterluvian »

pessimizer wrote: post #12
Waterluvian wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s true. So if you need help mapping a digital colour to chemicals that will produce a similar colour on certain materials in certain light conditions, maybe there’s a service to be rendered. I generally support the business arguments of this issue. The monthly fee seems kind of ridiculous and the work was done a long time ago and was included for free. But too many times have I seen people warp the truth into a…

The mappings are for the monitor, and are not accurate because they can't be. Pantone isn't selling mappings, they're selling formulas for colors. The reason you're paying for mappings is because they are mappings for workable representations of those formulas for colors. If you never do anything for print, you don't need spots or Pantone.

The $15 they want is to map an RGB to a Pantone number, no? Or maybe the detail is important: to also define which RGB values have a corresponding Pantone. Ie. “You can accurately print this number! Give the printing apparatus these numbers and they’ll mix the pigments precisely based on formulas they have (and probably also paid for?)

Re: 271 years before Pantone, every color imaginable in an 800-page book

#15

Post by Waterluvian »

bcardarella wrote: post #13
Waterluvian wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s true. So if you need help mapping a digital colour to chemicals that will produce a similar colour on certain materials in certain light conditions, maybe there’s a service to be rendered. I generally support the business arguments of this issue. The monthly fee seems kind of ridiculous and the work was done a long time ago and was included for free. But too many times have I seen people warp the truth into a…

You're vastly underestimating the complexity of this problem. In tech we're a bit spoiled because of how digital everything in our orbit is. This is why Pantone licensing for the web is so stupid. But when you go into industries that have physical products the cost these companies would have to do proper color matching on their own is where Pantone's system makes sense. They simplified, codified, standardized, and co…

So basically, they want some money to map RGB values to a set of numbers, each of which enumerates the output of a ridiculously challenging chemistry project?

Re: 271 years before Pantone, every color imaginable in an 800-page book

#16

Post by bcardarella »

Waterluvian wrote: post #15
bcardarella wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're vastly underestimating the complexity of this problem. In tech we're a bit spoiled because of how digital everything in our orbit is. This is why Pantone licensing for the web is so stupid. But when you go into industries that have physical products the cost these companies would have to do proper color matching on their own is where Pantone's system makes sense. They simplified, codified, standardized, and co…

So basically, they want some money to map RGB values to a set of numbers, each of which enumerates the output of a ridiculously challenging chemistry project?

For the web, yes which is just such a joke. For physical goods it's far more complex than just RGB.

Re: 271 years before Pantone, every color imaginable in an 800-page book

#17

Post by pessimizer »

Terretta wrote: post #2

Maybe no license fees to use 271 year old colors in your Photoshop files?

You don't need a license to use any color in Photoshop. You need a license for a collection of stand-in mappings for spot colors, the vast majority of which can't be convincingly represented on a monitor.

You can ignore Pantone entirely, put in whatever color you want, and nobody will know or complain. You can even use any color you want in Photoshop, then make a plate out of it for the press, and tell people the Pantone color you want that plate to be printed with.

But I sense a lot of the self-righteousness about the topic is coming from people who think that Pantone isn't doing anything, that RGB or CMYK can represent every color and Pantone is just selling them back to you. This is not true. Is Photoshop digging into users pockets again with another subscription plan? Yes.

Re: 271 years before Pantone, every color imaginable in an 800-page book

#19

Post by pessimizer »

Waterluvian wrote: post #14
pessimizer wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mappings are for the monitor, and are not accurate because they can't be. Pantone isn't selling mappings, they're selling formulas for colors. The reason you're paying for mappings is because they are mappings for workable representations of those formulas for colors. If you never do anything for print, you don't need spots or Pantone.

The $15 they want is to map an RGB to a Pantone number, no? Or maybe the detail is important: to also define which RGB values have a corresponding Pantone. Ie. “You can accurately print this number! Give the printing apparatus these numbers and they’ll mix the pigments precisely based on formulas they have (and probably also paid for?)

> The $15 they want is to map an RGB to a Pantone number, no?

The exact opposite, but close enough.

> to also define which RGB values have a corresponding Pantone. Ie. “You can accurately print this number!

This is still backwards. Pantone has not gone through the RGB numbers and figured what inks they could make. Pantone has made inks, and when people need to work on a screen, with projects that will use those inks, they need mappings that will give them a reasonable enough approximation of the colors of those inks to do their jobs. What is printed will not match what is on the screen (irt color.)

> Give the printing apparatus these numbers and they’ll mix the pigments precisely based on formulas they have (and probably also paid for?)

Absolutely. But those numbers will have nothing to do with either RGB or CMYK, other than that approximations of those colors in RGB were used to do the design. Prepress people and designers are composing with RGB, but printing with Pantone. It's as if you composed an orchestra piece on a piano.

Re: 271 years before Pantone, every color imaginable in an 800-page book

#20

Post by cmurf »

pessimizer wrote: post #17
Terretta wrote: post #2

Maybe no license fees to use 271 year old colors in your Photoshop files?

You don't need a license to use any color in Photoshop. You need a license for a collection of stand-in mappings for spot colors, the vast majority of which can't be convincingly represented on a monitor. You can ignore Pantone entirely, put in whatever color you want, and nobody will know or complain. You can even use any color you want in Photoshop, then make a plate out of it for the press, and tell people the Pan…

Pantone sells mixed inks in a bucket. Printing presses tend to only have cyan, magenta, yellow, black ink in them. The density of those inks varies naturally as a printing press runs. That variation isn't kind to business identity colors. It's not kind to photos either but human vision helps adapt to these variations, with some limits. Specific colored ink mixed in a bucket is much more stable on press, minimal variation.

There are other spot color systems such as Toyo, and Focoltone. But at least in the U.S. Pantone is the most common system.

Post reply on HN