[HN Gopher] Freetone - Pantone-ish colour palette for Adobe prod...
___________________________________________________________________
Freetone - Pantone-ish colour palette for Adobe products
Author : ksec
Score : 129 points
Date : 2022-10-29 19:09 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (culturehustle.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (culturehustle.com)
| philips wrote:
| The about page provides some context
| https://www.culturehustleusa.com/pages/about-us
| raphlinus wrote:
| I was quite impressed with the FreieFarbe[1] presentation at
| Libre Graphics Meetup 2019. It is an open source service that
| actually does attempt to provide similar value as Pantone, not
| just the naming of sRGB colors. In particular, they've put
| nontrivial work into calibrating it to physical colorants.
|
| [1]: https://www.freiefarbe.de/en/
| shrx wrote:
| So how do you actually use this? As far as I know there's no
| option in photoshop to convert an image from RGB to
| Pantone/Freetone.
| CharlesW wrote:
| Pantone/PMS colors are used for spot color1. If you're not
| designing for spot color print reproduction, you wouldn't need
| this. If you want to translate a specific RGB color to a
| Pantone color, there are sites like
| https://www.ginifab.com/feeds/pms/ which can make suggestions.
|
| 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spot_color
| shrx wrote:
| Thanks, so this is an extension/generalization of the CMYK
| colorspace?
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _Thanks, so this is an extension /generalization of the
| CMYK colorspace?_
|
| As a spot color standard focused on the printed (or
| otherwise reproduced) result, I think it's most useful to
| think of PMS as its own thing.
|
| CMYK is the standard 4-color "process" model, in which
| those four colors are combined to create all colors
| possible by mixing them. In contrast, Pantone/PMS colors
| are solid colors and reproduced as such (rather than as
| combinations of CMYK), and include colors that fall both
| inside and outside what's possible with CMYK process
| printing.
|
| For example, Target red is "PANTONE PMS 2035 C" when
| printing to coated1 paper. For printed pieces, designers at
| Target can specify that as a spot color and know that the
| reproduced result will match this. This same red can be
| approximated as a halftone of all 4 CMYK colors, but the
| result won't look as sharp or vibrant.
|
| 1 https://www.paperpapers.com/news/coated-vs-uncoated-
| paper/
| samwillis wrote:
| Professional/industrial printers can have up to 10/12 inks
| and pigments, plus metallics, and varnishes. you also then
| have different optical characteristics depending on
| substrate. It's so far removed from the cmyk colour space.
| aliqot wrote:
| I have not a single clue what's going on here, because I'm not a
| designer.. but I like it.
| jkingsman wrote:
| Adobe and Pantone, a major color designer, have struck a deal
| where you need to pay additional licensing fees to access a
| portion of Pantone's color palette in Adobe products[0]. This
| has made a lot of people, very understandably, quite
| frustrated, as Adobe products will now replace those Pantone
| colors with black when you open a project that uses them.
|
| [0]: https://boingboing.net/2022/10/28/adobe-replacing-old-
| panton...
| josephcsible wrote:
| The Pantone colors used to be included with Photoshop. Now you
| need to pay for an extra subscription to use them, and it's
| retroactive: if you open any of your old .psd files without the
| subscription, all of those colors get replaced with black.
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33369951 has a big
| discussion about this.
| [deleted]
| frob wrote:
| The inclusions of "Blackest Black 3.0" is just beautiful. I hope
| the Hex is `-1-1-1`. Or maybe it sucks brightness from the pixels
| around it.
| Kye wrote:
| This video was very informative on the value Pantone provides:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF8UziDHqZo
| jw1224 wrote:
| Good to see something new from Stuart Semple -- the guy who made
| the "blackest black" (Black 2.0), which everyone except Anish
| Kapoor can purchase...
|
| https://www.thecollector.com/vantablack-anish-kapoor-stuart-...
| zimpenfish wrote:
| > Good to see something new from Stuart Semple ... Black 2.0
|
| I mean, he's released Black 3.0 and about 20 other things since
| then. The man is a non-stop craft supplies firehose.
| undoware wrote:
| Hadn't noticed that Freetone was Semple's brainchild. It
| checks out and I love him for it.
|
| I dabble a bit, and Black 2.0 (havent' tried 3.0) is like
| magic.
|
| I also heartily recommend Semple's glow-in-the-dark pigment,
| but be sure to mix well, it's a non-soluble powder and can
| yield unintended 3D effects if the mix is off (or you did not
| mortar/pestle)
| ibbtown wrote:
| Adobe or Pantone seems to canceled some kind of contract about
| the use of panotme color library. As Adobe creative cloud is a
| monthly paid service and not a bought software, all illustrator
| and other Adobe product software can not use the Pantone colour
| libraries anymore, which are really important as a professional.
| You have to buy a additional add-on from Pantone. The important
| part ist that pantome as a IP company only sells a library with
| name and color codes. This freezone palette seems to be a free
| copy of color values with different names.
| ATsch wrote:
| I'm not sure how helpful this is? The service Pantone provides is
| not really a list of colors. It's the calibration of almost every
| printer and item that can create color, in every medium and on
| every surface, against their color library. Not just printable
| colors either, also things that can't be printed like metal and
| florescent colors.
|
| It means you can get a book cover and a business card printed,
| some plastic injection molded, have your car painted and be
| assured they are all going to be exactly the same color when they
| arrive. It's the mapping between pantone names and the real world
| that's valuable, and this doesn't seem to help with that.
| nerdponx wrote:
| The creator does have experience producing physical paints and
| pigments, so they are aware of the points you're making.
|
| The purpose here is not to replace Pantone entirely, but to be
| able to represent Pantone colors somewhat faithfully in digital
| documents. Pantone does provide official RGB approximations,
| but apparently you can't use them in an Adobe product anymore.
| This is meant as an alternative.
| kabes wrote:
| > Pantone does provide official RGB approximations, but
| apparently you can't use them in an Adobe product anymore
|
| This is wrong, you can still use the rgb approximations.
| donatj wrote:
| Sure, you can still use the colors, but they're removing
| the picker for them.
| tomxor wrote:
| > also things that can't be printed like metal and florescent
| colors.
|
| Actually those things can be printed (and are) with foils. You
| will find foils commonly printed onto a lot of consumer
| packaging on top of a laser printed base.
|
| Pedantic details aside... The manufacturers of the foils and
| vinyls to which you refer, have their own unique
| colour/material collections, that intersect pantone to some
| degree, and they provide a "closest pantone" mapping... But
| given enough pressure I suspect they would adapt faster than
| pantone are gambling provided an obvious enough alternative.
|
| Source: I worked in the print industry for a short time, well
| over a decade ago. I don't recommend it.
| Stamp01 wrote:
| It's a better alternative to the current experience of having
| existing projects practically held hostage. If you used Pantone
| colors previously, they now render as black until you either
| pay Pantone or install this.
| Gare wrote:
| But if there is a 1:1 mapping from Freetone to Pantone,
| shouldn't this still work? Crappy thing is that Pantone wants
| designers to pay for the ability to associate some area with a
| specific Pantone hue.
| samwillis wrote:
| Paying Pantone for the work they put into developing a
| calibrated colour system across printers, inks and sub-
| straits isn't "crappy".
|
| Adobe pulling a product feature from paid customers existing
| install/subscription because they failed to licence the
| feature properly from the supplier is crappy.
|
| Pantone is, in my option, being somewhat unduly attacked for
| this change. This is 100% on Adobes head.
|
| Pantone have been a popular punching bag for the design
| industry for 30 years. And it may be true they over charge
| for what they offer. But this is Adobes f*up.
|
| Frankly, a 1:1 mapping of Pantone to Freetone sounds like
| copyright infringement.
|
| What I would love to see is a new "free"/libra/open colour
| system, superseding what Pantone offer. Let's not just copy
| people because we feel slighted.
| anikom15 wrote:
| While it is Adobe's fault for implementing really poorly,
| there has to be some blame on creators making works using
| the Pantone palette without really understanding what it's
| for and the fact that it is licensed, presenting risk that
| it won't necessarily be available in the future.
|
| A lot of people used the colors as just a nice useful
| palette. In hindsight that was never a good idea.
| atoav wrote:
| Are you sure about that? Most people I know who used
| Pantone colors were using them because their print
| product used one of those as a (special) spot color. You
| cannot print metallic copper on just any CMYK printer no
| matter how much you fiddle with the numbers. When you
| want a color to look as close as possible to a certain
| thing using a spot color (Pantone or otherwise) is the
| way to go.
| atoav wrote:
| I think you are overlooking the fact that Adobe is offering
| a _subscription_ service. And one of the downsides of doing
| that is that organizations that license stuff to you (like
| Pantone) have a bigger leverage over you, because eevoking
| the license will remove their IP from _all_ of the users,
| not just the ones with new versions of the software.
|
| Whithout having put any research into this at all, it would
| not surprise me if Pantone tried to use that lever.
| samwillis wrote:
| I'm sure that did, as any of us would in their position.
|
| Adobe should have anticipated this and ensures they had
| perpetual licensing in place. It's ridiculous that the
| largest graphics technology company in the world have
| managed this so badly.
|
| Frankly I don't know why Adobe haven't either acquired
| Pantone at some point in the past or developed their own
| alternative standard. It's such a blind sport for them.
| Kye wrote:
| The company that owns Pantone is worth about $90 billion.
| It's more likely to go the other way.
| samwillis wrote:
| Danaher, their patent, is many times larger (and
| significantly more diverse) than Pantone which was
| acquired for $180m in 2007. Adobe should have acquired
| them then. Assuming no growth they would be worth around
| $250m now. Well within the reach of Adobe.
| Kye wrote:
| I'm referring to Danaher. My point is it's too late.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| They can and do charge for products related to actually
| _making_ the colors. That doesn 't mean they should get
| paid for which RGB code looks close.
|
| And the idea of copyrighting colors is ridiculous.
| dagmx wrote:
| I think your comment is outrage caused by a lack of
| understanding of the product.
|
| They don't copyright the color. The copyright the product
| associated with the color.
|
| You can use the same RGB or CMYK colors. You however
| don't get the guarantees of what the spectral responses
| of that color are and you don't get the guarantees of
| printers having palettes to match the color.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Copyrighting a product? What are you talking about? You
| can get trademarks on some things, but copyrights are not
| relevant here.
|
| I can tell a printer to color match a pantone swatch
| without violating anything.
| samwillis wrote:
| > idea of copyrighting colors is ridiculous
|
| Absolutely, however at least here in the UK (and I
| suspect the EU), copying the Pantone colour book would be
| classed as copying a "database". Databases are
| copyrightable, whether you agree with that or not.
|
| My argument is rather than doing something that drags the
| copyright debate into to situation just make something
| _better_ and "free as in beer and speech".
|
| Copying something that is "copyright" to "free it" puts
| you on the back foot. You will loos the argument
| eventually.
| Gare wrote:
| I agree. Having such an essential collection gated behind
| a copyright is a net detriment to humanity. Imagine if
| collection known as a SI system of units was owned by a
| corporation and you had to pay a license to use it.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Be careful with your wording. In some places databases
| are IP, but database rights are not copyright.
|
| And you could still install individual colors in that
| case, right? The average project shouldn't have many.
| lolinder wrote:
| Pantone isn't copyrighting the colors, they're
| copyrighting the collection. It's similar to copyrighting
| a map: you're not claiming that all representations of
| this part of the world now belong to you, you're claiming
| that _this_ representation belongs to you.
|
| It does seem like Adobe could have mapped the colors in
| existing files to a useful hex code instead of blacking
| them all out.
| TAForObvReasons wrote:
| The issue is that map from "named colors" to "useful
| colors" is sufficiently protected that approximations
| could run afoul of whatever agreement Adobe and Pantone
| have in place.
| lolinder wrote:
| Most likely, yes. There's a non-trivial amount of work
| that goes into ensuring that colors show up correctly in
| every medium, and Pantone will absolutely want to prevent
| other people from copying the mappings that they spent
| time and money developing. As OP said, though, that
| doesn't make them the bad guys. Adobe is the one who
| failed to take care of their customers.
| Gare wrote:
| But aren't they already getting licensing fees from printer
| and color mixer manufacturers? Requiring someone to pay
| just to be able to specify "I want this thing painted with
| Pantone XYZ" sounds like double-dipping to me.
| samwillis wrote:
| They don't require a license fee in order to specify an
| area as a specific colour. You could literally write it
| on as an instruction to your printer. I have literally
| done that.
|
| They charge Adobe for the right to include their database
| of colours in their software. Adobe failed to negotiate a
| sustainable relationship, and sold a product to customers
| under the pretence of including the Pantone database,
| then pulled it.
| blaphem wrote:
| While they _do_ provide a service it seems to be of
| homeopathic utility in most cases. With common calibration
| methods and CMYK you typically get close enough. Factors
| like viewing angle and ambient lighting conditions will
| change color perception _anyhow_. So you only really need a
| very high degree of accuracy in rare cases like printed
| color samples. 99% of people do not mind slight color
| mismatches.
|
| Unfortunately, the design industry is riddled with narrow-
| minded and absurd requirements like that, e.g. 300 dpi is
| commonly used for photos _regardless_ of the size, so large
| format print shops regularly have to deal with 1-2 GB files
| which then get rasterized to ... 20 dpi.
| [deleted]
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| They want designers to pay for associating some area with a
| specific pantone _code_ , not with "a hue" or "an rgb or cmyk
| color". The Adobe pallete is just a stand-in for the actual
| codes, so it's not about "they took away our colors", it's
| "they took away the mapping between what I'm working with and
| the pantone colors that get used when I actually send this
| off to a manufacturer" because what you pay for is Pantone's
| guarantee that if your product says it uses Pantone code X,
| it's going to look the same irrespective of who makes the
| physical thing, and irrespective of when you get it made. You
| use pantone when you _need_ that guarantee, and you pay them
| for that. It 's why their color libraries are so expensive:
| you don't get "neat colors", you get "if we say our product
| uses code X, on material Y, it's going to come out _exactly_
| like this ". Not very similar, but exactly.
|
| Freetone can't do that. It's just a palette, and kind of
| completely misses the point. Using some nice colors is
| trivial, anyone can make a color palette. Pantone is not
| that.
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _Freetone can 't do that. It's just a palette, and kind
| of completely misses the point._
|
| For sure. Stuart Semple appears to be an expert when it
| comes to ink and printing, which makes this feel all the
| more disingenuous.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| It's not missing the point. You'd still use pantone for
| actual printing. This exists so the colors don't show up as
| black while you're editing.
| Sporktacular wrote:
| Hard to tell if making everyone go through a shopping cart to
| download it is a joke. Am I missing something?
| cthalupa wrote:
| As someone that works a lot with both Pantone and RAL, I've never
| understood the value proposition of the these digital color
| palettes - the fact of the matter is, they're just not good
| matches to the physical colors to begin with.
|
| Obviously, a physical product is reflected light, a monitor is
| emissive light, etc. This means they're never going to be exact
| no matter how much work you put into it, but... I have a
| calibrated monitor with measured coverage of over 99% sRGB, a
| delta E max below 1, a delta E average of .4, calibrated to D65,
| with a 98 CRI D65 color matching light, and... the colors are way
| off. At best the hex values they give are decent starting points,
| but if you are attempting to provide an accurate representation
| in digital form of what the color is, these were never good
| enough to begin with.
|
| You need the physical samples (books, plastic chips, whatever), a
| calibrated monitor, and a good color matching light to really
| dial the colors in to be close. These libraries were never worth
| it to begin with.
|
| When you go to get something printed/resins and inks mixed for
| plastic/whatever, they're not matching to these digital values -
| they match to physical samples. My printer won't produce the same
| physical product using the same CMYK values as your printer, etc.
| They get out their pantone book and compare the printed color to
| what is in the book, and then adjust from there. For anything
| requiring high color accuracy, anyway.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-29 23:00 UTC)