ECI profiles vs FOGRA

Question

I always find colour management a little impenetrable ( I understand the basic idea, but the details can throw me sometimes). I'm just getting my colour settings sorted out for CS3 (Ai, Ps, and InD, via Bridge's sync feature) and am wondering about profiles.
I usually find myself in position where I have to start artwork before a printer is decided upon, so I don't normally have the option of getting a profile from the printer up front and end up having to use the best 'general purpose' profile set up that I can. I was going to go with Adobe RGB and Fogra27* from Adobe's regular set but I keep hearing that the ECI profiles give excellent results, so I am also considering eciRGB_v2 and ISOcoated_v2_eci*.
I've searched all over the electric interweb but can't find any real comparison of the two sets from a user/artworker's point of view -- every comparison gives vast amounts of highly technical data that is quite beyond me, but stops short of advising use of one or the other. Does anyone have any recommendations either way?
For the record, I work in the UK and my print work tends to be printed on sheet-fed offset litho (and occasionally digital). I'm after a good, reliable, middle-ground profile setup that will work most of the time when I don't know the specifics of the final output press. I know that ideally I should get profiles form the printers before starting the artwork but it's generally just not possible.
Thanks for any advice
* for RGB/CMYK respectively

Answer 1

>... but Adobe offering the opportunity to make or to offering the opportunity to make or to not make use of color management does not make it their responsibility if people dont invest the time and effort to get an understanding of their works demands.
Yes, that has been the mind set of industry experts and Adobe staff and is has not worked in Adobe's best interest and that is the point that I have been trying to make all these years. If you make software so open ended that no one can follow it, or better stated, very few can follow, then what is the point of continuing such ideology? I ask this with all honesty to any that dare to speak the truth about the implementation of said topic. Color management works quite well, it is the implementation that has failed due to the lack of realization that people WILL NOT spend the mind numbing time that it takes to follow the yellow brick road. And that is only part of the problem. The REAL problem is that there is very little file assurance between mutiple users. Well guess what. If the whole world is using Adobe products, then who is being blind here?
So here we have it. We have the most powerful graphics company in the world who preaches that it's the users responsibility to learn or not. Great.... Problem is this mentality helps no one - neither the companies profits nor the end user. We need a bridge to bring the gap of knowledge together to make things work better and that bridge is a process control system that not only ensures better color control but also installs user confidence is which they have a basis to actually assist in TEACHING themselves WHAT color management is and its uses.
As of now Adobe has failed as well as users being able to instruct themselves. To be honest, I'm tired of listening to myself at this point... Who else in their right mind would work so hard as I have done to propagate the demise of my own job for the betterment of all. hmm...
>And with file-formats that predate the icc-standard and arent Adobes property it might go down very badly with some users if Adobe unilaterally made embedded profiles mandatory but then I guess that might be part of what Mike means with »political mess«.
Chris -
Process control is not a force fit to other manufactures or Adobe users for that matter. If you want to continue to be a retard, by all means, we should let people do so. The Adobe CS Suite has lack luster appeal because the company can not get the divisions together enough to make a real difference and that is a real shame. Is it getting better? Yes, but the changes are too small and take far too long. The more time that passes by, the less hope there is for a cohesive global understanding for process control. Realistically this is about Adobe smashing the competition once and for good. If that is not good enough reason to listen to me, then I shall go quietly into thy good night - still being able to laugh all the way to the bank from Adobe's lack of marketing stance and understanding of anything related to human intervention as far as form and function in the REAL REAL WORLD.
>But You have been in the business long enough to remember the pre-icc-era, havent You?
Yes I do. The software sometimes has to go full circle in order for the creators and users to fully understand what works and what does not. We always here people complaining that color management needs to be more seamless - color management needs to be more seamless - color management needs to be more seamless. Well, DUH~! Color management WAS seamless prior to PS 5 because most had no concept what is does or how to change it. Most just went on their merry way without knowledge as to what was happening once a file was opened in PS. We need to take that very simple principal and reapply it to a process control workflow where as the novice can go about their work without worrying about all this technical junk as well as having the professional level user craft fine jewels. It can be done without disturbing the existing mess we have because it will take a large commitment from Adobe to implement. Smarter software is needed because there are more general users with little knowledge and that is how marketing is selling the product, but the engineers don't understand how to build intelligence on a global scale. Not to say that they have not worked hard to get where we are as of now...
It's about perspective and experience that drives decisions.
>And what are the market changes You refer to?
Many...