In a message dated Jul 19, 2007 5:04 AM, Klaus Karcher wrote:
> Or is [Timo Autiokari] just right? -- and what we call a "softproof"
> is simply nonsense?
There's a way to gauge that: calibrate and profile your monitor, soft-proof an image, compare it to a hard proof (inkjet, with or without RIP) under controlled lighting, then compare both to the finished press output.
If there is no degree of reasonable similarity among the three (specially between your hard and soft proofs), then either you are doing something wrong or the whole thing is poppycock.
*But* if your soft- and hard-proof match (reasonably, that is, given that one is on an emissive medium and the other on a reflective medium), and they both give you an acceptable preview of the results on press, then...should we care what Timo says?
There's really no need to make it much more complicated than that. It either works or it doesn't.
In my experience, and in that of others I work with, it works. It may not be "working" if what you expect is a 100% match, but then again, you may have to reassess your level of expectations, in that case.
Marco Ugolini
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/email@hidden
This email sent to email@hidden
