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: [...]
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.
