I think the following exchange explains why many users are unhappy with the
state of color management, and flee toward solutions like GMG:
"Marco Ugolini email@hidden wrote:
>No, Bill, not according to what I have. I'm looking at the reference
>file named "ECI2002R CMYK.txt" that came with ProfileMaker 5.0.5b:
>position 2S16 does carry a C100, M0, Y0, K0 value, and so does the
>patch in the same position in its corresponding testchart file, named
"ECI2002R CMYK.tif".
I was actually comparing the ECI2002R CMYK.txt file to the measurement file
that I created after I measured the press run of the ECI2002R target.
After I wrote my original post I noticed that I was reading the .txt file I
had exported as LAB from Measure Tool. I then compared it to the .txt file I
saved from Measure Tool which I had used to make my profile. The LAB.txt
file is the one with
2S9 as C100, M0, Y0, K0, and the .txt file has it correct:
>From LAB.txt file:
1287 2S9 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.97 21.29 49.78
53.26 -35.94 -49.59
1294 2S16 70.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.64 31.21 53.03 62.68
-26.18 -36.95
>From the .txt file:
108 2S9 20.00 100.00 10.00 0.00 0.1302 (more numbers - I
deleted them for this sample)
1287 2S16 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0942 (more numbers - I
deleted them for this sample)
You can see the .txt file matches the values in the .tif file while the
LAB.txt file does not. Hummm?
-Bill- "
_______________________________________________
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
