Send Colorsync-users mailing list submissions to
email@hidden
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
email@hidden
You can reach the person managing the list at
email@hidden
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Colorsync-users digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: LCD Monitor Recommendation (Marco Ugolini)
2. Re: LCD Monitor Recommendation (Chris Protopapas)
3. Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 6, Issue 29 (Thomas Levy)
4. Tweaking the Munki (Enrique de la Huelga)
5. Re: Black Point Compensation (BPC) - another track (Graeme Gill)
6. Re: EIZO ColorNavigator and G7 validation (Lee Badham)
7. Re: EIZO ColorNavigator and G7 validation (Bob Frost)
8. Re: EIZO ColorNavigator and G7 validation (Todd Shirley)
9. Re: EIZO ColorNavigator and G7 validation (Steve Miller)
10. Re: GCR Problem (Richard Apollo)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:04:32 -0800 (GMT-08:00)
From: Marco Ugolini <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: LCD Monitor Recommendation
To: colorsync-users <email@hidden>
Message-ID:
<email@hidden
>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Ken Fleisher wrote:
Hello. Is anyone familiar with the Dell UltraSharp 2408WFP
(Editors' choice
CNET)
I briefly wrote about it in a previous post:
<http://lists.apple.com/archives/Colorsync-users/2009/Feb/msg00043.html
>
Marco Ugolini
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:04:17 -0500
From: Chris Protopapas <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: LCD Monitor Recommendation
To: email@hidden
Cc: "Fleisher, Ken" <email@hidden>
Message-ID:
<email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
The NEC Spectraview series is very nice:
*
**http://tinyurl.com/2lnek5
** *I've got a NEC MultiSync LCD2690WUXi at home, it's quite nice
and comes
with its own calibrator and software. It's gotten some good reviews
recently.
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:32:29 -0500
From: Thomas Levy <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 6, Issue 29
To: email@hidden
Message-ID: <email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Regarding the LaCie 324 monitor:
I purchased a 324 from La Cie several weeks ago. It is a great
monitor. And the extra screen space is very useful.
If you have the budget for it, their blue eye would be the good choice
for calibration.
I have tried the Huey pro, (on my Intel Imac 20) and have been
unsuccessful in achieving a usable calibration. The la Cie profile
that is loaded works well, and is much superior to that available for
the IMac display.
The 324 la Cie is making printing a lot more enjoyable, and
consistent.
I plan to borrow an Eye One for testing soon.
Tom Levy
www.museme.net
215-886-3482
On Feb 10, 2009, at 3:05 PM, email@hidden
wrote:
Send Colorsync-users mailing list submissions to
email@hidden
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
email@hidden
You can reach the person managing the list at
email@hidden
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Colorsync-users digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: EIZO ColorNavigator and G7 validation (Todd Shirley)
2. Re: EIZO ColorNavigator and G7 validation (Marco Ugolini)
3. LCD Monitor Recommendation (Fleisher, Ken)
4. Re: EIZO ColorNavigator and G7 validation (Steve Miller)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:06:19 -0500
From: Todd Shirley <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: EIZO ColorNavigator and G7 validation
To: ColorSync Sync <email@hidden>
Message-ID: <email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Just a further note on verifying monitors to GRACoL2006...
In my shop we have about 15 Eizo CG10s and 5 CG11s. I've just tried
the ColorNavigator GRACoL2006 verification routine on 2 of each
model,
with nearly identical results. If I calibrate and profile the monitor
to D50, L*, 140 cd/m2, I get a max dE76 of around 15 and and avg. of
around 5. This happened on all 4 monitors, so I guess that is just
the
gamut of these devices. The worst patch is either 100C or the 100c,
100y overprint, both right around 15. If I switch to dE2000, indeed
the max is right around 6.7-6.9 with an avg. of 3, so I guess these
monitors do "certify" if the tolerance is dE2000<7.
If I change the white point to D65 (or 5500), that de76 max goes up
to
around 20, so clearly D50 matters. Unlike Dan Reid, I found that
switching the measurement device's compensation table to "none" in
the
ColorNavigator preferences had no effect on these numbers. I also
tried switching between my DTP94 and eye1, and that didn't change the
numbers either.
When I visually compare the gamuts in Colorthink, there is of
course a
huge cyan/green wedge of GRACoL sticking out of the monitor gamut.
Does anyone find this disparity to be problematic in your workflow?
Do
wide-gamut monitors really help people get better & faster results in
color matching? Has anyone tried to use soft-proofing and then been
"surprised" at how the cyans and greens hard-proofed or printed?
Just curios!
-Todd Shirley
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:23:07 -0800 (GMT-08:00)
From: Marco Ugolini <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: EIZO ColorNavigator and G7 validation
To: ColorSync Sync <email@hidden>
Message-ID:
<email@hidden
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Todd Shirley wrote:
If I change the white point to D65 (or 5500), that de76 max goes up
to
around 20, so clearly D50 matters.
If one has a viewing booth sitting next to the monitor, then the
white point on the display has to match that in the booth as closely
as possible, in both chromaticities and luminance. But if one is
working without a viewing booth, I would think that the white point
is far less relevant.
Whether the display's white point is D50 or D65, and as long as the
monitor is the brightest light source in the work environment, the
process of chromatic adaptation in the viewer's eyes will discount
the illuminant anyway.
Marco Ugolini
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:51:59 -0500
From: "Fleisher, Ken" <email@hidden>
Subject: LCD Monitor Recommendation
To: colorsync-users <email@hidden>
Message-ID: <C5B7450F.B542%email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Hello. Is anyone familiar with the Dell UltraSharp 2408WFP (Editors'
choice
CNET) or the LaCie 324 LCD (Monitor + Hood + Calibration Software)?
We are looking for new monitor purchases that can be used instead of
purchasing the Apple Cinema Display, which we are not satisfied with
the
current models. The screens provided by Apple, in the size range we
are
interested in, now have a high gloss finish on them. Additionally we
have
been somewhat disappointed with the quality of the screens for the
cost of
them with ghosting problems they develop before even the three year
point.
Can someone who has seen either of these monitors offer some
comments?
What other options in the Cinema Display price range would you
recommend?
(at least 23² screen)
Thanks!
--
Ken Fleisher
Photographer
Imaging & Visual Services
National Gallery of Art
Washington, D.C.
Phone: (202) 712-7471
email@hidden
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:52:46 -0600
From: Steve Miller <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: EIZO ColorNavigator and G7 validation
To: ColorSync Sync <email@hidden>
Message-ID: <C5B7372E.1F1B%email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
In my shop we have about 15 Eizo CG10s and 5 CG11s. I've just tried
the ColorNavigator GRACoL2006 verification routine on 2 of each
model,
with nearly identical results. If I calibrate and profile the
monitor
to D50, L*, 140 cd/m2, I get a max dE76 of around 15 and and avg. of
around 5. This happened on all 4 monitors, so I guess that is just
the
gamut of these devices. The worst patch is either 100C or the 100c,
100y overprint, both right around 15. If I switch to dE2000, indeed
the max is right around 6.7-6.9 with an avg. of 3, so I guess these
monitors do "certify" if the tolerance is dE2000<7.
I have a few CG19's and
I'm getting the following numbers...
DE2000 Max 6.3, Ave 1.5, white pt. 1.0
DE76 Max 15.8, Ave 2.9, white pt. 1.0
If I change the white point to D65 (or 5500), that de76 max goes up
to
around 20, so clearly D50 matters.
I'm measuring my GRACoL 7 2006 coated1 proof white point inside my
GTI booth
instead of selecting selecting 6500, 5500 etc...
Unlike Dan Reid, I found that
switching the measurement device's compensation table to "none" in
the
ColorNavigator preferences had no effect on these numbers.
Switching the measurement device's compensation table to "none"
didn't
change my numbers either.
When I visually compare the gamuts in Colorthink, there is of
course a
huge cyan/green wedge of GRACoL sticking out of the monitor gamut.
Does anyone find this disparity to be problematic in your workflow?
My CG19's have close to the same gamut as your monitors. We have
been using
the CG19's for 3 years now. We know they don't match GRACoL 7 proofs
exactly
but they get very close visually. As the DE2000 numbers indicate.
It's not a
problem in our workflow because we know the limitation of the
monitor gamut.
I've downloaded profiles of several newer Eizo models such as the
CG222.
I've compared the gamuts and the CG222 has a wider gamut than the
CG19. The
gamut still doesn't cover 100% cyan but it's a lot closer than the
CG19 at
about the same price. I would expect that the CG222 and other
monitors with
similar gamut size would have lower DE numbers.
--
Steve Miller
Norwood Publishing
1000 Highway 4 South
Sleepy Eye, MN 56085
507-794-8203
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Colorsync-users mailing list
email@hidden
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
End of Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 6, Issue 29
**********************************************
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:14:32 -0800
From: Enrique de la Huelga <email@hidden>
Subject: Tweaking the Munki
To: email@hidden
Message-ID: <email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed;
delsp=yes
I was asked to profile and calibrate a projector at the last minute
and limited budget (at least for color management). Chose the
ColorMunki Photo, which performed pretty well.
The Projector was a Panasonic PT-DW10000U throwing still images from a
Keynote slideshow at 1920x1080 HD onto a 9'x16' Dalite rear projection
screen.
Any suggestions on how to tweak the profile to try to bring out the
shadow detail? As with any projector, black is only as dark as the
ambient light, and shadow detail suffers as the bottom 5% is lost from
spill-light and reflections. Can this be cheated somehow? Please
recommend software.
Also, anyone know what color management is going on in Keynote? I've
been converting all the images to sRGBthe photographer's studio sent
images assigned ProPhoto, grayscale, a number of scanner profiles (!),
and Adobe98.
Thanks.
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:09:07 +1100
From: Graeme Gill <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: Black Point Compensation (BPC) - another track
To: ColorSync <email@hidden>
Message-ID: <email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Wilma Kay wrote:
Continuing on this black point
compensation thing, but on another track, I had a close look at two
ICC v2 sRGB
profiles on the ICC's www.color.org site. These MatTRC profiles
are named sRGB_IEC61966-2-1_noBPC.icc and
sRGB_IEC61966-2-1_withBPC.icc.
I've taken a close look at both of these in the past, and in my
opinion
they are both faulty, and not compliant with the ICC V2 spec.
The sRGB_IEC61966-2-1_noBPC.icc profile doesn't appear to represent
the colorimetic behaviour of the IEC61966-2.1 space.
According to the ICC V2.4 spec, table 20 page 19,
a display profile using a matrix should represent colorimetric
information. The IEC61966-2.1 space is defined as having
XYZ value of 0 for RGB 0, while the sRGB_IEC61966-2-1_noBPC.icc
profile produces a non-zero XYZ for a zero RGB.
The sRGB_IEC61966-2-1_withBPC.icc profile correctly produces
XYZ 0 for RGB 0, but its black point tag is inconsistent
with this, and contains a non-zero value. The causes
a problem in the dark areas when this profile is gamut
mapped to an output space, where the gamut mapping
is relying on the black point to be truthful.
I'm not sure what the idea of the sRGB_IEC61966-2-1_withBPC.icc
profile is in any case. BPC is a gamut mapping technique,
and is therefore only applicable to perceptual or saturation
intents. Given that a matrix profile can only contain
one intent, and it has to be colorimetic, trying to
create an sRGB matrix profile with BPC would seem to be
non compliant with the ICC V2 spec.
If such a profile is wanted, then it should be a Lut based
profile, so that the BPC effect can be encoded in the
perceptual table, leaving the colorimetic information
in the colorimetric table.
I note that neither of these profiles is consistent with the
standard sRGB profile released by Microsoft and HP
on the www.srgb.com website and also distributed
with various copies of Microsoft Windows (the "sRGB Color Space
Profile.icm"
file) thereby sowing considerable confusion about what sRGB actually
is.
They fix the D65 MWP problem of the
old sRGB profile that Adobe applications aptly ignore but bring up
some
questions that don't seem to be well answered by the associated ICC
committee descriptions
(I think ICC folks sometimes obfuscate instead of clarify).
I'm unaware of any practical issued with the official sRGB profile
as distributed
by Microsoft. It behaves very sensibly as far as I can see. There is
a subtle
incompatibility if it is used with a CMM that employs the "Wrong Von
Kries"
chromatic adaptation to recover absolute colorimetric behaviour, but
on
the other hand it gives better color reproduction for the much more
commonly used relative colorimetric intent than a display profile
created
using "Wrong Von Kries".
So if, as consensus seems to have it
from the Forum, BPC is a CMM operation, how could these sRGB source
profiles
have properties related to BPC and be so named. Why would I want
to have a "flare" factor added to my images
with the ..noBPC profile? How would one
actually use the
noBPC profile?
I wouldn't recommend using either profile.
Graeme Gill.
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:59:58 +0000
From: Lee Badham <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: EIZO ColorNavigator and G7 validation
To: ColorSync <email@hidden>
Message-ID: <email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
On 10 Feb 2009, at 19:06, Todd Shirley wrote:
Just a further note on verifying monitors to GRACoL2006...
In my shop we have about 15 Eizo CG10s and 5 CG11s. I've just tried
the ColorNavigator GRACoL2006 verification routine on 2 of each
model, with nearly identical results. If I calibrate and profile the
monitor to D50, L*, 140 cd/m2, I get a max dE76 of around 15 and and
avg. of around 5. This happened on all 4 monitors, so I guess that
is just the gamut of these devices. The worst patch is either 100C
or the 100c, 100y overprint, both right around 15. If I switch to
dE2000, indeed the max is right around 6.7-6.9 with an avg. of 3, so
I guess these monitors do "certify" if the tolerance is dE2000<7.
When I was checking out what tolerances to use I saw the GraCol
tolerance for the primary was 7 âE2000 and though that was too high
for colour critical work. The point of using âE2000 is that it
scales
very well for different colours and luminances. âE76 is really bad
at
this kind of comparison because of the really high numbers you get for
yellow/cyan. A âE2000 of 2 can equate to a âE76 of 13, so we would
have to set the tolerances at something like 15 âE76 to get a pass.
This might make sense for yellow, but it won't work for black or
magenta. It''s already complicated enough using âE and âH and
different tolerances for different colours would be a nightmare to
explain to customers.
These are the default tolerances in viewSIGN:
Average âE2000 3
Maximum âE2000 5
Paper Colour âE2000 3
Grey Balance âE2000 3
CMYK Primaries âE2000 3
As it's hard to achieve these numbers we've used a scoring system
(like that is used on press in pressSIGN) to give a rating.
If I change the white point to D65 (or 5500), that de76 max goes up
to around 20, so clearly D50 matters. Unlike Dan Reid, I found that
switching the measurement device's compensation table to "none" in
the ColorNavigator preferences had no effect on these numbers. I
also tried switching between my DTP94 and eye1, and that didn't
change the numbers either.
The bluer the light, the worse the cyan will measure because of the
Lab values being measured relative to the white-point, but the white-
point has been artificially changed (using curves either in the
monitor or the profile) making it harder for an RGB monitor to
generate a bluer cyan relative to a bluer light.
Lee
When I visually compare the gamuts in Colorthink, there is of course
a huge cyan/green wedge of GRACoL sticking out of the monitor gamut.
Does anyone find this disparity to be problematic in your workflow?
Do wide-gamut monitors really help people get better & faster
results in color matching? Has anyone tried to use soft-proofing and
then been "surprised" at how the cyans and greens hard-proofed or
printed?
Just curios!
-Todd Shirley
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
Bodoni Systems Ltd
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:28:06 -0000
From: "Bob Frost" <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: EIZO ColorNavigator and G7 validation
To: <email@hidden>
Message-ID: <7B78CBBA03594DF1AC421F7F437CE619@Home1>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=response
If I calibrate and profile the monitor to D50, L*, 140 cd/m2,...
I also have a CG210 and CG 211. Have you noticed that Eizo recommend
80 -
100 cd/m2? And that if you use over 100 cd/m2, your warranty is
invalid?
"The warranty period of the backlight is warranted only if the
monitor is
used within the recommended brightness of up to and including 100 cd/
m2 with
a color temperature between 5,000 K - 6,500 K................" -
Eizo's
website.
You might get different results if you used them within the
manufacturers
recommended limits.
Bob frost
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Todd Shirley" <email@hidden>
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:55:20 -0500
From: Todd Shirley <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: EIZO ColorNavigator and G7 validation
To: ColorSync Sync <email@hidden>
Message-ID: <email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
On Feb 11, 2009, at 5:28 AM, Bob Frost wrote:
If I calibrate and profile the monitor to D50, L*, 140 cd/m2,...
I also have a CG210 and CG 211. Have you noticed that Eizo recommend
80 - 100 cd/m2? And that if you use over 100 cd/m2, your warranty is
invalid?
"The warranty period of the backlight is warranted only if the
monitor is used within the recommended brightness of up to and
including 100 cd/m2 with a color temperature between 5,000 K - 6,500
K................" - Eizo's website.
You might get different results if you used them within the
manufacturers recommended limits.
Hi Bob
I recalibrated at D50, L*, 100 cd/m2 and GRACoL validation reported
max dE76=17.2, Avg=3.1, white=0.2
Just for reference, when I was at D50, L*, 140 cd/m2, I got max
dE76=15.2, Avg=4.9, white=5.5
So while the lower luminance didn't help the out-of-gamut cyan and
green overprints, it did bring the average down some and the
whitepoint dramatically.
I looked up the CG211 at swop.org and there was only one system
(Remote Director) which certified a CG211 to GRACoL, and their ADS set
luminance at 160 cd/m2, so I tried that as well and got pretty much
identical results to 140 cd/m2. All three of these settings got the
max dE2000 just under 7 which means they would all "certify".
I believe that Remote Director goes with 160 because soft-proof
scenarios are often required to match a D50 light booth sitting
directly next to the monitor, and even at 160 the booth would have to
be dimmed to about 50% to get comparable luminance between hard proof
white and monitor white. I don't know if you can dim a booth enough to
match 100 cd/m2.
Many of our CG211s have a GTI D50 tabletop booth right next to them,
and after extensive testing we have found that the best white point
match between monitor and booth is achieved with the booth at 50%
brightness and the monitor set to 5400K, L*, 140 cd/m2. At this
setting, my Gracol validation reports:
max dE76=20.3, Avg=3.1, white=0.2
This gets the best match between hardproof and screen. We don't really
notice too much any problem with the cyans and greens, or maybe we've
just gotten used to it, but if that whitepoint (and thus gray balance)
shift, that is very noticeable. So, interestingly, neither what Eizo
or ICS recommend give us the best results in terms of visual matching.
-Todd Shirley
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:44:08 -0600
From: Steve Miller <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: EIZO ColorNavigator and G7 validation
To: ColorSync Sync <email@hidden>
Message-ID: <C5B86A88.1F3E%email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
I believe they used 160 cd/m2 for the certification so that the
monitor
would be bright enough to softproof in a brightly lit press room.
On 2/11/09 10:55 AM, "Todd Shirley" <email@hidden> wrote:
On Feb 11, 2009, at 5:28 AM, Bob Frost wrote:
If I calibrate and profile the monitor to D50, L*, 140 cd/m2,...
I also have a CG210 and CG 211. Have you noticed that Eizo recommend
80 - 100 cd/m2? And that if you use over 100 cd/m2, your warranty is
invalid?
"The warranty period of the backlight is warranted only if the
monitor is used within the recommended brightness of up to and
including 100 cd/m2 with a color temperature between 5,000 K - 6,500
K................" - Eizo's website.
You might get different results if you used them within the
manufacturers recommended limits.
Hi Bob
I recalibrated at D50, L*, 100 cd/m2 and GRACoL validation reported
max dE76=17.2, Avg=3.1, white=0.2
Just for reference, when I was at D50, L*, 140 cd/m2, I got max
dE76=15.2, Avg=4.9, white=5.5
So while the lower luminance didn't help the out-of-gamut cyan and
green overprints, it did bring the average down some and the
whitepoint dramatically.
I looked up the CG211 at swop.org and there was only one system
(Remote Director) which certified a CG211 to GRACoL, and their ADS
set
luminance at 160 cd/m2, so I tried that as well and got pretty much
identical results to 140 cd/m2. All three of these settings got the
max dE2000 just under 7 which means they would all "certify".
I believe that Remote Director goes with 160 because soft-proof
scenarios are often required to match a D50 light booth sitting
directly next to the monitor, and even at 160 the booth would have to
be dimmed to about 50% to get comparable luminance between hard proof
white and monitor white. I don't know if you can dim a booth enough
to
match 100 cd/m2.
Many of our CG211s have a GTI D50 tabletop booth right next to them,
and after extensive testing we have found that the best white point
match between monitor and booth is achieved with the booth at 50%
brightness and the monitor set to 5400K, L*, 140 cd/m2. At this
setting, my Gracol validation reports:
max dE76=20.3, Avg=3.1, white=0.2
This gets the best match between hardproof and screen. We don't
really
notice too much any problem with the cyans and greens, or maybe we've
just gotten used to it, but if that whitepoint (and thus gray
balance)
shift, that is very noticeable. So, interestingly, neither what Eizo
or ICS recommend give us the best results in terms of visual
matching.
-Todd Shirley
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden
--
Steve Miller
Norwood Publishing
1000 Highway 4 South
Sleepy Eye, MN 56085
507-794-8203
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:42:54 -0600
From: "Richard Apollo" <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: GCR Problem
To: <email@hidden>
Message-ID: <email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
After posting that I created a jpeg through CMYK Optimizer, I was
contacted off-list by members of the Alwan team to investigate. I
can't recreate the problem now.
I don't know if it was a fluke, or a group of settings. I'll try to
backtrack to see if I can come up with the same thing again.
Rich Apollo
Prepress Mgr
Oklahoma Offset, Inc.
email@hidden
918-732-8168
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Colorsync-users mailing list
email@hidden
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
End of Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 6, Issue 30
**********************************************