Re: GaMapICC v0.5
Re: GaMapICC v0.5
- Subject: Re: GaMapICC v0.5
- From: Marco Ugolini <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:45:20 -0800
- Thread-topic: GaMapICC v0.5
In a message dated 1/27/10 5:36 PM, Graeme Gill wrote:
> It properly takes into account the viewing condition issues. The gamut
> mapping I've done allows for the display and print viewing conditions.
> If you're doing a soft proof comparison and don't undo this adjustment,
> you're not making a valid comparison, and the image might look (say)
> too light, where in fact it might better match in real life.
But what is "real life" here? the source RGB image, once adjusted for the
desired tonalities and look, becomes my "reality", the ideal I aspire to in
the final conversion in the face of the necessary compromises.
Besides, when I have two images each converted to the destination output
space, of which one looks darker than the other (the darker one matching the
source image more closely in tonalities on the same calibrated and profiled
display), what kind of strange miracle is going to make the LIGHTER one a
better match to the source image?
I'm aware of how the substrate affects the printed results, but I'm also
aware of how adaptation compensates for the paper's white point.
> It's not the conclusion I come too. Comparing the softproof of the
> Photoshop conversion and softproof the gamut mapping I created I would
> say that in comparison to the original image, the ProfileMaker/Photoshop
> conversion has lost saturation and lightness of the orange "blood", and
> overly darkened the woodgrain.
That is definitely not so. The tonalities match very closely. Even keeping
in mind the adaptations necessitated by the substrate, the tonalities are
still a better match in the Photoshop conversion.
> But the use or not and type of BPC used in the softproof has a big
> influence on this assessment.
Again, let's not forget chromatic/white point adaptation. Whatever may seem
dull before adaptation will look better after adaptation.
> [The original image looks a bit like it's been mistreated to begin
> with. It's kind of dull, and only begins to look natural if you set
> the RGB levels to about 220 and correct the white point a bit.]
Well, it's what it is. That's how the ball rolls in my practical world of
real-world production. You work with what you're given. And your judgment of
what looks "natural" is bound to differ from mine.
The point of the exercise is which procedure makes the best of the given
source image as it is, without questioning it.
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:
This email sent to email@hidden