Re: colorsync-users digest, Vol 2 #76 - 13 msgs
Re: colorsync-users digest, Vol 2 #76 - 13 msgs
- Subject: Re: colorsync-users digest, Vol 2 #76 - 13 msgs
- From: "joe borne" <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 18:16:54 -0500
>
CD writes:
>
The high end program using the same color core as Wizi (Previous versions of
>
Compass Profile) has been the preferred software for profing such devices, at
>
least until recently. But even with the highend stuff, and a
>
spectrophotometer, I often hear the same complaints as with Wizi: color casts
>
(usually green) and clogged shadows. I find ProfilerRGB does a better job to
>
begin with, and then offers editing capabilities if you still need to tweak
>
the profile.
Since partnering up with K&R PhotoDigital last year I have been exposed to
the Pictrography extensively. I have profiled probably a dozen in the last
year. In that time I tried pretty much every method and software. What I
finally settled on was using Praxisoft Profiler and turning on 3D smoothing.
In that time I never once saw yellow casting or shadow issues. On the Fuji
Pictrography I have sometimes had to turn the red channel down slightly in
the mid tones. Although the ProfilerRGB does have the sliders built in, I
prefer editing the profile by creating a curve in PhotoShop, reversing it,
then applying it in Praxi Profiler. If you have to create a curve at all it
should be a subtle overall pull, like mid tones up by 3 or 4 increments and
let the rest of the curve bow naturally. In a few cases I have had to adjust
individual channels a bit and make more intricate curves. So perhaps its
just personal preference, but I feel a lot more comfortable with the
PhotoShop curves if things get hairy.
Also, I do appreciate the uses for software such as ProfilerRGB that utilize
existing equipment or in some cases only visual feedback to create a
profile. But I have a hard time placing that category of software into shops
where true color accuracy, or accuracy against another visual reference is
critical.
I realize this statement may set off a bit of a debate, but I have to stand
by it. If I am called in to a shop to get several pieces of equipment to
match, possibly including a press, then I always go with my
spectrophotometer. I use a wide variety of software in different situations
(Monaco on CMYK devices, Praxi on RGB - especially wide format, ColorBlind
on Digital Cameras, etc) and I use the spectrophotometer to make sure that I
am standing on a solid foundation.
Perhaps it is possible to create solutions that are just as accurate with
software such as the reincarnated Horses package. But if things do not go
perfect on the first shot, I don't want to have to figure out where the
problem is (scanner?, software?, printer?, my eyes?).
Many out there cannot afford the equipment or software that this level of
assurance requires. I think that in those situations ProfilerRGB or one of
the WYSIWYG/EZcolor genre can be used to improve things. I would be prepared
though to invest some time in tweaking to get all the cross rendering
results correct.
>
Off, definately...(consider PostScript color management a dead dinosaur,
>
Adobe may actually get around to burying it before too long <G>)
On this I agree completely. PostScript Color Management reminds me of a
certain former presidential candidate. So when you hit the radio button to
turn PS color management off, be sure to punch that "Chad" all the way
through.
>
>
C. David Tobie
>
Design Cooperative
>
email@hidden
--
Joe Borne
Color & Graphic Technology Consultant
(859) 282-0393
-- "The opinions expressed by this individual do not necessarily reflect the
actual opinions of this individual. Unless you agree with these opinions, in
which case I will feel free to spread the blame around when people get mad
at me." --