Re: Profiling Transparencies
Re: Profiling Transparencies
- Subject: Re: Profiling Transparencies
- From: Henrik Holmegaard <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 23:47:39 +0100
MB <email@hidden> wrote:
I think if I change the gamma of saved raw scan everything
will look just fine.
Don't change the IT8 scan or you will no longer have a sample that
represents how the device (lamps, RGB filters plus IT8) forms color.
Are there any better space than TIFFRGB to save raw RGB scan from
Linocolor? I >think it is not quite big enough for such scans. Am I
right?
What you get when selecting the 'Calibration scan to disk' menu item
is a raw scan in the TIFF transport format and the RGB color model.
This has nothing to do with the TIFFRGB ICC profile which is
internally called Color Space Conversion Profile EBU RGB.
The TIFFRGB profile is used once you have made a device profile for
the scanner (a 'calibration'), finescanned to CIELab, and then want
to export that CIELab finescan as an RGB image without knowing what
RGB color space will eventually be used.
Are there any better space than TIFFRGB to save raw RGB scan from
Linocolor? I >think it is not quite big enough for such scans. Am I
right?
You aren't saving raw RGB from Linocolor except in the calibration
scan. You are always saving parametrized (: color corrected) CIELab,
RGB or CMYK.
The TIFFRGB LUT-based space tends to do a better job of converting
than matrix-based spaces, e.g. in the shadows.
If you want an alterantive LUT-based space, I'd suggest you talk to
Joseph Holmes who offers one.
By and large if you have a CIELab finescan, there's no reason why you
should worry about where to convert that into CMYK or RGB. Nor should
you want to convert into RGB for archiving, just archive in CIELab.
Not so long ago, many publishing applications didn't support CIELab,
but now all do except Illustrator and FreeHand.
BTW, I compared Profile Maker's and ColorBlind's profiles and got
strange >result in shadows. ColorBlind's profile gives me more
details in shadows than >PM's one. But PM got better contrast. All
profiles were built from the same raw >scan. Does
anybody know anything about it?
If you don't like third party tools, just use Scanopen 4.0 Mac / PC
from the native Heidelberg color toolset (or Scanopen 2.1 which is
functionally the same thing).