Re: Profiling Transparencies
Re: Profiling Transparencies
- Subject: Re: Profiling Transparencies
- From: MB <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 09:31:05 +0300
Henrik Holmegaard <email@hidden> wrote:
>
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.
>
Then I got too dark (lack of shadows details). And I should use "Light Shadows"
option plus base density. If I got extremely dark slides, I got no space for
improvements. I know that Tango is able to cope with very dark transparencies.
And the most problem that ready scan doesn't match the slide not in colors, but
in gradation.
Profiles created from revised raw scan got almost the same hue and saturation
values as with not revised one.
>
This has nothing to do with the TIFFRGB ICC profile which is
>
internally called Color Space Conversion Profile EBU RGB.
>
But LC6.04 or 6.010 embed TIFFRGB to this raw scan. Why then?
>
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.
>
Yes, you are absolutely right. There is no reason go far from LAB. I don't want
it too.
>
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).
>
We've recently bought Spectrolino+SpectroScan-T and Profile Maker 3.1. I don't
think that my boss give me more many for any other software. Actually I like PM,
except some problems with it. As you may know It doesn't work correctly with
DTP-92 and doesn't support USB yet. And I don't understand why I got TAC by
10-15% less with UCR,GCR1-GCR4 and 5-10% less with MaxK than I set up.
That was some kind of question :)
Thanks
Mikhail Berkovsky
PPI