Re: Profiler PRO
Re: Profiler PRO
- Subject: Re: Profiler PRO
- From: email@hidden
- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 11:08:05 EDT
In a message dated 8/31/01 3:47:19 AM, email@hidden writes:
>
Your view is that not outputting a full suite of CMYK values to profile
>
from and applying "a priori" a hypothetical real-life printer
>
configuration to limit the target is a smart idea. I disagree because I
>
am going through this profiling process, in a way, also to find out what
>
the printing process' real limits are.
>
>
>SNIP<<
>
The good people at ColorBlind explained to me that
>
they deliberately ignored the black generation parameters I specify for
>
my profile when printing the target, so that I can generate new profiles
>
with different settings from the same measurements.
>
I soon convinced myself that they were right and that this is the
>
correct approach - but I do not deny that this is a subjective matter on
>
which your opinion is as valid as mine. Any potential "running" problem
>
I fix by reducing final ink amounts on the RIP prior to printing the raw
>
target.
Okay, this is getting more interesting now, instead of mud, we're actually
flinging IDEAS!
There are a wide number of settings in a CMYM engine, but the end result of
them is color seperated to four channels instead of three, and limited to
certain amounts of ink in each channel, in total etc...
You are suggesting that seeing what the total ink capability, channel
capability, dot gain, bleed level, mottling level, etc... of a device may be
is important. I agree... and do all that with a CMYK test file before I
choose the settings in ProfilerPRO. After all, a spectro can only tell you
when the patches stop getting darker, not when they start to run, or bleed,
or mottle. This is why pre-profile ink limits are a good idea, and why limits
other than what the spectro decides are important. I believe that finding
these in advance (one way or another) is important, and eliminates a number
of your issues.
However that still leaves us with a given dark purple patch that could be
configured using assorted CMYK settings, many of which will not actually
exist under a given CMYK configuration.
And of a set of patches ProfilerPRO can use every one towards its profile,
instead of having to exclude a few hundred as out of gamut; and it is reading
data defined for the actual seperations it will be working with, not
theorizing from raw patches. Is other software so smart that it is
determining whether UCR or GRC should be used, what UCA settings is optimal,
What black curve and toe should be used? Nope, its still making you do all
this yourself. What do you use to do it? Beats me... but I use that
preprofile test file. When do you do this stuff? This is one of the places
where ProfilerPRO "thinks different", and does this stuff in advance of
printing the target.
Yes, it would be possible to miss some of the potential gamut of a device
with ProfilerPRO by choosing incorrect settings in advance, but most systems
require similar assumptions, at some point. Explaining how to make good
setting for PRO would be a valid request; but its a documentation criticism,
not fatal conceptual flaw.
C. David Tobie
Design Cooperative
email@hidden