Re: Workflow critique needed
Re: Workflow critique needed
- Subject: Re: Workflow critique needed
- From: Chris Halford <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 12:49:47 -0600
on 2/4/01 12:22 PM, Henrik Holmegaard at email@hidden wrote:
>
A while back I read the advertising of a well-known monitor
>
manufacturer to do with the accuracy of said manufacturer's monitor
>
profiles independently of anything else in the workflow. The idea
>
seemed to be that of apportioning blame, 'See, if our monitor can
>
show this color and the rest of the workflow can't then it follows
>
that our monitor isn't to blame for the fact that your color came out
>
wrong'. That sort of idea ... hence looking a little at what may be
>
meant by 'accuracy' in a broad context and for people struggling to
>
climb aboard.
Workflow aside.
Here is an example:
My current monitor profile shows the following rgb -> lab conversions:
red (255 0 0) = lab (57 78 70)
green (0 255 0) = lab (86 -90 76)
blue (0 0 255) = lab (35 72 -101)
Now if I read these with a colorimeter, and the results aren't even close,
it makes no difference what the rest of my workflow does, I am not seeing
colour accurately on my monitor. I agree that there are colours that cannot
be represented on the display, but the profile should know what the solid
primaries look like.
I may have bad colour in my workflow for a number of reasons, but this is a
point of concern for me.
>
> 'See, if our monitor can
>
> show this color and the rest of the workflow can't then it follows
>
> that our monitor isn't to blame for the fact that your color came out
>
> wrong'.
Showing colour, and showing good colour aren't the same. Just because the
rest of the workflow is poor doesn't mean that the monitor is golden; it may
be an equal partner in the killing of colour!
The reason I'm continuing on this thread is that with the workflow we're
implementing, I would like to be able to rely on the monitor to a far
greater degree. We're from a press background. As you well know, people from
the printing industry don't trust the monitor and 'go by the numbers'
religiously. This fact alone makes press/prepress implementations very
difficult; basically the unlearning!
If there was a good way to show that the monitor was doing what the profile
said that it was, it could kill the debate and let the actual training
happen. ( not to mention that it would be good from a Q.A. point of view).
Someone mentioned a method using Optical. Can anyone point me to that?
--
Chris Halford
C.T.O.
www.iccTools.com
mobile email: email@hidden
*Short messages*
--