Re: Workflow critique needed
Re: Workflow critique needed
- Subject: Re: Workflow critique needed
- From: Henrik Holmegaard <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 11:09:14 +0100
What are people doing to make sure that their monitor profiles are accurate?
Acting on fait I guess!
Andrew is right, it's bad advice to tell users to archive into
monitor RGB. Either archive into CIELab D50 16 bit or archive into a
working space such as ECI RGB or Adobe RGB. Which working space is
best is idle talk as the idea of matrix-based working spaces is a bad
one from the very beginning (color clipping and workflow
standardization). But at the very least choose an RGB archive and
editing space which is the same as everyone else in the workflow.
That's the importance of the ECI guidelines (the English
notwithstanding -:)).
As far as the accuracy of the monitor profile is concerned I'm not
quite sure what you mean, viz. accurate relative to what?
By definition a profile has to interpolate colors and so is never
absolutely accurate.
Applications out there screw up the back transform to the monitor so
the profile may be accurate and the profile chain broken, and so on.
A simple way of checking the monitor profile was posted a long time
ago for LOGO ColorLab and also applies to the current MeasureTool.
Save the base measurement set for each profile and use the Compare
function to check for device drift in the default sweetspot in the
centre of the monitor. And create measurement sets for the corners if
you're very exacting.
--
Henrik Holmegaard
TechWrite, Denmark