Re: Of sudden fondness for paper white simulation -:)
Re: Of sudden fondness for paper white simulation -:)
- Subject: Re: Of sudden fondness for paper white simulation -:)
- From: neil snape <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 19:44:47 +0200
on 6/09/2001 19:19, Scott Olswold at email@hidden wrote:
>
Bruce wrote: "That would be nice. But it's just about impossible to get a
>
paper as bad as the stuff US trade mags are printed on that will even feed
>
through an inkjet..."
>
Isn't that why we try to profile on a stock that comes as close as possible
>
to our intended output? I've never had to do anything for magazine
>
content--and that paper is poor for anything but presswork--but when I can
>
get a stock sample from XPEDX or Hammermill, I generate my profile sample on
>
that paper. This way, your colors come out close, even if you're using
>
white-bright paper.
Behind the great practical info that Bruce Fraser offers is the vast
knowledge of the cycle that this would come back to. Better to say how it is
and real world application of what he knows than getting into the endless
loop of UV and optical brighteners, uv and visible spectrum fluorescence ,
limitations of the measuring devices, limitations of the targeted PCS that
we use today, the issues of brightness (l) matching, issues of white point
specification in the ICC format vs. the white point matching in the CMM
module, as well as odd or even grid point in the lut's and on and on.
So actually Bruce IS saying that by having a profile of the press simulating
with absolute should better resemble the press as you can't feed an
equivalent cheap paper through an inkjet.
I do a lot of high speed web press images and the problems I see in inkjet
proofing for this is indeed the paper in the inkjet. Even more difficult is
the 16 or 32 up's vary so much that often the only thing you can count on on
the press is the actual paper colour!
Neil Snape email@hidden
http://mapage.noos.fr/nsnape