Re: Macbeth gray vs. Kodak gray?
Re: Macbeth gray vs. Kodak gray?
- Subject: Re: Macbeth gray vs. Kodak gray?
- From: neil snape <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:55:01 +0100
on 19/02/2002 01:46, Brian-Sys Admin at email@hidden wrote:
>
>
My understanding has been that a 50% grey patch on a Macbeth color chart
>
was a given standard, it could be measured, it was scientific and if no one
>
could agree on anything else, at least they could agree what neutral
>
grey was. Then if everyone would calibrate to reproduce a neutral grey then
>
at least we were all playing in the same ballpark.
Grey is ultra important for lithography. Press balance, local contrast dot
gain, drying and ink trapping, etc, etc. Photography and photo reproduction
is about colour depth and contrast fidelity. Grey is one of the components
but far from a solution for the complete picture(excuse the pun). Questions
on how grey is reproduced on each printer/media combination are so specific
that they don't relate to the 'target grey'. One can pretty much
calibrate/linearise easily for a MacBeth or other grey but that doesn't say
anything about the rest of the grey balance or colour period.
>
At our roundtable meeting I was shown a Kodak target print and was told that
>
this was pretty much the portrait industry standard and that about 70% of the
>
portrait labs used this as their target.
It's true that many labs calibrate to certain charts. For closed loop
calibration, it works fine. It also will create so much waste, frustration
and loss of outside suppliers. As noted on this list before Kodak has some
very good people inside that know perfectly well ICC color management , yet
others who propagate the opposite.
However, the grey patch on the
>
target was about 15 points more red than a Macbeth patch. Their suggestion
>
seems to be that I should calibrate my monitor to match
No one on this list will agree to fudge a monitor to equal an unqualified
output.
>
Kodak's target print and make my printer reproduce this target. I am to
>
maintain my pictrography printer profile so it matches the target print.
You can choose to do this or completely change to a ICC Color Managed
workflow. If you calibrate and profile your monitor correctly , and profile
the output devices the screen should be very close, whether or not you
choose to print using CM.
>
They maintain their printer profile so it matches the target print. This way I
>
do not need their profile to soft proof in photoshop because the monitor
>
already matches both printers. I agree this is fine and dandy as long as I
>
stay within the loop. However, there will be times when I need a larger print
>
(my lab can only make a 20" print) or when I must provide a client with a
>
color corrected file that they intend on using for reproductions etc. Now I
>
am outside the loop. What standard am I now shooting for?
That's what ICC Colour Management is for. You're right that this is the
ultimate goal and desire for portable colour. ICC CM becomes the universal
language to learn. The other labs speak dialects that are similar but not
the same or even completely comprehensible.
>
I was under the impression that I should maintain all my hardware to produce
>
Macbeth 50% grey. Then I should maintain a profile for each outside lab, soft
>
proof the image in photoshop and all my prints match regardless of where they
>
are printed. Their position is that the lab should maintain the profile
>
because it may change periodically and as long as both our target prints
>
stayed the same this would keep me from chasing a moving target. The problem
>
again lies with what to do when using another lab that may have a different
>
target.
See above. At least if print photos of a MacBeth chart the grey will be
correct. Just kidding. If you're well calibrated and profiled you'll have
so much more than just the 50% grey to soft proof with.
>
They have a frontier printer for their
>
smaller prints which apparently uses profiles a little differently
According to others here , the Frontier uses an internal sRGB that is not
sRGB Color Space.
>
have to apply another profile which would then toast the file. AAAAAUUUGHH?
>
Am I nuts? This just isn't the way this is suppose to work is it?
Not for ICC CM, but for closed loop they screw up everything ass backwards
to arrive at the beginning.
>
Also, as long as I am starting from scratch, can anyone tell me what color
>
space I should work in. I have been using colormatch and my primary lab has
>
begun to use colormatch. However, they have a proshots set up and have just
>
been told that proshots does not recognize colormatch. Proshots has told them
>
that srgb is becoming the industry standard. The lab wants to use the same
>
colorspace throughout and think
That would be a question relative to your workflow. For serious capture of
color J. Holmes ektaspce covers film , as well as Don Hutchinson's Don , or
Best profile/color space. IF you inject these profiles into an uncalibrated
or characterised workflow , they'll not work at all.
>
they are about to change everything to srgb. This seems a little odd to
>
me. Should I use srgb?
Use sRGB for net jpg images. Use it for unknown incoming images from
consumer cameras, generic images, undefined source. Not for archiving nice
images though.
Neil Snape email@hidden
http://mapage.noos.fr/nsnape
_______________________________________________
colorsync-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.