Macbeth gray vs. Kodak gray? (: using the right working space)
Macbeth gray vs. Kodak gray? (: using the right working space)
- Subject: Macbeth gray vs. Kodak gray? (: using the right working space)
- From: email@hidden
- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 10:31:57 EST
Sandy & Brian & others,
I was going to reply only offlist until I saw all the response they were
getting.
It was one of those draining feelings that you too are getting the same
misleading information from your lab(s).
I'm not going to claim to be an expert here. Everytime I think I'm really
getting a handle on color management, it slaps me in the face and says, "No
you're not!". But, I'll give you my best understanding as briefly as I can
here. And, everyone else, if you can help me correct any of my
misunderstandings here, I greatly appreciate it. Thanks in advance.
Regarding colorspaces:
Colormatch is a great color space for printing presses.
sRGB (also referred to as shi..yRGB is best for web reproduction (as in
www...., not as in web offset press).
Adobe RGB has rather become the standard for continuous tone printing (ie
photo labs and dye sub printers)
No, you can not and must not calibrate your monitor to match the output of
one lab's output. First, they're asking you to calibrate that in a visual
fashion using your own eyes. The human eye can easily be fooled and it
changes more than their chemistry from day to day depending on how much sleep
you had, what you ate and drank in the last 24 hours, the environment you're
in, etc.
You must calibrate your monitor to know standards. We're all agreeing to use
the ICC standards for RG&B. The best way to do this is with a
software/hardware combination like ColorVision's monitor Spyder and OptiCal
or PhotoCal or another similar package. Let me know if you need any of these.
I have some that I can make you a great buy on right now. I'll tell you more
if you're interested.
Then you can output a known file to your output device(s), then create
profiles for those outputs with other software/hardware devices. Yeah, this
begins to get really expensive for equipment that you only need every 2 weeks
at most.
Once you have your file looking the way you want it in Photoshop 6 (I say 6
because it's different in previous versions and 7 is being announced this
weekend at PMA), you can soft proof it using View, Proof Setup, go to Custom
and find that profile for your output and see what it looks like. This is a
preview of what it will look like if directly output. Now, if they have their
profiles established to work with your ICC profiled system, you should get
back what you sent them. If they don't, it should look like the soft proof.
If their off in their profiling, who knows what you'll get. So, you are
supposed to be able to make any additional tweaks to the file to make it look
like you want it in the soft proof state. When you have it the way you want
and are ready to send it to the printer, you must convert the information by
going to Image/Mode/Convert to Profile and applying the profile for the
output. What a pain it is to have to re-tweak the file for each one. That's
what still confuses me. There's got to be an easier way.
Hope this helps. Let me know. I'm beginning to do seminars on this stuff and
it's driving me crazy to get up in front of a group still questioning if the
system will work all the time. We still need more standardization in our
industry for that to happen. That's the only excuse I have.
Best wishes and hope all is going well for you in this new year/millenium.
It's been a tough go so far.
Joe Butts
<A HREF="
http://www.joebutts.com/";>Joe Butts Photography</A>
_______________________________________________
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.