Re: perceptual vs. relcol
Re: perceptual vs. relcol
- Subject: Re: perceptual vs. relcol
- From: "Andre Schützenhofer" <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 19:50:47 +0100
the images generally look much more attractive with relcol.
Whats your experience ?
Does this have anything to do with the black generation you
chose when you build the profile ?
Normally perceptual is recommended as rendering default, but it makes sense
only if gamut mapping is nessecary. This happens when the destination is
significant smaller than the source, so gamut compression is needed and
justifies shifting of colors actually included in the source as well as in
the destination.
In general this comes together with a lower L value, lower saturated colors
and/or influence of the substrate.
If the destination is big enough to contain most colors of the source it is
perceived that clipping of some colors is not as disadvantegous than
shifting all colors in order to compress gamut. So relcol (with BPC) is more
appropriate if the destination is large enough, for example a profile of a
modern press able to print with high densities supporting good saturated
colors. But older machines can come to very good results as well, when run
right and carefully profiled.
Black generation settings are general, so there should be no difference in
generating black by choosing perceptual or relcolBPC. However, you will
notice that some programs will not reach the defined total ink limit by
choosing perceptual but rather choosing relcolBPC. This must not be a flaw,
but it is useful to know and calculate in by creating senseful settings.
I recommend using relcolBPC to destinations with a L of 10 or less,
otherwise losses of shadow details will stand out unpleasingly.
- Andre
_________________________________________________________________
Werden Sie Mitglied bei MSN Hotmail, dem grv_ten E-Mail-Service der Welt.
http://www.hotmail.com/de