RE: What from to What
RE: What from to What
- Subject: RE: What from to What
- From: "michael shaffer" <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:57:36 -0330
Andrew writes ...
>
on 1/16/02 7:53 AM, michael shaffer at email@hidden wrote:
>
>
> If a user is still left with doubts,
>
> isn't there "intent" behind why one intent or
>
> another we can fall back on???
>
>
I don't think so. It's like people that ask for the "perfect"
>
(correct) settings for Unsharp Mask. It's so image dependant
>
(and in the case of USM, output and size dependant).
>
>
...
>
... I find that more times than not, a Relative Colorimetric
>
Intent is what I want after viewing the differences in
>
Photoshop 6. So based on that, if I had to force someone into
>
using one intent (you held a gun to our heads), I'd probably pick
>
Relative.
>
...
Relcol, I agree is the most accurate, and will most likely be my choice as
well. But being "in gamut accurate" also means it needs to clip "out of
gamut", and because what is sacrificed cannot be seen via soft-proof should
raise some doubts. Still, if we are talking about our final edits going to
print, then the proof will be in the pudding, and it is Relcol's color
accuracy which most times wins out.
I may have missed the original post (as if we are strictly speaking of our
RGB ending up on hardcopy), but our own intentions for why we converted and
what we intend to do after should also have some bearing. For example, I
choose to do some editing with highbits in a wide gamut space, and then,
because some tools are available only for 8bits, I will convert to a more
appropriate space. In this case, I do not want my editing headroom
disappearing because the rendering intent clipped my gamut. I generally opt
for 'perceptual' for this case, but also rely on enabling the conversion's
preview.
cheerios ... shAf :o)
Avalon Peninsula, Newfoundland