Re: (thanks) Proofing/Display/Conversion in one Profile?
Re: (thanks) Proofing/Display/Conversion in one Profile?
- Subject: Re: (thanks) Proofing/Display/Conversion in one Profile?
- From: "Stephen Marsh" <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 01:05:13 +1100
Replies to Andrew and Jim:
Andrew Rodney writes in reply to my question on using a digiproofing profile
for separation:
>
You need a profile for each device ideally. The likelihood of two devices
>
behaving themselves to the point you can use the same profile is slim.
Thanks for your other comments and for this particular answer.
Conventional wisdom is to often separate to the proofing system. You can
profile traditional proofing and use the same profile for all purposes. With
CTP, the proofing system and press are not as similar as with traditional
proofing and press. I can see where I went wrong now.
Now that I ponder the replies - I can now see where I went wrong with my
So if one was going to tag such a file once it was converted to CMYK, which
is the best approach? Tagging with the correct separation profile which
accurately describes the separation (but not soft/hard proof output) or tag
with the proofing profile which does provide good soft/hard output (but does
not correctly describe the separation). Or do what most CMYK users do and
ignore tags, as the above exercise demonstrates.
Jim Rich replies to the same post on profiling for CTP:
>
Yes you can. But... I think a better question might be what do you want to
>
colour separate for a press or a prepress proof such as a Matchprint?
Thanks for the reply Jim, everything was set-up before my time - so I am
guessing on most of this. Since film and analogue proofs are history in this
workflow, I presumed that the profiles were done from our press conditions.
I fully agree with both yourself and Andrew on the issues with profiling a
press (I was not sure how things are done for CTP in the absence of regular
proofing in the workflow) and that profiling standard proofing for my
location would be the better idea (I just don't know what the profile
creator did, not that it really matters now).
Sincere thanks to both of you for taking time out of your busy schedules to
answer my post.
Stephen Marsh.