RE: ECI 2002V or 2002R?
RE: ECI 2002V or 2002R?
- Subject: RE: ECI 2002V or 2002R?
- From: "Darrian Young" <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 00:52:54 +0200
Henrik Holmegaard wrote:
>
It was muddled (maybe this is, too). I was trying to say that asking
>
why standards-based test charts are a good thing ties in with asking
>
why standards-based colorimetric proofing and printing conditions are a
>
good thing.
Ah, not muddled at all, yes that's true.
>
Why have e.g. advertising agencies pressed for a default CMYK color
>
space in the past? When images were captured to CMYK on closed systems
>
which could not share color space definitions, it was useful to look to
>
a space common to many systems. So SWOP arose as a proofing standard
>
the workflow would target.
Please send some of these advetising agencies over here! IMHE (In My Humble
Experience), ad agencies and designers are the most difficult to get into
color management. Maybe it is the faith that somewhere down the line
someone else will be responsible for fixing any problems with color, 8
Pantone files, etc. might have something to do with it.
>
The modular ICC framework allows images to be captured and
>
illustrations to be created in RGB before the choice of printing
>
condition(s) is made, but the increased flexibility still leaves a use
>
for upstream defaults before the choice of printing condition(s) is
>
made downstream.
You're right. There is definintely a need for some sort of general proof
when the exact printing conditions are not known, or it is not practical to
prepare a job for certain conditions (Ej. an ad which will go several
different printing plants.) The problem is that most do not make the
distinction, like you do, between these cases and other cases when one does
know the conditions, and there seems to be a general mixup between two quite
different ideas. One talks about how each device is different, needs it own
particular profile to reproduce color correctly, etc., etc., (everyone knows
this whole story here I think) and then in the same breath mentions that
there should be this standard color which everyone should adhere to and if
you separate using this profile, then magically, it will come out well on
your press. In my opinion it is simply redressing the old cmyk color table
in a new ICC jacket, which the simple extension .icc somehow validates.
Maybe someone from IFRA would like to jump in here - I don't understand, for
example, the Quiz idea which has a number of newspapers print targets and
then these targets are averaged for this one magical newspaper profile which
everyone should use. Wasn't the big step for each to have his own
particular profile due to different paper, inks, environmental conditions,
etc. the goal? I would like to see the difference between using this
averaged profile compared to, for example, one of the general newspaper
profiles which come on the Linocolor CD.
>
If standards-based test charts are tied in with standards-based
>
proofing and printing, and if there are limitations in how charts work,
>
then it's nice to have this addressed.
I would even go a step further and change "nice" to "necessary" - maybe even
"morally imperative". ;-)
Regards.
Darrian Young
MGV
_______________________________________________
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.