RE: ECI 2002V or 2002R?
RE: ECI 2002V or 2002R?
- Subject: RE: ECI 2002V or 2002R?
- From: Henrik Holmegaard <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:52:31 +0200
"Darrian Young" <email@hidden> wrote:
>my Colorsync translator just crashed with this post. ;-)
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. David McDowell of Kodak has pointed out that as per the
latest SWOP specification, unless the TR001 data is used the result
cannot be called a SWOP proof. And the TR001 data is based on a
standard IT8.7-3 test chart. ISO 12647-2 is a printing standard and
through the FOGRA Media Strip CMYK also a proofing standard. Whether
FOGRA data or custom data is used, a standard test chart is needed.
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.
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.
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. The IT8.7-3 chart has been
criticized for ineffecient perceptual spacing. The ECI2002 uses better
spacing. But whether the spacing is more perceptual or more
mathematically systematic, the physical layout of the patches on the
chart may be scrambled e.g. to help average out ink zone differences.
Targetting a SWOP proofer or targetting a SWOP TR001 ICC profile, which
way to go? One view has been that a document may target a SWOP proofer
as workflow fallback, or a TR001 ICC profile. Another view has been
that a document may target an ISO space larger than SWOP as workflow
fallback. In either case the concept of verifying proofs
colorimetrically with the FOGRA Media Wedge CMYK using an instrument
and instrument software is not widely accepted at this point. Maybe
this will change, though it's not hard to get into trouble advocating
it.
_______________________________________________
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.