Re: DTP41UV/T or DTP41/T - which to choose??
Re: DTP41UV/T or DTP41/T - which to choose??
- Subject: Re: DTP41UV/T or DTP41/T - which to choose??
- From: Roberto Michelena <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 00:58:28 -0500
This has been discussed many times before; if you search the archives,
you'll find some interesting posts. You'll find some people have switched
sides over time, from being pro-uvfilter to being against it. Some others
have always been against, some others always pro.
I believe the instrument should emulate the spectra of target viewing
conditions as much as possible. As this is not always feasible, an
instrument whose illuminant has a richer spectrum is preferable over one
with an incomplete one. Why? Because software might be able to get rid of
unwanted responses if done right (thus "filtering" the source), but it will
never be able to fill-in missing ones.
The problem with brighteners is essentially one of inadequate software, or
more precisely, inadequate math. There was also talk about some instruments
not being able to cope with reflectivity over 150% or more, that you might
get with fluorescence. I hope that's not the case with the newer ones.
But now that software has evolved, I believe you can get good profiles of
optically brightened papers, with a non-filtered instrument. For me there's
a world of difference between, for example, my old CompassProfile 2 (which
at the time was deemed one of the best) and the current PrintOpen, Monaco
Profiler or Gretag ProfileMaker.
Not that I'm satisfied with these either :) there's still quite more to
expect. But the UV filter I bought for the 'Lino, it's been a year since I
last used it...
Best regards,
-- Roberto Michelena
EOS S.A.
Lima, Peru
_______________________________________________
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.