Re: Photoshop Euro v2 profile & troubles
Re: Photoshop Euro v2 profile & troubles
- Subject: Re: Photoshop Euro v2 profile & troubles
- From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 12:13:16 -0700
on 12/4/03 11:35 AM, Martin Orpen wrote:
>
I'm telling you what results we get here on paper and on press.
I'm not arguing that you're not getting the results you want. I'm simply
saying that you're using profiles that are canned based on a certain
condition which when met should work just fine. That's been my experience
with good profiles (which I believe Thomas Knoll's profiles are).
At a CMS Shoot out a few years ago (for Color Production day), Bruce Fraser,
Chris Murphy, Steve Upton and I tested a decent number of profile packages.
Chris handled the CMYK side and of all the packages, the BEST repro we got
was using the SWOPv2 profile from Photoshop! But I've also produced LOTS of
custom profiles to a number of presses and contract proofs and I usually run
a test with the custom AND v2 profile and I've seen situations where the
results from it were not good at all!
What does this tell me? That when a device that truly mimics the TR001
behavior is found and one uses the v2 profile, you can get truly excellent
results. Send the same data through the same profile to a different device
that isn't anything like the fingerprint the profile believes we should have
and you get anything from OK to butt ugly output. That's the risk you always
take with a canned profile! That doesn't invalidate the Seybold results or
say that Knoll's profile is at fault.
>
I open Euroscale v2 and ISOcoatedsb in PrintOpen and see that the data
>
points make the same patterns but that the Euroscale v2 profile is shifted
>
to cyan.
That tells me that the two are simply not in sync but that doesn't mean that
either profile will be correct for any particular printing condition. Could
the data that Thomas used to build this profile NOT be representative of the
device he profiled? I think not. Could the data used to build this profile
not be representative of some (few? most?) press conditions? Likely. That's
always a risk when using canned profiles.
>
You're the colour management expert, I'm a repro guy - you should be telling
>
me why the profiles that are based on the same data look different?
I don't know that the data is based on the same data.
>
I'm curious - have you ever used the Euroscale profiles?
No. I have as yet never run into a situation in this country I reside where
I'd use it. In fact expect for testing, I've never used the SWOP v2 profile
since I have the ability to build my own CMYK profiles (for press or
contract proof) and that's always the route I take since I can't assume that
any canned profile actually fingerprints the device. I wish I could. I wish
everyone who says they print to SWOP really did. Then I'd be able to use the
canned profile since the profile and the condition would be in sync. I might
still roll my own since I like to control such things as GCR for specific
image content. And I really DO wish I could alter existing profiles inside
of Photoshop but I can't so I have to move onto different tools to do so.
Is it impossible for the Knoll profile to simply be bad? I guess not. But
some device upon which it was based most likely produced really good color
from the profile because in this situation the profile was a custom rather
than a canned profile.
So my point is this. Adobe supplies profiles. They are canned profiles which
can work really, really well or really poorly. The profile isn't any
different in each situation but the process certainly is. Does that mean
Adobe should not supply profiles?
_______________________________________________
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.