RE: some thoughts on CIELAB was Dry Time for UltraChrome inks/Calibration
RE: some thoughts on CIELAB was Dry Time for UltraChrome inks/Calibration
- Subject: RE: some thoughts on CIELAB was Dry Time for UltraChrome inks/Calibration
- From: "Darrian Young" <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 09:30:44 +0100
Tom Lianza wrote:
<...
I told him that I was a little suprised about the
selection of Lab especially for hardcopy profiling. None of the supporting
work of the space supported this use, PARTICULARLY with respect to inter
media comparisons at mismatched luminances.
...
Many knowledgable people raised objections to utilizing that space but there
was no mechanism to vote your concerns because the intial club was closed to
all but the original founding companies. When it finally opened up, the cost
of entry was a real barrier for many small companies. It was also obvious to
me that it had been essentially hijacked by a ten pound guerilla in the
printing sector who had already embraced and marketed the CIELAB political
mess.
What I find interesting and often frustrating is how "embedded" this
thinking has become in the ICC community. A generation of "experts" have
grown up that have basically accepted and promoted the dogma that was forced
into the process for reasons that were more political and economic than
technical.>
Very interesting post. Unfortunately, for those of us who are not in either
development, or in industry influencing positions, it simply reafirms that
we will have to continue the daily battle to make things work with what is
available. I especially like what you mention about dogma. As we do not
recommend ICC based proofing solutions given the limitations, we often have
to do battle with fervent believers. For getting consistent color on
different devices, however, ICC is the best solution I know of at present.
Dogma is everywhere, however - if you are involved in the PDF world, you
will have seen it there as well I am sure. Knowing the limitations, faults,
and political considerations in current technology much better than I do,
does a suspicious warning light up for you as well when you hear such things
as "certified", etc.? Decisions made on economic and political
considerations over technical considerations are "daily bread" in all walks
of life. I do not think we are technically as dependent upon petroleum as
we are politically and economically. Fortunately for those of us who are
working in this field, the ten pound gorillas are less lethal.
<The densitometer is very useful because it makes a measurement that better
relates to the machine dependencies than a spectro. It costs less so they
can be deployed in greater numbers than spectros.>
Can you explain this? Given that a spectro can be used for both density as
well as color measurements, I don't follow. Also how do relate this to Mr.
Myers' post regarding the fact that densitometers were meant for different
inks and substrates than what is found in the inkjet market?
<It was suggested that one might want to include linearization information
in the profile so that the
profile could be checked with a minimum number of measurements. Had the
historical elements been stored in the profile, we could easily see if the
process has drifted. . The politics of the time dictated that everyone would
soon own a spectro so why bother putting the quality control features in the
system?>
I do not disagree with the politics here. If this meant, as it appears to
be the case that the prices in Spectros would come down to be affordable, so
that with 1 device one can both calibrate as well as profile, and use more
than just density readings to evaluate and optimize the system, I don't see
it as negative.
The lack of historical elements in the profile is yet another limitation of
ICC based proofing solutions - no guarantee of proof repeatability.
<We have a framework of a system that works in many cases. It certainly
hasn't met the hype and the implementation issues are very hard on the
hardware guys. The pace of change is glacial and I would argue that the
whole process was compromised from day one. As I read many of the posts
on this group, we see that all is not a bed of roses in the ICC world. It's
great that we have folks like Robin, Graeme, and Bruce L. who point us in
the directions of the theory and application of color science. They are
voices of experience with good theoretical backgrounds.>
No, unfortunately all is not a bed of roses. What I see as important is to
find the line - demonstrate the higher efficiency as well as the reduction
in cost and waste that one achieves with an ICC color management solution,
while at the same time not promise the utopia. Damage has been caused
equally, I think, just as much by those who say that automatically
everything works perfectly and that you get the exact same color everywhere,
as by those who only find the limitations, and everything short of
perfection means that it doesn't work. I second the sentiment that it is
great that people like Mr. Myers, Mr. Gill, and Mr. Lindbloom participate
with color science theory and application - the information is always
interesting and the background very helpful. I would not underestimate the
value of all of the other participants on this list whose practical
experience has saved hours and days of time. The reason that in the
programming world there is an interaction between programmers and
integrators, users, etc. is that the most positive results come from the
coupling of theory with application.
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.