Comment on profiling targets
Comment on profiling targets
- Subject: Comment on profiling targets
- From: Terry Wyse <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:33:45 -0500
Hello all,
Just completed a job involving the KPG/Imation RIP driving an Epson
10600/Ultrachrome and have added to my "database" of profiling target
knowledge.
As is my norm, after doing the baselin and setting total ink limit, I
printed the IT8.7/3 and measured it with my iCColor. Proof looked good
except for shadows a little too open and a loss of .5-1% in the highlight
compared to a Digital Matchprint (Presstek HPD) and a press sheet, both of
which I profiled for this job. As result, I printed and measured the ECI2002
and TC3.5 targets, both formatted for the iCColor.
What do you think I found? BOTH the ECI2002 and IT8.7/3 targets showed the
too-open shadows and loss of highlight dot. The profile/proof using the
TC3.5 target reproduced BOTH the shadow and highlight detail EXACTLY as the
Digital Matchprint proof and press sheet showed. For the record, the
source/reference profiles were measured from an IT8.7/3 target.
I'd like to hear other's comments on this but in nearly every case where
I've had the time/opportunity to try different profile targets, either the
IT8.7/3 or the TC3.5 targets "win" for accurate reproduction of
highlight/shadow and smoothness (lack of posterization). And 9 out of 10
times, the TC3.5 target looks either visibly better or at least no worse
than the targets with the higher patch counts. The ECI2002 target on the
other hand produces consistently WORSE results for me as compared to the two
other targets.
Comments?
Cheers,
Terry Wyse
--
__________________________________
WyseConsul
Color Management Consulting
v 704.843.0858
e email@hidden
__________________________________
_______________________________________________
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.