Re: ImagePrint
Re: ImagePrint
- Subject: Re: ImagePrint
- From: "Cris Daniels" <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 22:33:01 -0400
>
I don't know if you do production work or fine art (the workflows for each
are significantly different). I don't like to do "blind" conversions. I want
to see what the image is going to look like long before I'm going to convert
it for print but in any number of print soft proofs.<
I know exactly where you are coming from but in reality you cannot simply soft
proof images and continue to tweak the hell out of them in Photoshop so that
they look good on the screen and then hope that they print nicely. As an
example, if I load the sample images from the ImagePrint CD, say the sample
portrait. If I have Epson Luster paper profile, ImagePrint displays the file
in the correct colorspace, with the correct monitor profile, and with an
output profile applied(we get a softproof on the screen). The file is
perfectly fine, needs NO adjustment, if all the profiles are built well they
are completely optimized for the dynamic range and gamut of the paper and ink
combo. When I choose Epson Velvet with Matte black, that inkset has a pure
black L value of around 18, Luster with Photo Black on the 2200 is around 9-10
for pure black. It makes perfect sense that the identical file will look
different when softproofing thru different output profiles, such is life, and
tweaking the file to print differently is simply a hack. Its not like you can
make the printer print a visibly larger gamut wacking it with curves while
softproofing, and you sure can't help the contrast, in fact you can easily
invite things like posterization that may not be immediately noticable on the
screen. A good profile will print with the right contrast, and trying to tweak
washed-out softproofs for fine art paper will put you in the nuthouse. These
types of problems show up on larger prints very well, and larger prints is my
predominant work. If you have the image perfectly finished in Photoshop, and
have a great profile for your output device, yet you don't like the output,
you need to switch medias because some medias simply stink (aka Epson Double
Weight Matte). I have slightly less experience with production environments,
but the ones I do work with closely want virtually nothing to do with
softproofing and screwing with every image that they publish, and the event
photographers I work with want absolutely nothing to do with softproofing and
tweaking hundreds of files in a day.
<Before the file undergoes the conversion, I can see this, and I can edit to
some degree for this and I can decide which rendering intent is going to do
the best conversion for the image at hand. I'm going to do it in Photoshop.<
I personally find that the softproof is useful for deciding whether rel col or
perceptual is a more appropriate rendering intent because you can zoom in with
greater detail than you can in most RIPs to see if you are getting any
clipping. I'd never let Photoshop do conversions for files I output using
ImagePrint.
>
II can't speak for John but because they don't use Colorsync, ICM, or
Photoshop
>
Adobe/CMM, the difference is due to the fundamental way that they treat
>
display profiles>
<if it doesn't match Photoshop, something's wrong<
They argue that Photoshop isn't entirely accurate, that would be best left for
John to explain as I'm not going to speak on his behalf.
Cris Daniels
_______________________________________________
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.