Re: Imageprint Answers
Re: Imageprint Answers
- Subject: Re: Imageprint Answers
- From: bruce fraser <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 20:33:36 -0800
At 9:56 PM -0500 1/22/03, DuWayne Rocus wrote:
When the color engine is disabled, Image print is still dependent the media
profile for a default color transformation. If you disable RGB or CMYK
inputs the media profile must match the kind of target you are printing.You
can't profile CMYK with the tabs set to none if there is an rgb media
profile selected.(I haven't check OSX version, but its probably the same)
The preview and print will be trashed. If you disable only one input profile
who knows what combinations will do.
My experience, which matches Andrew's, would indicate otherwise.
Changing media profiles produced target prints that are as close to
identical as the noise level of the measurement technology (measured
with 5 samples per patch on a Spectroscan) allows me to determine. If
the conversion to CcMmYKk were truly dependent on the media profile,
that wouldn't be the case.
This makes the assumption that the apps are doing it correctly and
Imageprint is not. The reason I say that is because Imageprint never uses a
perceptual table from any ICC profile. It gets data from relative
colorimetric and rebuilds the perceptual table because the guys at Colorbyte
believe that the perceptual table are flawed in all profiles. Well if this
is true than Photoshop set to perceptual will have a wrong preview. I get
matches from my screen to Photoshop & prints -- but I'm mostly PC. Even
though I have 5 Macs.
That's seriously flaky logic, starting with your assumption that
Andrew has Photoshop set to perceptual rendering, going through your
assumption that Photoshop can't understand the perceptual rendering
in IP, and winding up with your assumption that Andrew is assuming
that the apps do it correctly. I know that Andrew isn't big on
assumptions, and in this business I don't assume anything. I test,
measure, verify.
Incidentally, Thomas Knoll shares the view that perceptual rendering
is flawed in all profiles, which is why the default rendering intent
in Photoshop is Relative Colorimetric + Black Point Compensation. I
tend to agree, and prefer to do my gamut mapping manually on an
image-by-image basis rather than using a one-size-fits-all algorithm
that attempts to be equally inappropriate for all images. IPs
perceptual rendering is quite good on some images, but one of the
major advantages of soft-proofing is that it lets YOU decide the
trade-offs when you optimize an image for a particular medium.
I wouldn't do this if I were working on a catalog of plumbing parts,
but for fine art, I find soft-proofing in Photoshop both accurate and
indispensible.
Bruce
--
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.