Re: ImagePrint
Re: ImagePrint
- Subject: Re: ImagePrint
- From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 07:10:29 -0700
on 1/22/03 7:33 PM, Cris Daniels wrote:
>
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.
True but I do want to tweak as much as the technology will let me.
>
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.
I don't agree unless my goal is to try and make the two match and some
profile editing is likely in order. Even then, they are not going to match.
But at least I can see how disappointing it will all be without wasting any
media and I can try and make allowances as much as possible. It's not a
perfect world but with some preview of future events, we can take some
measures.
>
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.
You're making a big assumption that profiles somehow know something about
the images they are converting. They don't.
>
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).
If I'm printing on Matt paper and I want a higher dmax or more saturated
appearing output, yes, I could switch to Luster. But that's not always an
option. Sometimes the image has to be printed on Matt. You'll never get that
print to look like it's printed on luster I agree. But you can get closer
than simply saying the profile is what that profile is, convert and print.
This workflow if fine if the final print isn't that demanding but there are
tools at your disposal that can improve what you get to some degree.
>
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.
John's a great guy and very knowledgeable but I think he's dreaming here.
And all the other soft proof's in ICC savvy applications are equally wrong?
I don't buy it. I can think off hand of half a dozen applications that
preview the same file virtually identically (+/- a few percentage) just like
Photoshop. IP is way off.
Andrew Rodney
_______________________________________________
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.