Re: ProfileMaker and UV (again)
Re: ProfileMaker and UV (again)
- Subject: Re: ProfileMaker and UV (again)
- From: Steve Upton <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:40:15 -0800
At 10:46 AM -0700 3/4/03, Gary Smith wrote:
>
Hi.
>
>
I am going to be making both press profiles and inkjet profiles with
>
a DTP41 UV. I am considering ProfileMaker and Monaco Profiler. I saw
>
the thread from a few days ago discussing ProfileMaker and UV, but it
>
wasn't conclusive to me as to whether the UV filter in the device
>
will have a negative impact on the quality of the profiles created.
>
Three questions:
>
1. Should I have the UV filter removed?
probably not worth it. It is typically "safer" to have it rather than not have it.
>
2. Can the end user remove it?
no
>
3. Are there similar issues with Monaco Profiler?
yes, I believe so. Although in my experience Monaco behaves a little differently in regards to UV brighteners....
>
>
I hope this next question doesn't open a can of worms, but for the
>
extra expense does Monaco Profiler make better profiles than
>
ProfileMaker or is the extra expense mostly for the D-Cam feature?
Actually Monaco has just changed the pricing so that their Profiler product is split into a version without the n-color and digital camera modules and one with. This puts the pricing (for both) in the same range as the similar product mixes from GretagMacbeth
Regards,
Steve
________________________________________________________________________
o Steve Upton CHROMiX www.chromix.com
o (hueman) 866.CHROMiX
o email@hidden 206.985.6837
o ColorGear ColorThink ColorValet ColorSmarts ProfileCentral
________________________________________________________________________
--
_______________________________________________
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.