RE: The MESS at the PRESS campaign
RE: The MESS at the PRESS campaign
- Subject: RE: The MESS at the PRESS campaign
- From: "Darrian A. Young" <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 16:37:31 +0200
- Organization: Color & Image Consulting
Hello,
As the amount of verbiage regarding this thread has surpassed my
capacity for retention, I would like to answer a few things more
generally.
Henrik, my "non-technical" post was a response to an originally
non-technical assertion. Here is the technical answer to part 1:
XYZ: 0.8678284, 0.8974304, 0.7806854
Lab: 95,89, 0,45, -3,43 to 1234
LCH: 95.89, 3.46, 277.520 and 456
Yxy: 0.9, 0.34, 0.35 with 789
Luv: 95.89, 0.21, 0.48 arriving at...
52000K
Now THAT is a sound argument.
Part two and three:
There is no reason to involve either the rest of the workflow or PDF/X-3
into the discussion of the simulation to printer transform. They are
completely unrelated issues. As I Do (and not talk about) PDF/X-3 color
managed workflows, with proprietary proofing, I know this as a fact. If
the whole workflow is ICC all the way until the proofer, and then the
final transform from the simulation color space to the proofer color
space is not ICC, that does not have anything to do with open standards,
late transforms, or anything else. You know perfectly well that GMG
completes the Altona test form perfectly - and as for color, that is
obvious.
Regarding Bill Whitfield's concerns - please do not interpret my message
as some sort of anti-ICC campaign - I do a lot of work with ICC
solutions. Regarding proofing, I wouldn't say there is a movement
away, the proprietary solutions have always been there, and have also
been the benchmark which the improvements to the ICC-based solutions are
measured against. What is happening, perhaps, is 1. the prices are
coming down for these solutions, and so not only the very high-end can
afford them, and 2. there is perhaps more awareness. ICC proofing
solutions are getting better, but the main argument I have seen until
now has been 1. price, 2. price, and finally followed by price. Of
course someone will chime in here and say they went to ICC proofing to
increase quality, but hey, anyone can say anything one wants, no? I
don't see the importance from the user's perspective (unless you simply
are interested in these things) about what is happening under the hood
in the proofing system you choose, rather I would look at the results,
adaptability into the workflow, stability of the system, repeatability
of the proof, etc. to decide on my proofing system.
Regarding Steve Upton's concerns, some are answered in the above, but
there are a couple of things I would like to include. As you say, a
device line does not go against the ICC - to name a few, you can create
links with the following ICC tools - your (great application)
Colorthink, Link - o Later, GretagMacbeth's Profile Editor, Monaco; use
them in iQueue. As you say, you can tweak an ICC profile to get a
decent proof, but there are some issues here. The first is that the
degree of control you have with current editing tools are pretty weak in
my opinion. Secondly why spend so much time playing around with the
profile to get results which are arguably not quite as good as a system
which can achieve them in a much simpler and more efficient way (I guess
maybe if you are getting paid by the hour). Finally, the openness of
the ICC profiles being interchanged, etc. in this type of configuration
is not really true - if you tweak the SWOP to Epson transform to get the
result you are looking for, yes you can say this is an open environment,
but it really is not. This profile arrangement is now closed to this
particular configuration. It is good for CMYK files which come in from
SWOP and are going to be proofed on THIS printer. You cannot now take
your open standards tweaked profile and use it with another printer, or
softproof with it, etc.
Finally, I really don't understand the confusion regarding much of the
discussion in the first place. I see two ICC configurations for the
proofer - one (and I think the most common) is to set a simulation
profile such as the press, Waterproof, SWOP, etc. to take the incoming
CMYK data and convert to the printing device to print. There is no
difference here with regards to the proprietary or ICC device-link in
this respect. You will see what those particular incoming CMYK values
will give you on the press. The second possible configuration is to
have the system respect embedded profiles, and so each proof can be a
different CMYK transform. Might be nice for some sort of open, late
conversion workflow - but if you are going to give the printer
differently separated proofs to print - have fun.
Regards.
Darrian A. Young
Color & Image Consulting, S.L.
C/ Finello, 41-5B
12530 Burriana (Castellsn)
Spain
Tel/Fax: +34 964 835 835
Msvil: +34 618 876 231
_______________________________________________
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.