• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
BPC
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

BPC


  • Subject: BPC
  • From: "John Swift" <email@hidden>
  • Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 13:03:18 -0400

I am attempting to construct a table to correlate Lab values and print densities to enable me to better target files for different devices.

I am trying to determine the LAB values of the maximum shadow and minimum highlight points of these output spaces, and, am wondering about the usefulness of Black Point Compensation to that end. I have found it almost impossible to ascertain the maximum shadow and minimum highlight points of a device using soft proofing, or reading a file converted into the output space.

I would have expected that a conversion using colorimetric relative with black point compensation would show the real maximum shadow of the output device. Am I wrong about this? The conversion of L*0 (source) to the printer profile using relative with Black Point Compensation does produce higher values than the other three variables, ( relative without BPC and perceptive with and without BPC), which would tend to suggest that this is the real lab value for the minimum shadow. However when the patches are printed they confirm that the value for L*0 after converting with relative and BPC is actually lighter than maximum black.

The real example of this is as follows

A patch in RGB Source is L* 1 against L* 0

using Perceptive with and without BPC or relative without BPC, values read ( L*4 against L* 4) and the patch prints no line.

using relative with BPC the values read L*10 on L* 7, the patch prints a line, however the density of the tone that this conversion reads as (L*0=L*7) is lighter than the tone that the above conversion read as (L*0=L* 4) which really was maximum black.

Can I trust the tools Photoshop provides for accurate readings of post conversion Lab values? Is this simply a problem of the unreliability of lab values lower than 10 or is there something I am not understanding about black point compensation?

JSwift

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Premium: Up to 11 personalized e-mail addresses and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
_______________________________________________
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.


  • Prev by Date: Colorvision Profiler Plus, ColorSync and Gimp Drivers...Hopeless????
  • Next by Date: Re: Nikon LS8000 ED settings
  • Previous by thread: Colorvision Profiler Plus, ColorSync and Gimp Drivers...Hopeless????
  • Next by thread: Epson 10600/Rich Black
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread