Re: Fingerprinting v Profiling (was Profile to standards or press?)
Re: Fingerprinting v Profiling (was Profile to standards or press?)
- Subject: Re: Fingerprinting v Profiling (was Profile to standards or press?)
- From: Roberto Michelena <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 11:36:55 -0500
This mixup is just the result of people of different backgrounds converging
into a relatively new technology.
"Fingerprinting" is a pre-ICC concept which basically involves measuring dot
gain, print contrast, densities, and a lot of mechanical characteristics of
press functioning. So basically a press characterization, in older fashion.
It does not per se imply tuning of those values (what we now call
linearization or calibration), but if in the process of fingerprinting
values are found to be off target, of course a correction is due.
Kodak had a very complete "press fingerprinting" service, out of their
Rochester facilities, with lots of graphs and plots of everything mechanical
and colorimetric, gray balance, print contrast, etc.
We 'digital' people think in terms of color patches, but the press is still
a mechanical beast with knobs and rollers that need to be kept under
control, not just measured.
So from my point of view, "fingerprinting" is related to all that pressroom
part of the equation, while "color characterization" or "profiling" is our
digital part.
And yes, the "fingerprinting" term has always at some point been borrowed by
more than one color proofing manufacturer to either put some twist into
their marketing or to differentiate a truly different way of profiling.
Best regards,
-- Roberto Michelena
EOS S.A.
Lima, Peru
_______________________________________________
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.