Re: Remote proofing
Re: Remote proofing
- Subject: Re: Remote proofing
- From: bruce fraser <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 13:43:58 -0800
At 4:20 PM -0500 3/11/04, email@hidden wrote:
>
The main reason such logic has always been rejected, is that the
>
idea of a given value printing differently in differing
>
circumstances does not line up with many users idea of what color
>
management is supposed to provide.
I always thought that a given value printing differently in differing
circumstances is the problem color management attempts to solve.
but anyway, the example you offer depends on how the doc was built.
And it still doesn't give me a rationale for choosing one or other
rendering intent when the output process is unknown.
I have a lot of images that will separate beautifully to sheetfed
using relcol, but they'll be pretty damn ugly using relcol on
newsprint. So I'm left with the choice of producing mediocre output
on all processes, or good output on some and crappy output on others.
I'm open to any suggestions as to how to solve this problem, but I'm
not prepared to stick my fingers in my ears and say lalalalala loudly
whenever anyone raises it as a real argument against late-binding
workflows.
There's also the question of how to handle sharpening in a
late-binding workflow. The sharpening that works nicely for a 175-lpi
halftone won't work all that well on newsprint. Hell, the image
resolution that will work well for a 175-lpi halftone is massive
overkill for newsprint.
Am I really the only person who thinks that these are real issues?
Does everyone else communicate with their clients in Braille?
--
email@hidden
_______________________________________________
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.