Re : Remote proofing
Re : Remote proofing
- Subject: Re : Remote proofing
- From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 07:39:52 -0500
>
It may be that one Perceptual approach does not please, but that is no
>
good reason to reject all Perceptual approaches. There are dumb and
>
there are smart line layout tables and there are dumb and there are
>
smart gamut mapping tables. There is a distinction between the baby and
>
the bathwater in a sane world.
For a lot of subject matter, perceptual rendering produces the best results,
no question. While for a lot of others, relative colorimetric simply works
better. You can look at the same image, on press, on the same sheet, side by
side, and with some images this is plain to see. But with some others,
you're hard pressed to tell the difference. Which makes me say that relcol
is not necessarily the best, all-around RI for any workflow, late or
early-binding. It's true that perceptual gamut mapping algorithms have
constantly improved with every iteration of PrintOpen, ProfileMakerPro, Fuji
ColourKit, Monaco and the likes. But I personnally got bitten a few times
with relcol that I look carefully, now, before jumping to relcol w/bpc. I
think the point with this whole remote proofing thread is that InDesign
color architecture gives us the choice of adopting whathever RGB workflow we
like. I know I take my pick and let host-based separations and flattening do
its magic!
Roger Breton | Laval, Canada | email@hidden
http://pages.infinit.net/graxx
_______________________________________________
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.