Re: Remote proofing
Re: Remote proofing
- Subject: Re: Remote proofing
- From: Henrik Holmegaard <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:11:10 +0100
bruce fraser <email@hidden> writes:
>The people I'm talking to are the ones who can tell the difference
between
>a pink screen shot and a gray one,
Since I flipped this one on the table, first an analysis and then a
note.
There were as far as I recall seven teams involved in the overall
project for GX color, and between them they crystallized two approaches.
One position was that a matrix solution works as well for a monitor as
for a printing process. This position did not make it into the ICC
Specification.
The solution adopted for ColorSync 2.0 through the sessions at FOGRA
was that LUTs were required for printing processes and optional for
monitors.
In ColorThink 2.0 it is possible to see if a profile for a given
printing process corrects correctly. It may or it may not, that's an
empirical issue.
Assuming the profile corrects correctly, it does not follow that the
printing process will run correctly. It may or it may not, that's an
empirical issue.
There are common safeguards one can take against variations in the
delivery of ink through a press run.
Photoshop and ProfileMaker have always favoured GCR as the safeguard
against ink variation. Printopen has always favoured UCR.
The time is long past when GCR caused desaturation, as the SWOP 2001
specification warns. That was in first generation algorithms around
1970.
As the Under Color Removal versus Gray Component Replacement discussion
is high politics, I have said more than enough already.
The next question is not technical but legal. This thread has the title
Remote Proofing because it explores the concept of PDF-based
colorimetric contract proofing.
The press manager has the legal responsibility to see to it that the
printing process is graybalanced, because if the graybalance has gone
south so has the printing.
Therefore, the concept of a contract proof breaks down unless it is
clear who is responsible for the ink limit, the black replacement and
the gamut mapping.
These are the three parameters one can set in most any decent current
print profiling application. This has nothing to do with Printopen or
ProfileMaker.
If the position is not to support multiple destination spaces as first
stated (which would turn the PS and ICC CMS on their head), but as now
restated to support variable black generation on the fly in the
application software, then this has legal implications for the concept
of a contract proof which need to be explored and either buried,
modified or institutionalized. The advantage of open standards
colorimetric contract proofing is that the proprietary proofing systems
can be replaced with an inkjet, a PDF/X-3 enabled proofing RIP and a
spectrophotometer. For the image designer and page designer this is a
huge benefit, but only if it is recognized by _all_ that publishing is
as much about people management as about color management and text
management. Let's see if there is some discussion over here first.
Thanks,
Henrik
_______________________________________________
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.