ProfileMaker_ImagePrint_Epson9600
ProfileMaker_ImagePrint_Epson9600
- Subject: ProfileMaker_ImagePrint_Epson9600
- From: Rich Apollo <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:34:58 -0600
Kevin,
I use the TC3.5 myself. I have not found, with ProfileMaker, that more
patches to measure = "better" profiles. Gretag's math seems to have an
optimum number of patches. In doing press profiling I can throw a
bunch of the TC3.5 targets up on the sheet to average them, and the
TC3.5 takes a lot less time to read. But, other heads on the list have
the minds to actually review the numbers, I won't argue the point with
them. I'll only say that it works pretty well for me - within my own
shop.
Some questions though:
Are you going out exclusively to web presses? What part of the SWOP
numbers are you attempting to match? You are attempting to profile the
print providers' proofers which insinuates that they have good proofer
to press match - is that so? Do you have the luxury of knowing where a
piece will be produced ahead of time?
Andrew, you stated to use absolute rendering - are you saying for all
proofing from that point forward? I haven't found anyone who didn't
take issue with the paper simulation and that requires proofing a
raster representation of the sheet. If you proof an EPS or PS or PDF
(vector) your paper simulation won't extend over the entire proof.
Rich Apollo
Priority Litho
314-344-1144
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.