Re: Adobe Acrobat versions
Re: Adobe Acrobat versions
- Subject: Re: Adobe Acrobat versions
- From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:26:34 -0500
Danny,
> I made a small test placing identical TIF images, one with
> an embedded Adobe (1998) profile, and the second one
> without a profile, in a Word doc. The two images were
> encoded in Adobe (1998) RGB.(test done in Windows)
OK.
> The image with the profile got converted to sRGB once
> placed in Word, the other obviously stayed the same.
Where did you find the details of the color conversions? Are there some
obvious color management options I missed in Word? And you say you're on a
PC. Hmmuh.
> When
> transformed in a pdf with Color Mgmt options "ON",
Through what chain of events, Danny? Print to Acrobat PDF? I suppose you do
have the PDF Writer plug-in installed on you PC.
> the
> attached profile for both images is sRGB.(this was the
> defaut working space defined in Distiller).
So the Destination profile was whathever specified in Distiller? Did you
notice whether Distiller allowed conversions to spaces other than RGB?
> With the same file, I then assigned Adobe (1998) as the
> working space and now everything is managed as being Adobe
> (1998).
OK. If I'm not mistaking, the assignement you refer to is through Acrobat
Pro Preferences. Further, I believe these Preferences are not stored with
the PDF itself. So, the minute this PDF is opened in another environment
there is no telling in whose (competent or incompetent) hands it will fall
into? Could you force AdobeRGB onto the PDF like store it in the file
itself?
> The first image, the one which has an Adobe
> profile, is now too saturated (not surprising since it was
> twice converted),
Don't you find it off that the colors are now off? I'm sure you could open
up some color image in Photoshop, convert it from back and forth from sRGB
to AdobeRGB a couple of time and you wouldn't still end up with "too
saturated" as a result?
> and the second one, which had no profile
> but which was also based on Adobe (1998) RGB data, is now
> properly shown (which proves that Word can output pdf in
> another space, with help from Distiller).
Right. I don't think MS has endowed Word with much CMS smarts. Maybe
Longhorn? But that's another story.
> My partial conclusion (Note: I may have used different
> version than the ones you had when you made your tests):
> Word + Distiller support other color spaces as long as you
So, someone with MS Word and a full version of Acrobat, the Pro version,
*can* reasonably well manage RGB colors between Word and the world PDF?
> do not mix spaces and you do not mix tagged and untagged
> images.
Usual caveats.
> As you said, Word treats everything as sRGB
I thought I read that up somewhere? It probably has nothing to do with the
fact that the sRGB standard was co-developped by MS and HP.
> (even
> transforming files when they have a profile).
Far from ideal. But if it works? But your results show that one has to be
careful.
> It is up to
> Distiller to place things in the right perspective. (more
> analysis required here as there are many options to get to
> the same results)
Right.
> As for CMYK separation, you mentioned PitStop could do it.
Yes. PitStop and a few other PDF plug-ins too.
> Are there other ways to do that (Acrobat 7 ?) ?
I think Acrobat 7 will be a big relief.
> Is it required to go CMYK if you go from PDF to DocuColor?
Either you do it or the RIP inside the DocuColor does it or Acrobat on its
way to the RIP does it. There are many intervening steps on the way to the
toner. If you do it then you must have an ICC profile of the DocuColor.
BTW, have you finished that excellent section on your site about the Munsell
ColorChecker chart?
> Danny
Regards,
Roger Breton | Laval, Canada | email@hidden
http://pages.infinit.net/graxx
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden