Re: ICC Profiling Software Review
Re: ICC Profiling Software Review
- Subject: Re: ICC Profiling Software Review
- From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 09:47:53 -0700
On 2/2/05 9:33 AM, "Stéphane Beaudry" wrote:
> Mr. Rodney's feedback at that time was quite different from what he's
> writing now.
No, not from my perspective. Yes I did find issues with the GUI. I also
found issues with the profiles and sent you prints and profiles after which
I never heard anything back. Not a big deal but you should have seen the
issues with the prints (blues shifting big time to cyan, poor shadow
behavior). This was all tested on an Epson 2200 and comparison prints were
made and sent using ProfileMaker Pro 5.
> After that feedback, we sent him an update a week later, which he
> refused to try out, even when informed that the update included many
> changes he had proposed.
You did, and I did try the updates and I provided feedback that by and
large, the issues with the output quality were the same. This again was
prior to you receiving the prints for evaluation.
> We can understand someone's need to defend products he's comfortable
> with. Still, we cannot remain silent after such unjustified product
> bashing.
It's not my intent to bash your product but rather to provide my opinion of
the results I found. If you want me to try again, I'm more then willing but
keep in mind my time and media are not limitless. You received a fair amount
of both "beta reporting" and output after which communication stopped.
I will admit that in the update, your company DID fix and improve some of
the areas I had issues with and I DID report this via email to your company.
Most of this was improvement in user experience in measuring the targets.
BTW, you might want to find out how the various parties involved with
testing your profiles conducted their "quality" tests. I for one used a test
image with both synthetic imagery (spectral gradient) and real world images
to test the output profile and viewed the images on print under a GTI
lightbox. I compared the same image output to the same printer and paper
using other profile packages. My opinions are based on how the profile
reacted to a number of actual images. And again, you should have the prints
from the various packages at your disposal as they were sent with the
software your company requested back.
Again, I gain nothing by "slamming" anyone's product. If your product is
indeed improved over the version I tested, I'm more then willing to set that
record straight. It's possible in the 6-8 months since I tested the product,
you have improved the quality of the output profiles (the only portion of
the package I tested). Based on what I saw back then, the quality was sub
par.
Andrew Rodney
http://digitaldog.net/
_______________________________________________
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