Re: Editing profiles [was New EyeOne ruler and soft case]
Re: Editing profiles [was New EyeOne ruler and soft case]
- Subject: Re: Editing profiles [was New EyeOne ruler and soft case]
- From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 20:48:35 -0500
> Of course if you start out with a bad profile or one for a
> different device, then you may see more advantage in the approach.
>
> Graeme Gill
Let me add that iterative proof correction almost compensates for faulty
instruments. Which is quite an unexpected benefit if you ask me. Case in
point, I was profiling an Epson9600 today. The Source profile was some
modified TR-001 profile concocted with PO5 on which I altered some of the
primaries and media colorimetry to suit the current SWOP Hi-Lo Color
Reference (does anyone know that the current USWebCoatedSWOPv2 is obsolete?
So is TR-001:1995 data? Because of the change to the Tembec Monterrey Gloss
new SWOP Reference Proofing Paper). Anyway, we made two paper profiles, one
using instrument X and the other using instrument Y. I turned out that the
profile made from instrument Y measurement was closer to the Source.
The point of this is that, to some extent (I have not had the time to test
this theory in practice), had I elected to proof using the profile built
from instrument X measurements, during iterative proof correction I would
have started from a larger distance to my target but the procedure, in my
opinion, would have still converged on my Source anyway. I could have taken
more iterations or just of two iterations but I think that PO5 would have
closed the gap the same way. So, that's why, to some extent, it almost does
not make a difference whether we start from faulty instruments.
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