Re: My configuration
Re: My configuration
- Subject: Re: My configuration
- From: Sam Landry <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:24:37 -0700
Hi Kevin,
I hope this will help you sort out some things about modern color
management.
I'm looking for rock solid and real world help in the form of
responses,
books, training programs or a consultant to work with hands on for
a few days.
It seems we are in an increasingly "pleasing color" world.
The spectrophotometer has offered stability and often a sense of
false security. An example of that are in the instruments them
selves. Manufacturers use a term “inter- instrument agreement”. This
is a gauge for how close the instruments are to perfect accuracy
right off of the assembly line. They are using standards that are
based on an average human observer study that bases differences of
color on how an average human observer can see a difference. One
Delta E (∆E) is considered the amount of difference that would be
detected from this standard. There are newer standards that confuse
this. Newer standards are more lenient in the color differences. This
allows larger color shifts that are identified with smaller numbers.
So here is a quick list of the specs of some familiar
spectrophotometers. ∆E94 is a newer standard. Most of these are based
on a standard 12-tile set of readings.
Inter-instrument agreements
Eye-One
Average 0.4 ∆E* 94**, max 1.0 ∆E* 94**
ICColor
Typical 0.3 ∆E* 94 (D50, 2°) average based on 12 BCRA tiles
Spectrolino
Typical 0.3∆E* CIELAB, average based on 12 BCRA tiles (D50, 2º)
Spectrocam
Typ 0.4 dE (max. 0.8 dE) Average of 12 BCRA tiles
These are specs copied right off of the respective manufacturer web
pages. As you can see some are forthcoming enough to disclose the
maximum average of inaccuracy. Also, notice the term “Average” used.
With these instrument differences, you could have trusted in two
instruments manufactured by the same factory that could be
independent of each other by as much as 2 delta E. That would be 2
times as much as is needed for the average human observer could tell
with their naked eye. Also, keep in mind that some of these devices
are priced low enough for a large number of users and are more
feature rich then legacy densitometers at a fraction of the cost.
That’s a big difference than just a few years ago.
This could help explain the “pleasing color” attitude to some extent.
I personally feel that the need to edit and work the color proofing
system is very important. The standards of Delta E explain some
reason for apathy loudly when compared to the devices commonly used
(and depended on) for color accuracy. I think you are correct in your
analogy of typography and the graphic artist. The professional
intervention of a good color professional is needed for better then
“pleasing color” reproduction. Just like the accuracy of your
spectrophotometer, cost is a big factor.
The one thing is for sure, with the availability of color at the
hands of the masses, 2 delta E is excellent compared to a completely
un-profiled world. As the average “Color User” gets more involved
with the control of their own devices, they are increasingly
understanding the difficulties associated with achieving “pleasing
color”. So, try to relax and put in the good fight. That’s all we can
do.
Sam Landry
_______________________________________________
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