RE: UV filter or software correction or wp editing
RE: UV filter or software correction or wp editing
- Subject: RE: UV filter or software correction or wp editing
- From: "Mike Eddington" <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 08:18:03 -0400
- Thread-topic: UV filter or software correction or wp editing
>>> 2) try to 'fill in' the missing spectral values for ProfileMaker to
>>> accept the data as spectral, and use the brightener correction in
>>> software.
>>
>>Are you having difficulty getting spectral data out of the DTP70 in
>>ProfileMakerPro?
Since ProfileMaker doesn't yet support the DTP70, the problem is likely
that Colorport is delivering 400-700nm while ProfileMaker is expecting
380-730nm. There's a procedure for adding the spectral data that
ProfilerMaker wants to a Colorport exported text file, essentially
inserting the missing columns in the text file and filling with "0"s,
then dividing all numbers by 100 (as PM reports reflectance out of "1"
and Colorport reports reflectance out of "100"). I haven't tried this
myself as; 1) I don't have a DTP-70, 2) I don't use a paper with quite
so much optical brighteners that I found it necessary to use the OB
feature in PM, and 3) it just doesn't seem right to use "0"s...anyone?
>>> 3) using Gretag's Profile Editor, select my Gracol Profile and my
>>> Proof Profile (made without UV filtering or correction), select
abscol
>>> mode and the output Lab->device table, and then go to 'edit workflow
>>> white point' which will allow me to tweak down the yellow that gets
>>> added to the background.
>>
>>That could help. I don't suppose you have access to a GMG ColorProof
RIP
>>and
>>could use iterative proof correction to improve the match between your
>>Gracol source data and the measured proof data? Do you still have
access
>>to
>>PrintOpen? May be worth trying their Iterative Proofing Correction
>>procedure. It does not always work but it's a big help most of the
time, I
>>find. May not do much for you, visually, on this dazzling, fluorescent
>>paper
>>but it would be worth a try.
Would iterating actually help in this case? If you're iterating a GMG
profile (on paper with that much florescence) using a UV filter to match
Gracol Data (measured with non-UV instrument), there can/will be some
inconsistencies, even if the delta E value is insignificant. On the
other hand, if you iterate without UV filtration, you may get the yellow
issue added to the highlights again, yes? Of course, I do find manually
editing the "white point/paper shade of a GMG profile much more
intuitive than editing ICC white points.
Michael Eddington
North American Color, Inc
www.nac-mi.com
_______________________________________________
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