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: <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 09:02:24 -0400
Mike,
it just doesn't seem right to use
"0"s...anyone?
The recommended procedure (ASTM E308) is to simply copy
the 400 nm data to 390 and 380 nm, and to copy the 700 nm
data to 710-720 and 730 nm.
Regards,
Danny Pascale
email@hidden
www.BabelColor.com
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 08:18:03 -0400
"Mike Eddington" <email@hidden> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
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