Re: Chris Murphy vs Bruce Fraser
Re: Chris Murphy vs Bruce Fraser
- Subject: Re: Chris Murphy vs Bruce Fraser
- From: Graeme Gill <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:46:51 +1000
Chris Murphy wrote:
Define "true soft proofing".
You're right there many different ways people may want to use
a display device to do proofing. Most often they may be
viewing the proof in isolation, so the fact that a different
white point is being displayed on the "softproof" to the
white point that will ultimately that of the hardproof
is of little consequence since the viewers eyes will adapt
to the display white point.
In contrast though, most "hard proofing" is expected to withstand
a simultaneous viewing with what it's meant to be emulating. That's
the ultimate proof of the pudding. Now any softproofing that
doesn't have the option of reproducing an absolute matching white point
to what it's emulating, can't be used in that manner, and
completely fails the "proof of the pudding" test.
Photoshop (from your explanation) and ICCV4 only seems to
support the former. Some people would like to be able
to do the latter. ICCV V2 used to provide a first order
means of providing the latter, even if it isn't perfect.
ICC v4 prescribes the same result as an ICC v2 display profile has in
Photoshop since version 6. If you're saying ICC v4 soft proofing is
broken you are in effect saying it's been broken in Photoshop for a
long time.
If you say so (I'm not in a position to verify this). From some reports
latter versions of Photoshop have an "Emulate Paper White" flag somewhere.
How does this affect its behaviour ?
Graeme Gill.
_______________________________________________
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