• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Changing inks
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Changing inks


  • Subject: Re: Changing inks
  • From: Marco Ugolini <email@hidden>
  • Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 21:49:33 -0800

In a message dated 3/1/06 7:58 AM, Mike Eddington wrote:

> Well, it's not something I would want to do...not only matching solids,
> but overprints as well to a proofer. Would you be deviating from ISO
> 2846-1 compliant inks?  I personally don't see the importance of keeping
> a "dot" proofer for the sake of the dot structure on the proof, which is
> often a simulation anyway. Seems like it would be much simpler to match
> the proofer to the press and give up the dot worshipping aspect of
> proofing for a more colorimetric match.


Hi to all.

I am honestly straining to understand from as logical a point of view as
possible why it is so important for some clients to "see a dot" on the proof
(no, even better: not just a dot, but *the* dot! Ah!). Inertia has a lot to
do with it, probably, but doesn't explain it completely.

Let's see: the dot structure on the proof does not really exactly match that
on the final separation, does it? All that effort, and it may well end up
being different anyway: the start points might be slightly different (enough
so to create unreliable results); the screen angles themselves may not match
the final ones, for any of a number of reasons; the dot shape may not be the
same; etc.

This reverence for "the dot" borders on the irrational, and seems to me more
a sign of unfounded fear of the new than a valid position in today's
production environments.

The whole world seems to be going the way of *appearance* matches, not dot
matches, and it's doing so at a fast clip. It's far from the fad that the
"dotsters" would like to think it is: it is a proven way to get better
results while saving money. That combination by itself dooms the
competition. Who can hope to run against that tide and remain afloat?

Regards.

--------------
Marco Ugolini
Mill Valley, CA


 _______________________________________________
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

References: 
 >RE: Changing inks (From: "Mike Eddington" <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: BasiCColor Display 4.0 vs BasiCColor Display 3.0.4
  • Next by Date: Re: On ProPhotoRGB
  • Previous by thread: RE: Changing inks
  • Next by thread: Getting from a reasonable understanding of colour in a computing sense to an understanding of component video and hi-def video
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread