Re: Making SWOP TR001 compliant proofs
Re: Making SWOP TR001 compliant proofs
- Subject: Re: Making SWOP TR001 compliant proofs
- From: Terry Wyse <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 21:29:32 -0400
On May 23, 2006, at 8:39 PM, Chris McFarling wrote:
So it's possible for two vendors to submit a proof to a customer
with each
claiming that their proof is SWOP compliant, although each of the
proofs may
be significantly different visually?
YEP!!!
So then it seems that the only true measuring stick, for now, is
TR001.
Instead of just proofing to "SWOP standards", in a scenario where two
vendor's proofs need to match as close as possible for a single
client, they
should instead be proofing to the TR001 standard. Does that seem
reasonable?
And the Catch-22 of using TR001 "literally" is that it's based on a
paper that isn't available. But if you DON'T include the correct
paper simulation (I'm thinking inkjet here, not a dot proofer but it
still applies) you're liable to be several dE off, particularly from
highlight to midtone.
I think a reasonable middle ground would be to either edit the TR001
dataset to correct for paper white and build a profile from that or
perhaps build a profile based on TR001 and do a little post-profile
editing.
Part of the problem, like I stated earlier, is what metric is used to
determine a proofs "SWOP-ness". The reason SID and TVI don't work to
ensure a visual match can be easily demonstrated using the extreme
example of taking the "raw" output of an inkjet printer and calibrate/
linearize it (NOT profile it) to "match" SWOP in terms of density and
TVI. It can be done but I guarantee you that it will be no where near
a visual match for a SWOP press sheet. There has to be some
colorimetric data as part of the spec in order to put some "teeth" in
it. There actually IS colorimetric data available for primary ink
L*a*b* values and I believe overprints but most printers ignore it.
Then following that logic, I would need to color manage the output
to my
Finalproof in order to achive a TR001 match. Simply adjusting the
device
based on the ADS would not be sufficent.
Am I right thinking in all of this?
I would say your best option for getting your FinalProof to match
SWOP and/or TR001 would be to use a device link in place of trying to
use simple 2D curves. Curves will only get you so far but a device
link, like a standard ICC profile, can get you there COLORIMETRICALLY
while still giving you control over, for example, pure primaries and
black preservation. The only catch might be that your FinalProof
front-end may not support device links. I know that the official Fuji
front-end (ProofMaster) DOES support device links but there can be
other front-ends driving it that may not.
Good luck!
Regards,
Terry Wyse
_____________________________
WyseConsul
Color Management Consulting
G7 Certified Expert
email@hidden
704.843.0858
http://www.wyseconsul.com
http://www.colormanagementgroup.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