Re: Making SWOP TR001 compliant proofs
Re: Making SWOP TR001 compliant proofs
- Subject: Re: Making SWOP TR001 compliant proofs
- From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 07:42:28 -0400
> I disagree. All of the standard observers have proven to be very useful
> tools in many ways, even with the errors. I wouldn't chuck them out the
> window just yet! ;-)
>
> Ken
It seems to me that the consensus was "where do we go from now?" rather than
"oh, let's get on with other things now that we know we can trust them".
There were some people from a famous company that used to make a lot of
money in photography that expressed kind of exasperation at the results they
kept getting using the 1931 2 degree observer in their color matching, and
no one knew quite what to say in response. The only good word I got out of
this, at one point, was: yes, the 2 degree observer works -- on average.
There was a talk of moving to interchanganging spectral data as opposed to
XYZ data as a possible way to work around the noted deficiencies in the
observer, so people could use whathever function they chose to suit their
color matching needs. But it was left at that.
I'm not going to chuck the Stantard Observers alltogether (how can I?) but I
remain skeptical and plan to conduct visual experiments of my own to prove
their validity. If my instruments says I have a match, I expect my eye to
confirm that match. If not then I'm in hot water.
Roger Breton | Laval, Canada | email@hidden
http://pages.infinit.net/graxx
_______________________________________________
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