Re: ColorBurst RIP update
Re: ColorBurst RIP update
- Subject: Re: ColorBurst RIP update
- From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 23:17:19 -0500
> I completely understand your points but I think if you stray from inkjet
> proofing you'll find a number of instances which suggest ColorBurst's
> recommendation of a UV filtered device is a good one.
>
> Scott Martin
> www.on-sight.com
Of course, Scott. Measuring with a UV filter is just safer in everyone's
mind. Do you often start your own custom profiling work using UV-fitted
instruments? And, as long as you stick with UV measurements, from input to
output, you find that your matches are easier to come by?
Conceptually, I always thought that, in order to view the color like a
UV-fitted instrument would, I would have to place a UV filter in front of my
eyes and illuminate the sample with tungsten light, the way that the
spectros sense the sample, physically. Then I would have to match the color
for Illuminant A. I think that's what makes most sense. But that's not how
most samples are viewed for color appraisal.
True, if one starts with a FWA press paper and carry that on to a non-OB
proofing paper, like GMG SemiMatte, then the proof will appear bluish when
the press and the proof are measured without a UV filter on the instrument.
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