Re: ColorBurst RIP update
Re: ColorBurst RIP update
- Subject: Re: ColorBurst RIP update
- From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 07:27:47 -0700
- Thread-topic: ColorBurst RIP update
Title: Re: ColorBurst RIP update
On 11/27/06 7:53 PM, "Terry Wyse" wrote:
2 UV or not UV? That is the question!...
Frankly, I find the whole notion of UV-cut vs. no filter to be somewhat of a red herring. I've profiled inkjet proofing media and press stocks with optical brighteners (b* values in the range of -3 to -8) and have never had a problem AS LONG AS THE SAME INSTRUMENT IS USED TO MEASURE BOTH SOURCE AND DESTINATION PROFILES.
I’m doing some tests that seem to back this up. I used an EyeOne iO, non cut on Epson Enhanced Matt (I was told, it’s got a ton of OB’s and my black light shows this as well). Using ProfileMaker Pro with and without the compensation check box, visually the prints are identical. Only when I convert a copy of each and subtract them using Photoshop’s calculations command do I see a tiny difference on some pixels. So is the software always compensating? Would another product produce a cast? I’ve built literally thousands of profiles through ProfileMaker Pro, most to ink jet and photo printers and haven’t seen any issues with a non UV EyeOne Pro. So what’s up here? There seems to be this idea that we need filters and maybe we do but I’m not seeing such a need with my current hardware and software combo.
Andrew Rodney
http://www.digitaldog.net/
_______________________________________________
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