Re: Rel vs Abs proofs
Re: Rel vs Abs proofs
- Subject: Re: Rel vs Abs proofs
- From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:21:22 -0400
Marco,
> 1) The whole purpose of the Absolute Colorimetric rendering intent is to
> simulate the effect created by the substrate on which an image will be
> printed (on a printing press),
Correct.
> effect which will determine both the white
> point (obviously) and other colors throughout the image (to varying
> degrees).
Correct again, and that is the more important point, in my view.
> And, of course, in order to do this, the paper on which the proof
> is done has to have an L* value equal or higher than the final stock.
Higher, ideally.
> So,
> pray tell, how is it supposed to make our proof any better, or more
> dependable, if we print it without simulating the white point of the final
> stock?
Don't know, Marco. If I understood your point correctly, RelCol cannot make
a proof more dependable if it's printed without simulating the white point
of the final stock. Right?
> 2) One other thing is also not clear to me: are we assuming that when we
> produce the proof we are *trimming* its edges,
Ah! You're touching such an important point, there. It occurs to me that
it's not a widespread practice, unfortunately, but one that can make or
break this kind of proof. You're absolutely right. Allow me to add that, to
my knowledge, only GMG Colorproof not only prints AbsCol throughout the
whole page, its bleed and calibration strip but they also had the
intelligence of extending the paper simulation over to the job ticket area!
This is proofing heavens.
> so that the whitest point in
> the proof is the *simulated* white of the proof and not the white *of the
> paper itself* visible in those edge areas that are not covered by any ink?
Right.
> If you trim your proofs, the eye adapts fairly quickly to the proof's
> simulated white point, and the average client will probably never make an
> issue of it unless *you* are foolish enough to point it out to him/her.
Absolutely.
> 3) Call me not the brightest bulb in the room if you please,
Come on, we know you ;-)
> but isn't "a
> hybrid colorimetric rendering that is essentially AbsCol except for pure
> whites" what we already call Relative Colorimetric?
No Marco, it is not. "Hybrid" means having the best of both worlds. But
that's still one compromise I'm no prepare to concede. I think the best
approach remains either a) proofing on the actual press substrate or b)
proofing on a substrate that is managed through AbsCol, or c) proofing on a
dedicated stock, à la Veris.
> And if by "hybrid" you
> mean an intent that simulates the effect of the substrate on the whole image
> except pure whites,
That's what I understand "hyrid" to mean.
> why would you provide your client with a proof
> exhibiting a degree of contrast that is higher than what can be matched on
> press?
Because some clients are hopeless. They are ignorant and expect the whole
world to lick their feet. <Sorry, I had to say this>
> --------------
> Marco Ugolini
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