Re: MonacoPROFILER and UV
Re: MonacoPROFILER and UV
- Subject: Re: MonacoPROFILER and UV
- From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 12:04:24 -0400
Mike,
You don't say how fluorescent are the substrates you deal with? Both your
proofer paper and the press paper.
At my end, I never use a UV filter on my instruments, as a policy. But I
still revisit the idea regularely, to convince me I'm on the right track
(you have no idea how much paper and ink I wasted on studying this simple
issue over the years -- it makes me mad how I made Epson rich).
Recentlly, I conducted a matching experiment with two different proofing
substrates. One with a CIELab value of 95, 0, -4 and another, from ProofLine
called PressWhite160, with a CIELab value of 95, 0, -2. Like I say, I don't
use UV filters on my instruments. My Iccolor came without UV filter. My
Spectroscan has the option of using a UV filter (and a D65 filter, which I
have too) and my DTP70 has a switcheable UV filter like everyone's. As of
today, I don't have a GMG or an Oris ColorTuner proofing RIP (both packages
for whom I have the greatest respect). So, I iterate using PrintOpen 5
iterative proof correction feature. I did the same iteration using the two
different substrates I meanteioned above, using the same press profile as
the source, and, clearly, under 5000K type fluorescent lights, the color
from the PressWhite160 media was way closer to the press sheets (#5 coated)
than the colors from the other proofing media, the one with a b* of -4. No
comparison. Despite the fact that I was getting the same delta E average,
overall, from both papers!
So, UV or not on the instruments, to me the extent of FWAs in the substrate
to be characterized plays a major role in the final result. As you know
Mike.
As you commented, MonacoProfiler may have an edge over some other profiling
packages, and it's quite possible the results are vastly superior with the
use of a UV filter on your ICcolor. I'll have to revisit MonacoProfiler.
When I started in this business, I purchased a used DTP41, that I freshly
paid $400 cdn X-Rite to have recalibrated and certified. It was fitted with
a UV filter. I still come back to this instrument from times to time. But I
told many times X-Rite that, if the cost wasn't so high, I'd pay to have the
filter removed.
Recently, I made a profile of my Epson 4000 with my Spectroscan, with and
without the UV filter mounted on the Lino head, and, using a substrate with
a CIELab value of 95, 1, -4.5. I converted the old AdobeRGB PhotoDisc image
to both profiles in Photoshop, placed the converted images side by side in
InDesign and printed with no color management in the RIP. The results: the
image "with the UV filter" appears globally yellower than the image without.
And this was with a calibration done with the UV filter in the RIP. I have
not found the time yet to repeat the experiment with a calibration in the
RIP done without the UV filter on my instrument but I suspect the results
will be along the same line.
> My experience has been that I get better results from an ICC profile when data
> is measured with a UV filter coupled with Monaco Profiler's gamut mapping than
> I do without a UV filter using ProfileMaker with its OB correction feature. I
> simply like the separations I get from Monaco far better. From a proofing
> standpoint, we're using GMG with an ICColorUV with fantastic results. When the
> target data has been measured without UV (TR001 for example), I'll create the
> profile without uv filtration, but merely to obtain a better numerical match.
> Visually, the difference has been negligible between a uv filtered profile and
> no filter profle. Of course other's results can and will differ from mine, but
> honestly, you can get good results either way...unless you don't.
>
> Michael Eddington
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