RE: To UV or not
RE: To UV or not
- Subject: RE: To UV or not
- From: "Hesler, Bret" <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:33:39 -0400
- Thread-topic: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 3, Issue 319
Roger,
It seems your proofing paper has some fluorescent whitening agents. Does the proofing paper read differently with and without UV?
I have always found a better visual match when UV is included/not filtered. The FWAs affect your perception of the color as long as there is UV in the viewing light, therefore, you must have the excited readings. The problem is usually how to compensate for the low UV from the incandescent lights in common spectrophotometer.
Bret Hesler
L.P.Thebault Company
Parsippany, New Jersey
>Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 19:50:46 -0400
>From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
>Subject: To UV or not
>To: ColorSync <email@hidden>
>Message-ID: <C135FA96.1A3BF%email@hidden>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
>Did some more work with a DTP70 today.
>
>Made a press profile with UV excitation included.
>
>Made two proofer profiles, one with and one without UV excitation.
>
>Press paper coordinate is 92, 0, -2 (no characteristics hump at 440nm).
>
>I iterated both proofer profiles to a less than 1 deltaE average.
>
>Visually?
>
>To my eyes and those of my colleagues, the proofer profile made with UV
>excitation better matches the press sheet. What can I say?
>
>Roger Breton | Laval, Canada | email@hidden
>http://pages.infinit.net/graxx <http://pages.infinit.net/graxx>
<<winmail.dat>>
_______________________________________________
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