Re: Profile Names (and output condition tag)
Re: Profile Names (and output condition tag)
- Subject: Re: Profile Names (and output condition tag)
- From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 14:45:42 -0500
> I suggested "Adobe ISO Coated" a few days ago (and "Adobe ISO Coated v2"
> for a FOGRA39 based Profile). I think that's a much more straightforward
> concept for similarities and differences between profiles like e.g.
> "Adobe ISO Coated" and "ECI ISO Coated": two Profiles from two vendors
> for one and the same standardized printing condition. ISO is responsible
> for the specification of the printing condition they refer to, and the
> vendors are responsible for the gamut mapping, black composition and
> accuracy of their profile.
>
> I think it's *badly* needed to refer to the data set (output condition
> identifier) specified in the ICC registry (e.g. "FOGRA27" or "FOGRA39")
> -- but not as part of the name (or description): This information needs
> it's *own tag* and must be machine-readable to be of use!
I concur 100% with your Klaus: enough of Adobe's tyranny, let them prefix
their own profile name with Adobe. Let's have it for "AdobeSWOP",
"AdobeUncoated", "AdobeTR001", "AdobeGracol", "AdobeFogra39",
"AdobeISOcoated", "AdobeRGB", "AdobeGray20%" and so on. Lab is Lab, no need
for AdobeLab. But there was such thing as LH Lab, which used a different
encoding. Same with Apple. Same with Kodak. Etc.
Creating a profile *is* a responsibility, the same way as making a CMYK
separation is a responsibility.
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