Re: Lightbox - Screen Matches
Re: Lightbox - Screen Matches
- Subject: Re: Lightbox - Screen Matches
- From: "Fleisher, Ken" <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 14:10:38 -0400
- Thread-topic: Lightbox - Screen Matches
On 6/18/07 12:05 PM, "Andrew Rodney" <email@hidden> wrote:
> On 6/18/07 9:45 AM, "Fleisher, Ken" wrote:
>
>> Nothing. I'm talking about screen-to-transparency matching, which I think I
>> was pretty clear about.
>
> Why would I care unless I'm running a film recorder and my final output is
> another piece of film?
I'd rather not get sidetracked into trying to justify why matching a screen
image to a transparency is necessary. It's a task that is a common and valid
part of many workflows.
I think it will be more productive to simply address my original question.
Stated another way:
In a "color-managed" workflow, where a scanner with a good ICC profile can
produce an image that has an excellent appearance match to the transparency
when viewed (according to ISO standards) in a dimmed booth, how is this
supposed to produce a good representation of the transparency which is
normally supposed to be viewed with a much higher luminance? I am left with
an image that is too dark.
Is it simply that an ICC based color managed workflow is not capable of
dealing properly with screen-to-transparency matching? This is my opinion,
but I am looking for other opinions. Should I forget about trying to get a
good appearance match (to the transparency viewed normally--not dimmed)
without the need for significant editing?
>> That may be true, but it doesn't change the fact the I still have to produce
>> screen-to-transparency matches daily!
>
> Why? The transparency has to be scanned, there most likely has to be some
> editing (in scanner driver or Photoshop) to produce a closer output referred
> rendering based first on the display,
That's exactly the point though. "Based first on the display..." At that
point, you ARE doing a screen-to-transparency match. If you dim the light
box, then you are matching something that has an appearance that is too
dark...
> then to some final output.
... and as a result, your final output--whether internet, offset press,
photo print, or anything else--is now too dark. Besides, one of the ideas of
a color-managed workflow is to reduce the amount of editing necessary. This
is what I'm trying to accomplish but there seems to be a gap in the logic of
the ISO recommendation.
>If the
> final is some printed piece, the chrome is just a single part of the imaging
> process that is really immaterial now that you've scanned it and its in the
> computer.
Why is it immaterial? The transparency is my color guide that I am trying to
match everything else to--including my screen. I would like to achieve this
using as little manual editing as possible.
> What's the final output you want to match to the screen?
It doesn't matter. Let's say the screen image IS my final output and the
transparency (viewed normally at 1270 cd/m^2) is my original. How can I get
an ICC color managed workflow to achieve this?
Currently, I use the Hutchison target and ProfileMaker Pro to build an input
profile. When I dim the light box, the appearance match is excellent. But
this "appearance" is also incorrect...
--
Ken Fleisher
Photographer
Imaging & Visual Services
National Gallery of Art
Washington, D.C.
Phone: (202) 712-7471
email@hidden
_______________________________________________
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