• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: UV filtered vs. non UV filtered spectros
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: UV filtered vs. non UV filtered spectros


  • Subject: Re: UV filtered vs. non UV filtered spectros
  • From: Todd Shirley <email@hidden>
  • Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 13:40:31 -0400

Matt

Welcome to the great UV debate! You'll will probably get some very adamant postings both for and against using UV light in your spectrophotometer, and most likely none of them (including this one) will help clear up your confusion. There are several factors which make this subject so contentious, but I feel that it mainly comes down to total lack of standardization - There is no standard measurement for how much optical brightener is used in paper stocks (and thus no classifications based on OBs), or how different OBs fluoresce in different ways. There is no standard for how much UV should be present in a given lighting condition, although there certainly will be SOME UV. Finally, there is no standard for how much UV is present in the lamps of different measurement devices, and no consistent way in which the fluorescence is measured.

For a long time I was of the school that UV should be included in measurements and subsequent profiles, because UV will be present in all viewing conditions. Now I'm not so sure. My troubles started when I went from having one spectro (a Spectrolino) to 3: Spectrolino, i1 ISIS, i1pro. All three devices can have UV included, and all three return significantly different numbers on paper white values of stocks with OBs. Each device has its own "way" of measuring the effects of OBs, and thus some came up with brighter and/or bluer numbers than others. On some stocks the dE between devices of the paper white is over 2!

I personally use Monaco Profiler to make profiles, which does not "compensate" for optical brighteners like ProfileMaker does, but I don't really understand what "software correction" means. Can anybody fill me in on what exactly Profiiemaker is doing that Monaco Profiler isn't? Beyond this confusion, I have read on multiple forums, including this one, that the compensation that ProfileMaker does only applies to the perceptual rendering intent, which I rarely if ever use, especially at the RIP. Does anyone know if this is true?

So now I lean towards filtering out UV, mainly because OBs are such a wildcard that including them just adds another uncontrollable variable to a process that already has plenty. Perhaps the paperwhite values and highlights will suffer a little, but at least my profiles and proofs will be consistent across multiple measurement devices. I'm sure others have differing opinions, and we'd all love to hear them!

-Todd Shirley
Urban Studio
New York


Matthew Larmour wrote:

I am trying to weigh the pros and cons between getting a UV filtered spectro (probably an EyeOne) and a non UV filtered spectro.

I will be profiling a variety of papers, some with optical brighteners, some without, printed mostly on digital presses. The lighting under which the final prints will be viewed will vary: incandescent, fluorescent, natural light.

I'm wondering if the safest way to go is to go UV filtered. I'm considering going with ProfileMaker, which apparently has software correction for OBs, but I'm not sure if it can be relied on.

Any recommendations or thoughts to clear up my confusion on the way to go with this would be most appreciated.

Thanks,

Matt Larmour

_______________________________________________
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


  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: UV filtered vs. non UV filtered spectros
      • From: Terry Wyse <email@hidden>
    • Re: UV filtered vs. non UV filtered spectros
      • From: Rick Gordon <email@hidden>
References: 
 >UV filtered vs. non UV filtered spectros (From: Matthew Larmour <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: UV filtered vs. non UV filtered spectros
  • Next by Date: Re: UV filtered vs. non UV filtered spectros
  • Previous by thread: Re: UV filtered vs. non UV filtered spectros
  • Next by thread: Re: UV filtered vs. non UV filtered spectros
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread