• 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: Terry Wyse <email@hidden>
  • Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 15:16:37 -0400


On May 29, 2007, at 1:40 PM, Todd Shirley wrote:

Welcome to the great UV debate!

Indeed!


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!


Just curious Todd, did you find that when measuring papers with UV EXcluded that all of your spectros measured paper white more-or-less the same/more consistently (< 1dE)?


I'm sure others have differing opinions, and we'd all love to hear them!

"You asked for it, you got it (Toyota!)" :-)

I would say your final desicion depends more on where your data is coming from as opposed to the relative merits of UV included or excluded.
If you'll be using exclusively your own measurement data, then I would say it doesn't matter all that much. Basically, if the same instrument is used to measure and create both the source and destination profiles, you'll be OK either way.


But if you start using "outside" characterization data or profiles, then it could/will matter.

In the world in which I live (inkjet contract proofing systems) where you might generate your own source data but where we are increasingly relying on "standard" characterization data such as GRACoL2006_Coated1 or perhpas FOGRA data sets, these are, by definition, created/measured with UV-included. So if you were to use one of these standard data sets/profiles but you created your destination profile with a UV-cut spectro, your visual match would not be correct. There are ways around this but unless you're using something like a GMG RIP, which allows direct editing of measurement data ("target values"), it can get pretty ugly trying to edit profiles to compensate for this difference. The accepted standard for pressroom measurements and characterization data is to use UV- included measurements so that's basically what I've stuck to with most of my spectros.

If it were me, I'd stick with a spectro that offers BOTH options (DTP70, iSis, Spectrolino) or simply purchase two Eye-Ones so you're covered either way.

Regards,
Terry





_____________________________
WyseConsul
Color Management Consulting
G7 Certified Expert
email@hidden
704.843.0858
http://www.wyseconsul.com
http://www.colormanagementgroup.com


_______________________________________________ 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: Todd Shirley <email@hidden>
References: 
 >UV filtered vs. non UV filtered spectros (From: Matthew Larmour <email@hidden>)
 >Re: UV filtered vs. non UV filtered spectros (From: Todd Shirley <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