Re: U.S. Web Coated (SWOP)v2 vs. SWOP2006_Coated5v2
Re: U.S. Web Coated (SWOP)v2 vs. SWOP2006_Coated5v2
- Subject: Re: U.S. Web Coated (SWOP)v2 vs. SWOP2006_Coated5v2
- From: Todd Shirley <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 10:43:22 -0500
Thanks to everyone for all the excellent responses!
Although most of you probably already know about this, and it hardly
qualifies as the ability to "work with" device link profiles in
Photoshop, there is an applescript that very simply converts a tiff
using a device link. Better than nothing, especially if all you want
to see is what the device link is going to do to an image. You can get
it at Chris Murphy's website at:
Convert File Using DeviceLink (AppleScript):
On Jan 4, 2008, at 8:32 PM, Roger Breton wrote:
For now, I would not systematically assign SWOP2006_C5 to mystery
meat CMYK
images because that wouldn't not be a fair assessment of the
conditions
under which the image would have been created.
Roger, you hit on the hidden agenda of my original post, which is
strategies for assigning profiles to untagged CMYK images. Although it
won't work in all cases, assigning SWOPv2 is usually a decent place to
start, simply because it is the photoshop default. That being said, I
was trying to figure out what was going on in the shadows of some
untagged cmyk images when I assigned SWOPv2. After further
experimentation, I think the main thing to be learned is that plugging
up shadow detail is a good indicator that I'm not assigning the right
profile! Any other pointers or tricks that you know of?
The thing I find interesting/confusing is how the same CMYK values can
have such significantly different LAB values when comparing U.S. Web
Coated (SWOP)v2 to SWOP2006_Coated5v2. Roger mentioned that the old
SWOP is based on the CGATS TR-001 1995 dataset. Does that data really
plug up so badly in the shadows? And if so, why? I mean really, has
web offset technology really advanced that much in 10 years? Why would
TR-001 be so much different from the 2006 datasets? Even given the
differences between the G7 methodology and the old TVI/density process
control, I would think that the presses behave fundamentally the same
as they did back then.
On Jan 4, 2008, at 8:04 PM, Terence Wyse wrote:
Did old SWOP presses plug up much easier than they do now? Is this
just another example of how the old profile is "broken"? In
ColorThink I can see that the A2B LUTs are about 13x bigger in the
new profile - is there just not enough data in the LUTs of the old
profile?
Uh...yes? :-)
A bigger LUT/more profile nodes could be one reason. The other
reason could well be rendering intent. From what I know, the
Photoshop SWOP profile really only supports the colorimetric
rendering intents and not perceptual whereas the new Monaco profiles
should have a very good perceptual rendering which would improve
shadow detail rendering somewhat.
In fact I am only interested in the colorimetric rendering intent, but
I'm wondering does this even apply when you just ASSIGN a profile? I'm
not actually converting, so does the rendering intent matter? If so, I
would assume it is what set in the color settings?
And finally, Klaus:
On Jan 4, 2008, at 9:45 PM, Klaus Karcher wrote:
where can I find informations about the paper grades used in the
SWOP publications (they differ from the ISO paper classifications,
e.g. the ISO paper type 5 is *uncoated* yellowish)
The downloadable PDF at http://www.swop.org/specification/ goes into
some detail about the characterizations of the papers, including the
actual ones they supposedly used on the press runs. I'm not sure if
this is what you had in mind, but its something. Just for the
edification of everyone here, where exactly can we find detailed
information about the ISO paper classifications?
Thanks again to everyone who responded!
-Todd Shirley
Urban Studio
New York, NY
_______________________________________________
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