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: John Romano <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:33:17 -0500
- Thread-topic: U.S. Web Coated (SWOP)v2 vs. SWOP2006_Coated5v2
Just thinking about this one.... back when TR-001 was done
Were they CTP ?
That combined with the G7 NPDC curves could certainly
Produce a profile that wouldn't Kill your shadow detail nearly as
Much as the old Web SWOPV2 profile.
I would like to think that The newer presses would print better than they
did 10 years ago too.
On 1/9/08 5:25 PM, "Todd Shirley" <email@hidden> wrote:
> To (over) simplfy: Assigning U.S. Web Coated (SWOP)v2 to an untagged
> CMYK image can kill shadow detail. What I'm curious about is why. I'm
> sure others have seen this same thing happen - what is your take on
> what is going on? 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.
--
John Romano
Acme Color Manager
Acme Printing Co. LLC
978-658-0800
_______________________________________________
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