Re: Lowering total ink coverage in a CMYK separation
Re: Lowering total ink coverage in a CMYK separation
- Subject: Re: Lowering total ink coverage in a CMYK separation
- From: Louis Dery <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:55:16 -0500
Hi Terry,
I don’t argue for device link ability to preserve C, M Y and K purity
etc. It is only for the case of simple CMYK images having to reduce
its Total Ink Coverage, NOT the complete vector, raster color
elements in a page where device link performs very well.
Stay tuned for what is coming form us about this specific subject!
Louis Dery
TGLC inc.
www.tglc.com
On Jan 31, 2008, at 9:44 AM, Terence Wyse wrote:
On Jan 31, 2008, at 9:33 AM, Louis Dery wrote:
Why you say "for quality" results, device-links are recommended?
Isn’t it for black channel integrity results you mean?
And C-M-Y purity, C+M, M+Y, C+Y purity, preservation of
"registration" colors, preservation of CMY under K (K overprints)
and the list goes on. I think it would be tough to argue against
the fact that device links are the superior ("quality") method for
performing CMYK-to-CMYK conversions. Straight ICC profile-to-
profile conversions just don't cut in my opinion. But if you can
make a case where a straight profile-to-profile conversion is
superior to a device link, go right ahead.
But I don't speak for Michael...unless I have to. :-)
Regards,
Terry
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
40tglc.com
This email sent to 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