• 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: G7 press calibration, best press conditions or average?
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: G7 press calibration, best press conditions or average?


  • Subject: Re: G7 press calibration, best press conditions or average?
  • From: Henry <email@hidden>
  • Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 17:50:35 -0500

In a message dated 11/5/08 1:11 PM, Henry wrote:

Press crews have traditionally aimed at solid densities and gain
values at various parts of the tone scale.  A fancy way of saying
this would be, "they set up the machine to match a set of
characterization data that are independent of any subjective aim
point".  The press crew is thereby defining the gamut's size and shape.

G7 is just a different method.  By either method, the press arrives.
If it arrives at the same place by either method, then which is better?


Marco replied:

The one that also (a) achieves stability and (b) maintains it with the least
amount of effort.


My bet is that the colorimetric route (G7, as opposed to densitometric-based
methods) is the better one.


_______________________

Marco, I just don't follow what your reply to my question. I have read it several times and it sounds as if you didn't understand what I wrote. The fact is that densitometry does achieve stability, with arguably the same, and possibly less effort.

How does maintaining specific SIDs and specific TVIs NOT achieve stability?

How is maintaining SIDs and TVIs more effort that G7 Lab measurements?

The bet that G7 is *better* than densitometric-based method is, um, somewhat deceptively attractive. If we were to use real money, what would the ground rules be?

Since I don't believe that we are ever going to agree on the rules anyhow, I'll propose a simple one, such as:

1. The one and only rule:  The press is to be in a repeatable state.

How is it that one could prove that G7 is better at bringing a press to this state? This would only be a matter of quibbling over the accuracy of Lab vs. density values. They are both accurate measurements, are they not? And, since when does a press not move about during a run? (I ask this in advance of the inevitable disagreement over the acceptable range of the measurements).

Don't you suspect that a press operator can use a densitometer to bring a press to its target in an acceptable manner?


Henry Davis





_______________________________________________
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: G7 press calibration, best press conditions or average?
      • From: Marco Ugolini <email@hidden>
  • Prev by Date: Re: Projector profiling with a colorimeter (monkey business)
  • Next by Date: Re: G7 press calibration, best press conditions or average?
  • Previous by thread: Re: G7 press calibration, best press conditions or average?
  • Next by thread: Re: G7 press calibration, best press conditions or average?
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread