Re: G7 press calibration, best press conditions or average?
Re: G7 press calibration, best press conditions or average?
- Subject: Re: G7 press calibration, best press conditions or average?
- From: Marco Ugolini <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 22:01:13 -0800
- Thread-topic: G7 press calibration, best press conditions or average?
In a message dated 11/7/08 9:33 AM, Henry wrote:
> Thank you, Marco, for your reply. I am familiar with the G7
> documentation and have followed it closely for some time, and I thank
> you for referencing the source. In this thread, the methodology
> seems to have hit a noteworthy and obvious snag: Is a printing press
> a static or dynamic piece of equipment?
No one would argue that it's anything but dynamic in nature, since it's
capable of behavior that spans a wide possible range.
Are you asking because you think that G7 posits presses as static?
Anything but -- I would say. It's exactly because they are dynamic,
adjustable and controllable that the G7 procedure is feasible.
> If one of G7s goals is to "tame the beast", then a press must be
> dynamic. This has always been the case, and no amount or method of
> measurement is going to change that.
Let's not confuse "dynamic" with "out of control". G7 offers methodologies
for control and the achievement of a reasonable degree of stability too.
> SID, TIV, grey balance and runability are not a new issues.
> They are the first order of business, and they have been successfully
> addressed many years ago. Since there are other methods, G7 is to me
> more about its own implementation than it is about method.
Meaning...?
That it's an idle exercise in theory with little practical value?
> You are correct in so far as it *might* be a mistake to dismiss or
> underestimate G7.
What I'm saying, actually, is that it *is* a mistake.
> But, it would be equally incorrect to assume that
> there are not already methods that are just as satisfactory. These
> equally satisfactory methods don't have the marketing motivations of
> the G7 initiative.
Are you blaming the proponents of G7 for being good marketers?
I tend to see your point on marketing as a distraction from the merits.
The essential questions would still be: (a) do the G7 procedures produce
valid results, and (b) do they constitute an advancement over previous
methods?
> This is the part of the discussion that flies
> underneath the technical distractions of G7's methodology.
I'm losing you. "Technical distractions"?
> Arriving at G7 is not that difficult an undertaking - it isn't a
> high hurdle. Its necessity is the question.
Let me ask: do you speak from direct experience with G7 and GRACoL?
If not, are you going to try it out -- or will you be satisfied to sit on
the sidelines while holding on to your principled skepticism?
Marco
_______________________________________________
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