RE: Images for print
RE: Images for print
- Subject: RE: Images for print
- From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 19:37:15 -0400
Marco,
There are a few things missing from the "Making within the Stones" journey...
I don't doubt Mr. Atkinson's talents and insights into color management.
But, reading the PDF always raise the same issues.
First, there is the issue of "high pigment" inks. According to page 133, the densities achieved with the Vanfu ink were:
C 1.30 —> 2.03
M 1.40 —> 1.85
Y 1.00 —> 1.56
K 1.70 —> 2.24
Supposedly, the increased densities made possible a much wider printable gamut. But, don't we all know that densities are, to some extent, meaningless without colorimetric information? For example, the IDEAlliance 2007 Guidelines clearly states that Lab values take precedence over densities. In my view, a better account of the alleged extended gamut afforded by the Vanfu inks would have been better conveyed through CIELab values instead of densities. Don't you think? An even better account would have been to post the measurements of the Spectroscan, somewhere for people to download and look for themselves, no?
Second, if you look closely at page 219, you'll see a GretagMacbeth D19C look-alike densitometer on the table. Let me speculate that the "high" density figures reported by the author are actually StatusG densities, with polarizer, the kind widely practiced in Europe and Asia. To give you an idea, a solid yellow density of 1.00 in North America's StatusT is reported as 1.30 in Europe's StatusG with polarizer. Not a small difference.
While it's entirely possible that Vanfu inks live up to the claimed higher pigmentation levels, allow me some degree of skepticism.
Third, I suspect a lot of the stone colors themselves aren't all that saturated to begin with. You tell me where are the highly saturated colors on page 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 25 and 26, to name only these few. Granted the RGBs in the PDF may not do justice to the chroma of certain details, but one could very well argue "why bother with high pigmented inks in the first place" for those images? And, yes, (I can't resist saying this) for those very images, sRGB would have more than adequately capture their exact colorimetry without clipping. No offense to the author.
Fourth, nowhere in the PDF is there mention of how close was the match between the proofs and the printed output from the press? If we buy the argument that the inks lent such a high gamut to begin with, it's not far fetch to think that the proof was unable to enclose that extended press gamut accurately or completely. Page 98 shows an Epson 9600. Who knows what proofing paper was thrown on there? What was the RIP front-end? The Ultrachome inks in the 9600 are not known to have all that great of gamut, you know.
This being said, nothing above is meant to belittle the work of Mr. Atkinson but I have to say I never come across the answers to any of these in all the years that this book came to be and all the research I made on its production. Perhaps the author could post the measurements somewhere for people to examine?
Roger Breton
> -----Original Message-----
> From: colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=email@hidden
> [mailto:colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=email@hidden] On
> Behalf Of Marco Ugolini
> Sent: 10 octobre 2008 14:16
> To: ColorSync User Group
> Subject: Re: Images for print
>
> Edmund Ronald wrote:
>
> >CMYK is a historical accident. Like the horse driven carriage it does
> >get you places, but it stinks. I can't wait for it to be relegated to
> >the museum.
>
> Go tell that to Bill Atkinson and VANFU, Edmund. I'm sure they would
> like to hear how out of date they are.
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/ykxqur>
>
> <http://www.vanfu.com/service/color/index.html>
>
> Marco Ugolini
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 3513 (20081010) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
_______________________________________________
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