Re: Can DeviceLink conversions be better? was: Can this be done?
Re: Can DeviceLink conversions be better? was: Can this be done?
- Subject: Re: Can DeviceLink conversions be better? was: Can this be done?
- From: Marco Ugolini <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 00:21:45 -0700
- Thread-topic: Can DeviceLink conversions be better? was: Can this be done?
In a message dated 9/1/08 3:37 PM, Klaus Karcher wrote:
> Marco Ugolini wrote:
>
>> What is this supposed to prove?
>
> It's supposed to show the gamut limitations of commonly used monitors.
>
> As long as you have an "usual" monitor (whose gamut roughly corresponds
> to sRGB), a large portion of working spaces like Adobe- or eci-RGB,
> offset or injkjet gamuts is not representable dependably.
Klaus, I know all this, and you may know that I know, if you have followed
my contributions to this forum over what are now several years. I fail to
see what you're trying to instruct me about that I am not already aware of.
> Photoshop usually uses the relative colorimetric intent with black point
> compensation to transform from the image- to the display colorspace.
> This means everything outside your monitor's gamut gets clipped.
Nothing new to me here either.
> Print Rolf's an my test images on a reliable proofing system, compare
> the proofs to your softproofs and you'll see what I mean.
I fail to see the relevance of this to my comment on Rolf's device link
test. What I can see on my monitor looks better in the image converted with
the device link profile. My comment was limited to just that, and obviously
didn't claim to apply to that which my monitor in not capable of displaying.
Sorry for not making that perfectly clear earlier, but I hope that it is
now.
Marco Ugolini
_______________________________________________
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