Re: CMYK spaces used for document creation
Re: CMYK spaces used for document creation
- Subject: Re: CMYK spaces used for document creation
- From: Karl Koch <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:57:49 +0100
Martin,
I am pretty sure that NOBODY ever has tested an AdobeRGB->FOGRA39
DeviceLink in Photoshop CS4!
Why?
Because it doesn´t work!
CS4 isn´t able to handle RGB-CMYK DLs, as I have stated in an article
I posted on this list nearly a year ago and took some bashing from
Chris Cox for that. I still don´t take anything back since nothing has
changed since then.
So, I agree with you, if you want to convert using DLs, you´ll have to
leave Adobe´s products or use 3rd party enabling technology within
Adobe´s products (e.g. basICColor demon).
I do not agree with you statement that Adobe´s CMM is inferior to any
of the other CMMs.
It is very strange that nobody has commented on you comparing apples
and pears. A DeviceLink is a completely different animal than a pair
of device profiles. I guess that Graeme calculates his own gamut
mapping in a DeviceLink, as we do, so he is independent from the gamut
mapping in the device profile. The result HAS to be different, and it
has to be better, if the gamut mapping strategy is better that that of
the profiler that created the device profile.
On http://files.me.com/basicc/ksivsq you find the conversion result of
a basICColor DeviceLink, let me know, what you think.
Best regards,
Karl Koch
______________________________
basICColor GmbH
Maistraße 18
82377 Penzberg - Germany
phone: +49-(0)8856-932505
fax: +49-(0)8856-932503
email: email@hidden
http://www.basICColor.de
Managing Director: Karl Koch
Registered Office: Penzberg
Commercial Register: 172485, AG München
VAT No. DE814946213
______________________________
free profiles for standard printing conditions:
http://colormanagement.org
______________________________
Am 03.11.2009 um 16:04 schrieb Martin Orpen:
On 3 Nov 2009, at 14:36, Andrew Rodney wrote:
On Nov 3, 2009, at 7:27 AM, Martin Orpen wrote:
As I've now posted the images, profiles and method all that
remains is for you to admit that I was right and converting images
outside of Photoshop gives superior results.
Going back to the poor scientific mind set of yours, for the last
time, I’ll paste:
On Nov 2, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Martin Orpen wrote:
And you tested the same device link in CS4?
Don't see the point?
Sure, why try the same Device link in product A and Photoshop? Why
try ICC profile in product B and Photoshop? Having an apples to
apples comparison might invalidate the crappy results you seek. And
that doesn’t even account for the number of posts after you said
you’d rather have needles in your eyes until we actually got the
reality check that you were comparing ICC profiles in Photoshop to
Device Links in another product. And some are taking you seriously?
You sound surprised by that?
I think that a veteran repro guy who spends all day working on
colour conversions who says "I get better results with product x"
should be taken seriously on this forum.
Certainly more seriously than somebody with no comparable expertise
or experience.
CS4's ability to apply device link profiles is a tiny little fig
leaf covering the your embarrassing nakedness of CMS shortcomings.
I saw no point in testing it because the conversion itself is just
about the least significant part of the "outside of Photoshop"
colour conversion work.
--
Martin Orpen
Idea Digital Imaging Ltd
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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