Re: GRACoL: Very surprised at how c100 m100 is displayed...
Re: GRACoL: Very surprised at how c100 m100 is displayed...
- Subject: Re: GRACoL: Very surprised at how c100 m100 is displayed...
- From: Marco Ugolini <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:35:05 -0700
- Thread-topic: GRACoL: Very surprised at how c100 m100 is displayed...
In a message dated 4/26/10 8:21 AM, Pylant, Brian wrote:
>> All I can tell you is that the "official" GRACoL Coated1 profile that you can
>> download from the IDEAlliance web site is a very good one.
>
> That's the one I've been playing with... I have no doubt it's not actually a
> flawed profile, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I just question whether
> c100 m100 can actually produce the blue I'm seeing on-screen on press...
> certainly not on ours.
Terry may correct me, but we shouldn't expect GRACoL-like results from a
press that is not "G7-qualified", should we?
I have put together a file in Lab. It has 3 layers, each clearly labeled
("SWOP v2", "GRACoL C1" and "Sheetfed v2"), respectively representing the
results of a patch made of C100, M100 after it is tagged with US Web Coated
(SWOP) v2, GRACoL2006_Coated1v2 and US Sheetfed Coated v2, then converted to
Lab using the Absolute Colorimetric intent.
I have posted the file at <http://tinyurl.com/2egty8q> .
As you can see, though starting from the exact same CMYK numbers, we get
very different results. The GRACoL patch is noticeably more blue and less
red than the other two, with Sheetfed v2 being reddest -- as one can both
see visually and by reviewing the Lab numbers in the Info panel derived from
the 3 sample points within the image, one sample point per patch.
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