RE: e: GRACoL: Very surprised at how c100 m100 is displayed...
RE: e: GRACoL: Very surprised at how c100 m100 is displayed...
- Subject: RE: e: GRACoL: Very surprised at how c100 m100 is displayed...
- From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 07:25:26 -0400
Marco has a point. It's impossible to evaluate subjectively any colors on
screen without *first* assuring that they match visually a known,
"traceable" reference proof, like, in this case, a GRACoL2206_C1 vintage
proof, preferably obtained from a non-optically brightened paper (the type
of certified proof that can be ordered from IDEAlliance a $600 a pop) and
viewed under either a JUST-Normlicht or GTI light booth. Only then (and even
then?!) can one "truly" (because observer metamerism could kick in) evaluate
the match. That's a lot of preconditions, I realize. Just so you know, there
is a wild difference between a Solux 4700K or 5000K lamp, and tubes from GTI
or JUST. Wild.
One could not say "as seen of TV" -- there is no such thing with color ;-)
Best / Roger
> In a message dated 4/26/10 12:26 PM, Rick McCleary wrote:
>
> > 100C, 100M is definitely purple on my screen. 100C, 75M is a nice
> > rich blue - just what I'd expect.
>
> In my opinion, it's not a matter of subjectively evaluating how "purple"
the
> C100 M100 patch seems to me or to you in isolation, but of how much LESS,
> or
> MORE, purple it looks when COMPARED to the same CMYK numbers tagged
> with a
> few OTHER output profiles.
>
> That process of evaluation also requires that one make sure either to soft
> proof to the intended output (also checking "Simulate Paper Color") or
> convert to Lab (via the Absolute Colorimetric RI).
>
> 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