Re: Just how accurate we we need to be?
Re: Just how accurate we we need to be?
- Subject: Re: Just how accurate we we need to be?
- From: Marco Ugolini <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:55:06 -0800
- Thread-topic: Just how accurate we we need to be?
In a message dated 1/22/10 5:36 AM, Terry Wyse wrote:
> But in the proofing world (proof verification) where we're increasingly
> relying on "virtual" press characterization data such as GRACoL and Fogra 39
> where we have no reliable visual reference, numbers are "virtually" all we
> have to go by.
>
> I agree that the visual result is what we're ultimately striving for (the eyes
> are an excellent *comparator* but a poor *reference* instrument) but I still
> find the impartiality of the instrument an extremely valuable tool. To put it
> bluntly, I can trust that my SpectroEye will not be influenced by last
> evening's over indulgence in adult beverages or my own mood swings. :-)
>
> Having said all that, what keeps me up at night is still inter and
> intra-instrument agreement. LOTS more work should be done in this area before
> instrumentation and numbers alone can be fully trusted.
>
> To summarize....instruments and eyeballs work...sometimes.
Hi Terry.
That's a good reminder of how instruments and numbers serve us well in
production environments.
Proof verifications "by the numbers" (which is incidentally quite different
from what is known as "working by the numbers" in pre-ICC CM CMYK-only
early-binding) are increasingly being used in prepress-oriented workflows
strictly to emulate and preview print conditions on press.
In other words, more evidence that, when used within strict parameters of
precision, reliability and repeatability, instruments and numbers have
indeed their place of honor in our line of work.
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