RE: Silly question department, Display Media White Point
RE: Silly question department, Display Media White Point
- Subject: RE: Silly question department, Display Media White Point
- From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 23:09:45 -0500
First, about the ISO-15339 grand scheme of things.
There were seven "Characterized Reference Process Colors" datasets worked together last year among CGATS and volunteers from IDEAlliance. These datasets were massaged from a few, base existing datasets, having been "G7" and what not in the process.
They are no more "real" than synthetic RGB spaces.
One dataset, in particular, for Supercal -- how can I ever forget it?, called for an extremely high b* value for the solid yellow. That value was several orders of DeltaE away from anything that our best press, on the best paper, using our best inks could ever hit!
Other datasets in the pack are more realistic.
Keep in mind that, today, there is no longer any "official" dataset from SWOP/IDEAlliance (it's their trademark) corresponding to a grade 5 groundwood light-weight coated (LWC) paper? No more. Gone. Finish. Nada. Rien! A printer is expected to use the base CRPC-5 dataset, which correspond more of less to SWOP2006_C3, and, with the help of an Excel sheet or with some other existing commercial toolset, to "mathematically-derive" one's grade 5 dataset, from which to build a profile.
Second, how will this address the issue of print shops that tell end users to convert to SWOP when they are running a non SWOP press? Not all printer staff are color-saavy enough to guide their clients through color but many printers, as you noted, are smart enough to specify "SWOP" when they know full well that they are so far away from SWOP?
The rubber actually meets the road at the point of hardcopy proofing. I've seen GMG proofing system running crappy, inexpensive, brutally optically-brightened proofing paper -- which broke my little heart in 1000 little pieces. The point is, many printers don't really know the details of their proofing and how best their presses actually hit their proofs? When I hear a printer claim that "their presses match their proofs", I become suspicious. I've learned over the years that color matching means all kinds of things to all kinds of people.
My point is that we're such a loooong way from SWOP... "Standards"? I speak with many printers and the only standard many still only know and adhere to is *density and dot gain*, even though the last IDEAlliance does not specify them. There are "better printers" out there, shops that have good technicians and take their job at heart but that's not the majority.
Best / Roger
-----Original Message-----
From: colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=email@hidden [mailto:colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=email@hidden] On Behalf Of Andrew Rodney
Sent: 26 février 2015 22:01
To: ColorSync List
Subject: Re: Silly question department, Display Media White Point
> On Feb 26, 2015, at 7:24 PM, Roger Breton <email@hidden> wrote:
>
> This is the whole notion of "Characterized Reference" datasets aka ISO-15339, put together last year by IDEAlliance.
In what way is this a synthetic, Quasi-Device Independent CMYK color space?
Having Specifications for a print condition is one thing (that is after all the S in SWOP which is nothing new).
As that S or specification keeps changing, I suppose Adobe (and others) are to continually update their color preferences to match? I'm all for specifications when everyone honestly follows and conforms to them. As was the idea behind SWOPV2/TR001. Which today is the CMYK measles of the month. Further, how will this address the issue of print shops that tell end users to convert to SWOP when they are running a non SWOP press?
Andrew Rodney
http://www.digitaldog.net/
_______________________________________________
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
| References: | |
| | >Re: Silly question department, Display Media White Point (From: John Lund <email@hidden>) |
| | >Re: Silly question department, Display Media White Point (From: Karsten Krüger <email@hidden>) |
| | >Re: Silly question department, Display Media White Point (From: G Mike Adams <email@hidden>) |
| | >RE: Silly question department, Display Media White Point (From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>) |
| | >Re: Silly question department, Display Media White Point (From: G Mike Adams <email@hidden>) |
| | >RE: Silly question department, Display Media White Point (From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>) |
| | >Re: Silly question department, Display Media White Point (From: G Mike Adams <email@hidden>) |
| | >RE: Silly question department, Display Media White Point (From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>) |
| | >Re: Silly question department, Display Media White Point (From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>) |
| | >RE: Silly question department, Display Media White Point (From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>) |
| | >Re: Silly question department, Display Media White Point (From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>) |