RE: SWOPv2 is dead
RE: SWOPv2 is dead
- Subject: RE: SWOPv2 is dead
- From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 21:48:31 -0500
Mark,
I *love* the ColorSync Utility, It's a fantastic tool. Sadly, as Jorge found out, its usefulness to dig into the uniqueness of profiles is somewhat limited. That's why I suggested Photoshop as a "poor-man ColorThink" -- no, Photoshop does not have 3D-kind of analytics for ICC profiles. I'd rather go with a tool like ColorThink, or some other good ones, too, GamutTools is another one which comes to mind.
I wish there were more of these tools. I wish they could do more too but the market is too narrow for any of these tools to flourish and prosper, in my opinion :(
Best / Roger
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Stegman [mailto:email@hidden]
Sent: 2 mars 2015 21:29
To: Roger Breton
Cc: Jorge .; 'colorsync-users?lists.apple.com' List
Subject: Re: SWOPv2 is dead
Roger,
All very good for Photoshop but I thought Jorge started out looking at the profile comparison in the Colorsync Utility. I Haven't found the 3D gamut view in Photoshop yet but I'll keep looking. Maybe we should suggest it as a new tool! It' s gotta be better than the Colorsync utility for this.
Mark
> On 3 Mar 2015, at 1:15 pm, Roger Breton <email@hidden> wrote:
>
> Photoshop is a good tool for peeking into a profile.
> I use is all the time, Mark.
>
> Have you ever done looked at a "profile" this way, out of opening an IT8.7/4 target and having assigned some ICC profile to it?
> Couldn't be easier. It's a very easy starting point.
>
> For comparing two profiles, I like to open two IT8.7/4 images and assign a different profile to each image.
> Then I simply convert each image AbsCol to Lab and bring them under a single document on tow layers.
>
> Using the Difference Blending mode, I find it easy to identify large areas of differences. It's quick but it's not perfect.
> But it's easy enough to hide the topmost layer to spot the obvious differences.
>
> / Roger
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Stegman [mailto:email@hidden]
> Sent: 2 mars 2015 20:59
> To: Roger Breton
> Cc: Jorge .; 'colorsync-users?lists.apple.com' List
> Subject: Re: SWOPv2 is dead
>
> Roger,
>
> The Colorsync Tool is a poor instrument for this as all profiles are
> mapped from 0 to 100 L. You get a much better representation with
> ProfileMaker Pro and Profiler (if I could get that bit to work) and
> even better still (?) with ColorThink [which I don't have a copy of
> :-((. ]
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>> On 3 Mar 2015, at 12:24 pm, Roger Breton <email@hidden> wrote:
>>
>> Start by comparing their relative "end points". How does 100C in one space compares to 100C in the other space, and so on.
>> If they both "represent" ISO-12647-2, their respective colorimetry ought to coincide with that documented in the standard.
>> This is easy to check in Photoshop. Just assign one profile after the other to a characterization chart like IT8.7/4 Visual or Random. Make sure you select AbsCol in Conversion options and inspect Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, Black, Red, Green and Blue, paper white, and compare with the standard? If all those end points coincide then you need to dig further, look at 50 percenters in all four colors and their overprints.
>>
>> I would tend to favor the one that is closest to the standard. But there could be matter of "tastes" in one style of separations vs the other. Not a black or white issue.
>>
>> Best / Roger
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=email@hidden [mailto:colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=email@hidden] On Behalf Of Jorge .
>> Sent: 2 mars 2015 05:02
>> To: 'colorsync-users?lists.apple.com' List
>> Subject: Re: SWOPv2 is dead
>>
>> Using the compare feature of ColorSync Utility with ISO Coated v2
>> (ECI) against Adobe's Coated FOGRA39 (ISO 12647-2:2004) reveals rather different (I think) 3D representations of their color spaces. Why is that and what does it reveal?
>>
>>
>>>> On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 7:55 PM, Martin Orpen <email@hidden> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 28 Feb 2015, at 18:12, Roger Breton <email@hidden> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Please excuse my ignorance but is "ISO Coated v2 (300)" based on Fogra39?
>>>
>>> Yes. It’s the ISO Coated v2 profile with a 300% ink limit.
>>>
>>> ECI offset guidelines state:
>>>
>>> The ECI offset profile “ISO Coated v2 300% (ECI)” is a good choice
>>> in cases where the intended printing condition is not yet known. The
>>> advantage of the version of the coated profile with a maximum total
>>> ink coverage of 300% is it‘s higher flexibility regarding the use
>>> for sheetfed and web offset printing. Prepress data prepared with
>>> this profile can be converted to many other printing conditions with
>>> good results, however, the best possible results will be achieved
>>> with cmyk prepress data prepared with the profile that matches
>>> thatprinting condition exactly.
>>>
>>> <http://www.eci.org/en/colorstandards/offset>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
>> Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
>> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>> t
>> ron.ca
>>
>> 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:
>> 4
>> 0gmail.com
>>
>> 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