July 2015 - colorsync-users

Standard spectral normalization practices?
by Ben Goren 11 Aug '15

11 Aug '15

So, I'm getting my hands truly soaked with spectral color calculations for the first time, and I've noticed an oddity that I'm hoping somebody here might be able to clarify. The spectral data and formulas and what-no published by the CIE are explicitly and obviously standardized so that illuminants all have power = 100 at 560 nm. But the 1931 2° Standard Observer table is normalized so that y(lambda) = 1.000000 at 550 nm. And the 1964 10° Standard Observer is y(lambda) = 0.999110 at 550 nm, with nothing exactly equal to 1 (and 550 nm still the peak for y(lambda)). I would naively expect everything to be normalized for the same wavelength. Is there a reason why illuminants are normalized for 560 nm and the Standard Observer for 555 nm? Does it make a practical difference, let alone a real-world one? Thanks, b&

2 3

open profile in i1Profiler
by jslist＠vollbio.de 23 Jul '15

23 Jul '15

Hi, is it possible to open an ICC-Profile, generated with i1Profiler, in i1Profiler: a) to see the settings made b) to create a new profile with modified settings? br, Jörg Schober (sorry for the empty mails, reason was html-formatting)

3 2

open profile in i1Profiler
by jslist＠vollbio.de 23 Jul '15

23 Jul '15

1 0

open profile in i1Profiler
by "Jörg Schober" 23 Jul '15

23 Jul '15

1 0

Another hardware question (was: Re: Apple laptops)
by John Lund 20 Jul '15

20 Jul '15

> On Jul 16, 2015, at 12:00 PM, colorsync-users-request(a)lists.apple.com wrote: > >>> On Jul 15, 2015, at 3:56 AM, Mark Stegman <mark.stegman(a)gmail.com <mailto:mark.stegman@gmail.com> <mailto:mark.stegman@gmail.com <mailto:mark.stegman@gmail.com>>> wrote: >>> >>> Apple laptop users, >>> >>> This sort of discussion is a bit of an indulgence but I have been thinking >>> about this for quite a while and the forum is quiet at the moment. It also >>> has a high proportion of serious users and I would like to know what they >>> think about current the range of laptops on offer from Apple. — Not to highjack this thread - well, I guess I am, but at least I changed the Subject line… Regarding legacy hardware, I am wondering about users’ experience with the new Mac Pro models - the “eggplant” ones, or whatever people call them now. I have been a happy camper with my 2010 Mac Pro, upgraded with an SSD boot disk & 32GB RAM. But camera files are getting bigger & bigger! My 645z images, while wonderful, are taxing LightRoom a lot more than anything from my Canons. And my retouching work will soon be on 50mp files from Canon, as well. So it looks like the writing is on the wall, another hardware upgrade is unavoidable. But I really don’t know much about how the newer Mac Pros are working out for people, so would love to hear some reports. I assume I’ll have to load it with RAM, SSD size, etc. at purchase, as Apple seems to want to discourage cracking the case later. Are Thunderbolt externals an improvement over stuffing multiple big drives inside my desktop machine? Any “gotchas” adapting current peripherals - e.g., I’d like to continue using my NEC PA241W. I guess I’d really like some sense of whether the performance increase will feel like it justifies all the trouble & $$ of the upgrade (yes, I’m checking places like BareFeats.com, but I’m interested in feedback from people working in imaging, specifically). Thanks in advance for any comments. John JWL Images Emeryville, CA

6 5

Re: Another hardware question
by John Lund 17 Jul '15

17 Jul '15

I wrote (in part): > But I really don’t know much about how the newer Mac Pros are working out for people, so would love to hear some reports. Thanks to Martin & all who have responded off list as well. One response that surprised me: the advice was to forget Mac Pros entirely (if not "editing video or rendering 3d models”) and just get a Retina display iMac. I must admit I hadn’t even considered an iMac, still thinking of it as something my friends use for word processing & web surfing (realize I’m dating myself here). Maybe I should broaden my search - anyone else care to endorse or refute the idea of an iMac? I do run multiple Lightroom catalogs, about 30K raw captures in one, maybe 10K finished prints in a second, another with 40K jobs files - you get the picture. And the raw captures catalog will be gaining lots more 50MP files… John JWL Images Emeryville, CA

1 0

Re: Apple laptops
by Andrew Rodney 17 Jul '15

17 Jul '15

> On Jul 16, 2015, at 6:06 PM, david <david(a)spinnakerphotoimagingcenter.com> wrote: > > Are the retina displays capable of being profiled for color critical work? Define 'critical work'. Everyone's got a different answer. I wouldn’t use that alone without at the very least, a proof and I'd prefer to have a look on my NEC SpectraView prior to that. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/

2 1

Apple laptops
by Mark Stegman 17 Jul '15

17 Jul '15

Apple laptop users, This sort of discussion is a bit of an indulgence but I have been thinking about this for quite a while and the forum is quiet at the moment. It also has a high proportion of serious users and I would like to know what they think about current the range of laptops on offer from Apple. Believe it to not but I still have a working 17" laptop that is 9 years old. It has no battery (replaced twice) and a 'new' hard drive and maximum RAM. Yes, the 'rubber bands' are a little tired, it takes a while to boot up, doesn't support current versions of most applications (not necessarily a bad thing) and won't run any version of OS X past 10.6.8. (which also has its advantages). I can't use it for serious image editing anymore but I can use it for other things. including the use of 'redundant' colour management software. The one thing I really love about this laptop is the screen size. As far as I'm concerned it is at the maximum but also the optimum size for a portable image editing device. Any larger and you may as well go and pack a ghetto blaster on your shoulder for music as you will be driving a truck anyway. It's just too cumbersome. At 17 inches it is still portable without being unmanageable and portability is the prime utility and benefit of a laptop. So I found it sad as well as surprising when it was dropped from the line of laptops on offer some years ago. The rest of my family have 13 and 15 inch laptops and for their purposes they're just great as they most;y focussed on social media and all that goes with it. However, for the purposes of professional photoimaging I find they're just too small, especially if you take one on the road and it's the only thing you have to work with. Even the 15" with the retina display falls short in my book. If you add the ever increasing resolution of cameras, even at the prosumer end, as well as the advent of ultra-high definition displays then I think there is a case for a professional standard photoimaging laptop that matches these capabilities and I can't see one in the current range on offer or even on the horizon. In short, I would like Apple to 'resurrect' the 17" laptop with a monitor that matches the resolution of FHD, or even UHD resolutions, and specifications that complement it so that photographers and other imaging professionals have a portable device that matches their needs and aspirations. All those in favour say "Aye". Anyone with something to offer on 'complementary' specifications, please contribute. Regards, Mark Stegman

6 7

Viewing Booths
by Mike Stewart 16 Jul '15

16 Jul '15

Just wondering how people are verifying accuracy to ISO 3664-2009 not only on your own viewing booths; but also on "clients" viewing booths? For years we were ordering bulbs through our graphics supplier. These bulbs do adhere to ISO 3664-2009; but we started seeing a rather large discrepancy between our two large viewing booths; especially with optically brightened papers. Booths were clean, no ambient light problems. It is important to note that the bulbs were not purchased through Home Depot type stores, but through a reputable Graphics supplier. We talked with the booth manufacturer who mentioned that bulbs could still meet the ISO 3664-2009 requirements while coming from different manufacturers (ex: Sylvania, Philips). Needless to say the viewing booth manufacturer said to order bulbs from themselves. We did that and it completely solved our in-house problem. I asked them about using the GATF Rhem indicators on customers booths and they implied that they would not work too well. If that is the case; how can we ensure that our customers (worldwide) are seeing what we are seeing. Is there a different "Rhem" indicator that might work, such as the one Ugra sells? Can we suggest that they purchase bulbs from the viewing booth manufacturer. It really is unfortunate that bulbs can adhere to the ISO specification but still create rather large visual differences. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks Mike Stewart

3 3

Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 12, Issue 81
by Mike Stewart 08 Jul '15

08 Jul '15

Thanks for the reply Roger. You mention that a given ink/substrate combination becomes manageable if within spec. That works just fine and so it should. However, OBA's in uncoated stocks play havoc with specifications. We are proofing on the actual printing stock using inks that fit the ISO ink specification. We put colour bars on every proof. The problem is what is the "specification". What do we tell the printer. Do we say we are proofing to Fogra47 on this particular stock? What good is the colour bar now that there is no real specification to adhere to? - Mike On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 2:00 PM, <colorsync-users-request(a)lists.apple.com> wrote: > Send Colorsync-users mailing list submissions to > colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > colorsync-users-request(a)lists.apple.com > > You can reach the person managing the list at > colorsync-users-owner(a)lists.apple.com > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Colorsync-users digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. RE: dealing with printers (Roger Breton) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2015 08:28:57 -0400 > From: Roger Breton <graxx(a)videotron.ca> > To: homann(a)colormanagement.de, colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com > Subject: RE: dealing with printers > Message-ID: <e87901d0b654$ffd4ab20$ff7e0160$(a)videotron.ca> > Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII > > I say, the only thing that really helps, in this area, on the part of the > printer, is its willingness to adhere to some existing standard or > published specification. I work with a new printer these days and as long > as I am able to sway the behavior of the press on a given substrate close > to a known condition like GRACoL20xx then, all of a sudden, color becomes > "manageable". But it takes commitment from management to do so. Usually, > the typical policy is to have the proof reflect whatever color appearances > the press creates, given a set of inks and substrate combination. There are > pros and cons to this approach, indeed but, in my view, that's no enough. > It is a start but it's not enough. One of the most difficult aspect of > trying to "manage" the overall picture on press, in my humble opinion, is > the colorimetry of the inks. I have often seen Magenta come out way too > blue (b* of -9 or -8) or Cyan not being "green" enough (a* around -31 or > -32). Yellow is usually fine. Black, it depends. But Magenta and Cyan are > the worst culprits, in my opinion. I once convinced an ink supplier to > change its recipe for Cyan ink and, boy, I loved that a* = -38 value we > were getting on press. All of a sudden, matching proofs was a very > different game. But it didn't last long because none wanted to accept the > increased ink costs (?!). Ink suppliers are quick to point out that can do > "anything" for their clients but when it comes down to actually doing it, > they're just as quick to point out the economic consequences. Yet, an ink > set that is closer to any given specification will help save time and > material on press by helping obtain a closer match to color earlier in the > run avoiding lengthy make-readies and customer disappointment. > > / Roger > > -----Original Message----- > From: colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=videotron.ca(a)lists.apple.com [mailto: > colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=videotron.ca(a)lists.apple.com] On Behalf Of > Jan-Peter Homann > Sent: 3 juillet 2015 06:46 > To: colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com > Subject: Re: dealing with printers > > Hello Mike, > You raise some interesting questions. From my personal point of view, a > workflow with substrate calculated data is currently fine for a inhouse > workflow, with proofing and printing in the same company or with a very > close cooperation between prepress provider and printer. > It does currently not fit the blind exchange of data and proofs based on > international standards (ISO) or international specifications (GRACoL, PSO > etc... ) > > ESpecially in the uncoated area, we have the case, that current standards > and specs are not addressing papers with a lot of optical brighteners. > Instititutions like e.g. FOGRA / ECI are working intensive on this issue > and I guess also Idealliance. > > See e.g. http://www.eci.org/en/projects/fred15 scrool down and have a > look at FOGRA52 data > > Regards > Jan-Peter > > > > Am 17.06.2015 um 19:19 schrieb Mike Stewart: > > Now that we are moving to Substrate Calculated Data sets based on > > paper white; how on earth do we communicate this to printers. Before > > OBA's we had GRACoL, Fogra47 - just to name a few. We would colour > > manage our proofs to GRACoL or Fogra47 (or some print specification), > > place an Idealliance colour bar on each proof and the customer/printer > > could measure the colour bar to see if we were in compliance or not to > the particular specification. > > > > Now we start from GRACoL Uncoated 2013, change the Paper White values, > > create a new Data Set and proof to the new data set. Our colour bar on > > each proof now becomes useless as it will never match to the original > > GRACoL Uncoated 2013. How do we communicate this to a printer in Asia. > > How can they now trust our proofs. Do we give them a small single row > > Press Type Colour Bar that prints within the job itself and also give > > the printer the specs. for that colour bar. If so, what are the specs. > > of that colour bar (C,M,Y,K,R,G,B, grey balance swatches, etc). Data > > for that file would have to be colorimetric and not solid ink and dot > gain values I'm guessing. > > > > Thanks > > Mike Stewart > > _______________________________________________ > > Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. > > Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com) > > Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: > > https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/homann%40color > > management.de > > > > This email sent to homann(a)colormanagement.de > > > -- > Homann colormanagement tel: +49 30 611 075 18 > Jan-Peter Homann mob: +49 171 54 70 358 > Herzbergstr. 55 www.colormanagement.de > 10365 Berlin mailto:homann@colormanagement.de > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Colorsync-users mailing list > Colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com > https://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users > > End of Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 12, Issue 81 > *********************************************** >

2 1