March 2019 - colorsync-users

Color & Imaging Conference CFP Closes April 7 - Submit Your Research Today!
by Roberta Morehouse 21 Mar '19

21 Mar '19

Does your research impact the medical field or applications like Virtual Reality and 3D printing, video and film production, or further enhance the study of color science? Consider sharing your expertise as an oral or interactive paper, in the Journal of Imaging Science and Technology (JIST), or through a short course or workshop. Your ticket awaits—Submit your research today for the Twenty-seventh Color and Imaging Conference (CIC27)! CIC27 | 21-25 October 2019 | Paris, France www.imaging.org/color TOPICS INCLUDE... Color Perception: Visual adaptation, visual psychophysics, color blindness, psychological effects of color... Capture, Display, and Print: Color imaging sensing, mobile color imaging, special effects color printing, high dynamic range (HDR)... Material Appearance and Color: Material capture, 3D printing, 3D CAD modeling, computer-generated imagery (CGI)... Specific Color Applications: Cultural heritage applications, color in cinema and broadcast video, AR/VR/MR, video games... View the full list of topics and submission details at www.imaging.org/color Journal of Imaging Science and Technology (JIST-first) Deadline: 24 March 2019 Conference Proceedings Paper Deadline: 7 April 2019 Connect with our community! LinkedIn: IS&T CIC Group Twitter: @ImagingOrg #CIC27 | Subscribe to the Color & Imaging list for news and discussion

1 0

Re: Proofing media (was Re: Monitor White Point Confusion)
by John Lund 08 Mar '19

08 Mar '19

I really appreciate the responses on this - thanks to all! Now I’ve got some work to do... John > On 07.03.2019 20:56, "colorsync-users on behalf of John Lund" > <colorsync-users-bounces+rtelhan=icloud.com(a)lists.apple.com on behalf of > john(a)jwlimages.com> wrote (in part): > > …<snip>... > > So my question is, what might be a more appropriate paper for > general-purpose proofing - recommendations gladly accepted! > > Thanks, > > John > JWL Images

1 0

Proofing media (was Re: Monitor White Point Confusion)
by John Lund 08 Mar '19

08 Mar '19

Thanks to all for this discussion. I have learned a lot. Ben’s comment also reminded me of a question I have wanted to pose… > On Mar 7, 2019, at 9:17 AM, Ben Goren <ben(a)trumpetpower.com <mailto:ben@trumpetpower.com>> wrote: > > If you can’t make proof prints on the same stock as the final, at least get something with a similar amount of OBA. For the past few years we have been using Epson’s Proofing Paper White Semimatte as a (relatively) neutral media for our Fiery-driven Epson SC P9000 proofing system. I am finding that increasingly, our clients’s files are being printed on paper stock loaded with optical brightening agents, so our “neutral” media appears quite “yellowish” compared to the final press output. I’m beginning to think that media that measures “neutral” is now anachronistic when proofing for publications. So my question is, what might be a more appropriate paper for general-purpose proofing - recommendations gladly accepted! Thanks, John JWL Images

4 6

Re: Monitor White Point Confusion
by Nagy Péter 08 Mar '19

08 Mar '19

To Graeme: thanks for the explanation. Now I have a better understanding why the softproofs in Photoshop rarely have any practical use. To Claas: Would you mind suggesting us some softproofing applications? The only one I know about is iColor Proof, which wasn’t even released officially by Quato, just before they ceased operation. Kind regards, Péter Colorcom > On 2019. Mar 6., at 21:00, 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: colorsync-users Digest, Vol 16, Issue 5 (Louis Dina) > 2. Re: Monitor White Point Confusion (Graeme Gill) > 3. Re: Monitor White Point Confusion (Claas Bickeböller) > 4. CFP Open - CIC27 21-25 October 2019 | Paris, France > (Roberta Morehouse) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2019 14:15:27 -0600 > From: Louis Dina <lou(a)loudina.com> > To: colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com > Subject: Re: colorsync-users Digest, Vol 16, Issue 5 > Message-ID: > <CAOTaQcJUN=GHgBV+DNPcXbSbF7o3N3BbUxUUOXgSKAr=tw38=Q(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Peter Miles and Peter Nagy, > > Thanks, you both confirmed what Refik (thank you) shared and what I have > just learned. This was always a bit of a muddle to me, but finally it is > clear. I've been using 5600-5800K monitor WP for years with great soft > proofing success, and now I know why it works so well, and why 6500K > doesn't. > > Mystery solved! Thanks everyone. > > Lou > > >> Message: 3 >> Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2019 04:26:58 +0000 >> From: "Miles, Peter" <P.Miles(a)massey.ac.nz> >> To: "colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com" >> <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> >> Subject: Re: Monitor White Point Confusion >> Message-ID: <53F81896-AC30-4325-8C52-8A9874C4CD95(a)massey.ac.nz> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 >> >> >> Hi Lou. >> I can confirm what Refik is saying from having made on-screen >> measurements• using an i1pro and Spectrashop a few years back. >> >> >> Regards >> Peter Miles >> >> >> *A few years back I wanted to clarify in my mind the same question Lou >> asked. >> So I measured the on-screen colour of a soft proof in photoshop when the >> 'simulate paper color’ was on. I compared that to measurements I made of >> the display white point. I did this on a profiled Eizo at a 3 different >> white point settings . >> >> From the measurements it was clear that the on-screen colour of the >> soft-proof (with ‘Simulate Paper Color’ on) was different for each display >> white point used. >> And from comparing the ab plots in Spectrashop it was also clear that the >> on-screen colour of the soft-proof (with ‘Simulate Paper Color' on) was >> being shifted ‘relative' to the white point of the display. >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 4 >> Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2019 08:46:00 +0100 >> From: Nagy Péter <peter(a)colorcom.hu> >> To: colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com >> Subject: Re: Monitor White Point Confusion >> Message-ID: <72488E8B-6BE0-4DBF-8332-9776FADD134A(a)colorcom.hu> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 >> >> Hi Lou, >> >> What you would like to do is IMHO possible in theory, but you have to take >> into account the capabilities of the math model and the devices you use. If >> you try to mimic the actual printed piece on your screen (meaning you >> switch to soft-proof mode in Photoshop) you’re working in the 8-bit realm >> of the current graphics software and device drivers. If you’re far away >> from the target (eg. on a screen calibrated to a white point of 6500K) the >> color management engine has to perform a large correction to achieve the >> desired result. Measurement and profiling errors add up, and the color you >> see on screen will not be perfect. >> >> On the other hand, your original approach (calibrating to 5700-5800) is >> almost perfect, as that’s the ‘perceived’ white point of today’s >> OBA-stuffed coated papers under 5000K lighting. In this case, the color >> management engine performs a relatively small conversion on the white >> point, so the errors will be smaller or negligible. >> >> Until we don’t have 10 or more bit ‘deep’ device drivers and monitors (and >> work with 16 bit images in Photoshop), the best you can do is to calibrate >> to the closest perceived white. Another consideration might be to employ >> displays which are more conservative on the contrast; we don’t need 1:10000 >> for soft proofing. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Peter Nagy >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> ********************************************** >> > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 12:53:42 +1100 > From: Graeme Gill <graeme2(a)argyllcms.com> > To: ColorSync <ColorSync-Users(a)lists.apple.com> > Subject: Re: Monitor White Point Confusion > Message-ID: <817d2e33-6f5b-fca9-8e93-f3ff47a15943(a)argyllcms.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > Nagy Péter wrote: > > Hi, > >> What you would like to do is IMHO possible in theory, but you have to take into account >> the capabilities of the math model and the devices you use. If you try to mimic the >> actual printed piece on your screen (meaning you switch to soft-proof mode in >> Photoshop) you’re working in the 8-bit realm of the current graphics software and >> device drivers. > > It's worse than that though. AFAIK, Photoshop, ICC and the desktop > conspire against using display profiles in Absolute Colorimetric intent, > AKA soft proofing side by side mode. > > 1) As I understand it, Photoshop's proofing mode only uses a pseudo-absolute > mode. The print profile is set to Absolute colorimetric while the display > profile is left in Relative Colorimetric. So this gives you an > impression of the white shift due to the paper color, but adapted to > the white point of the display. It isn't actually attempting > an absolute colorimetric match. > > 2) ICC V4 disables display profile Absolute Colorimetric intent by > mandating the white point tag be set to D50. So a standard CMM > won't render the display output with the absolute intent, > ruining any attempt at an absolute colorimetric match. > > 3) Even ignoring 1) and 2), if your desktop and application have > their own GUI elements showing, they will be rendered relative > to the native display white point, and so will upset your adaptation > state, and make the proofing output appear too yellow. > > So given all these problems, the only practical approach is > to calibrate the display so that it has a white point that > matches the paper white. That way a Relative Colorimetric > rendering will work for a soft proof side by side comparison. > > Cheers, > Graeme Gill. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 07:44:22 +0100 > From: Claas Bickeböller <lists(a)bickeboeller.name> > To: ColorSync <ColorSync-Users(a)lists.apple.com> > Subject: Re: Monitor White Point Confusion > Message-ID: <A778E3F9-B5D9-4C1D-BD0F-50D87123C375(a)bickeboeller.name> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Hi, > > I can recommend to read the Fogra Softproof Handbook > > https://www.fogra.org/index.php?menuid=626&reporeid=200&getlang=en > > A lot of theory with a lot of practical advise. > >> Am 06.03.2019 um 02:53 schrieb Graeme Gill <graeme2(a)argyllcms.com>: >> >> Nagy Péter wrote: > >> On the other hand, your original approach (calibrating to 5700-5800) is almost perfect, as that’s the ‘perceived’ white point of today’s OBA-stuffed coated papers under 5000K lighting. > > The reason for this is that most instruments which are usually used are simply inaccurate in measuring CCT. > Using an accurate instrument an adjustment of the monitor WP to the same CCT as your viewing cabinet gives a visual match. > But these instruments are out of budget of a normal end user. > >> >> >> So given all these problems, the only practical approach is >> to calibrate the display so that it has a white point that >> matches the paper white. That way a Relative Colorimetric >> rendering will work for a soft proof side by side comparison. > > Using Photoshop I agree. > There are dedicated softproofing applications around where the absolute approach works though. > > Best regards > > Claas > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 19:21:32 +0000 > From: Roberta Morehouse <RMorehouse(a)imaging.org> > To: "colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com" > <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> > Subject: CFP Open - CIC27 21-25 October 2019 | Paris, France > Message-ID: <5E4BB1820DF48448AD0F4B07705195925FDD9706@us0-sb01> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > The IS&T Twenty-seventh Color and Imaging Conference (CIC27), 21-25 October 2019, is the premier annual technical gathering for scientists, technologists, and engineers working in the areas of color science and systems, and their application to color imaging. This year, CIC27 is collocated with MCS'19, the 21st International Symposium on Multispectral Colour Science. > > Participants represent disciplines ranging from psychophysics, optical physics, image processing, and color science to graphic arts, systems engineering, and hardware and software development. While a broad mix of professional interests is the hallmark of this conference, the focus is color. > > If you are involved in this diverse field, submit your research findings and ideas that support the development and success of the next wave of innovations in color science. > > 21-25 October 2019 | Paris, France > Learn more @ www.imaging.org/color > > TOPICS: > Color Perception > Capture, Display, and Print > Material Appearance and Color > Color in Illumination and Lighting > Color Theory > Image Quality > Multispectral Imaging > Specific Color Applications > > SUBMISSION OPTIONS: > Journal of Imaging Science and Technology (JIST-first) > Deadline: 24 March 2019 > > Conference Proceedings Paper > Deadline: 7 April 2019 > Final papers are due in electronic format no later than 3 September 2019. > > CALL FOR WORKSHOPS & SHORT COURSES - Deadline: 7 April 2019 > > Workshops are scheduled on Tuesday, 22 October for 2.5 hours > Email: color(a)imaging.org w/last name in the subject line > Subject: CIC27 Workshop Proposal > > Short Courses are scheduled on Monday, 21 October and Tuesday, 22 October for 2-4 hours > Email: color(a)imaging.org w/last name in the subject line > Subject: CIC27 Short Course Proposal > > . Topics related to subjects included in the conference topics > . Provide a topic description, format (i.e., short papers; panel discussion; hands-on, etc.), and a list of speakers/moderators (confirmed or potential) > > Questions? color(a)imaging.org > > Connect with our community! > Twitter @ImagingOrg #CIC27 - Subscribe to our Color and Imaging list > LinkedIn: IS&T Color and Imaging Conference (CIC) group > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > colorsync-users mailing list > colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com > https://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users > > > ------------------------------ > > End of colorsync-users Digest, Vol 16, Issue 6 > **********************************************

3 3

RE: Proofing media (was Re: Monitor White Point Confusion)
by graxx＠videotron.ca 07 Mar '19

07 Mar '19

I have to throw my grain of salt here. I did an experiment last year where I created a paper profile for Epson Double Weight Matte while looking for a way to proof one of the new Uncoated CRPC. I used a Minolta FD-9 to make M1 measurements. In the end, I proofed my good old Macbeth ColorChecker and, boy, under ISO-3664:2009 lamps, was I surprised by the visual match? Wouldn't have never expected that. Best / Roger -----Original Message----- From: colorsync-users <colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=videotron.ca(a)lists.apple.com> On Behalf Of Refik Telhan Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 4:04 PM To: colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com List <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> Cc: John Lund <john(a)jwlimages.com> Subject: Re: Proofing media (was Re: Monitor White Point Confusion) Hi John, Here is a short list: EFI Proofing Paper 8245OBA Semimatt M0: 95.62|0.77|-3.20 M1: 95.74|0.93|-4.49 GMG ProofPaper Semimatte 250 OBA M0: 97.17|0.31|-3.24 M1: 97.30|0.48|-4.72 Felix Schoeller P51311 TRUST PREMIUM SATIN 200 M0: 95.75|0.85|-3.28 M1: 95.86|1.00|-4.49 Mitsubishi Papers SM 2551 P M0: 96.00|0.92|-3.58 M1: 96.11|1.11|-4.91 These are measured on a white backing with an i1Pro2. Some of them have slightly different values in their datasheets. I have profiled and used two of them. I have physical samples of the remaining two. They really come close to the real thing, Best, Refik Telhan On 07.03.2019 20:56, "colorsync-users on behalf of John Lund" <colorsync-users-bounces+rtelhan=icloud.com(a)lists.apple.com on behalf of john(a)jwlimages.com> wrote: Thanks to all for this discussion. I have learned a lot. Ben’s comment also reminded me of a question I have wanted to pose… > On Mar 7, 2019, at 9:17 AM, Ben Goren <ben(a)trumpetpower.com <mailto:ben@trumpetpower.com>> wrote: > > If you can’t make proof prints on the same stock as the final, at least get something with a similar amount of OBA. For the past few years we have been using Epson’s Proofing Paper White Semimatte as a (relatively) neutral media for our Fiery-driven Epson SC P9000 proofing system. I am finding that increasingly, our clients’s files are being printed on paper stock loaded with optical brightening agents, so our “neutral” media appears quite “yellowish” compared to the final press output. I’m beginning to think that media that measures “neutral” is now anachronistic when proofing for publications. So my question is, what might be a more appropriate paper for general-purpose proofing - recommendations gladly accepted! Thanks, John JWL Images _______________________________________________ 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/rtelhan%40icloud.com This email sent to rtelhan(a)icloud.com _______________________________________________ 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/graxx%40videotron.ca This email sent to graxx(a)videotron.ca

1 0

Re: Monitor White Point Confusion
by Refik Telhan 07 Mar '19

07 Mar '19

Dear Lou, The practical approach suggested by Graeme seems to be the only way out today. On page 30 of the Fogra Softproof Handbook version 1 (ENG), that has been suggested by Claas, it says: “A color temperature (CCT) in the range between 5000 to 6000 K might be optimal. Many users prefer values between 5300 and 5800 K.” On the same page, this handbook also suggests testing different monitor white settings to find the best match between the simulated paper white on the screen and the real print stock. The above paragraph goes on the say: “The calibration to a target white point which differs from 5000K is not wrong, but takes into account that the eyes perception of a self-luminous monitor might be perceived somewhat different to an illuminated unprinted substrate having an own coloration. This is due to the partly unknown „mechanics“ of chromatic adaptation. A tolerance measured of +/- 100 K is often not critical for the white point.” There is a version 2 of this handbook which has only been released in German. The Google translation of the same section says: “The calibration to a different white point than the 5000 K generally used in the ICC color management is not necessarily to be regarded as "wrong", but may be necessary to achieve a visually optimized match between a lit template (e.g. the proof print) and the self-luminous monitor. The reasons for the sometimes-different color perception of a lit paper and its reproduction on a monitor are not yet completely researched.” One other complication with soft proofing is that not only it is monitor brand/type-dependent, but it is also viewer-dependent. With a given desktop viewing box and a monitor combination, the white point that gives the best match depends on who is viewing. When you look at each monitor’s spectral emission curves, you start seeing that they have vastly different backlights and RGB band-pass filters. The widths and the peak wavelengths of the band-pass filters are different for each monitor. Given the that absorbance curves of the SML cone pigments for each individual is slightly different (the standard viewer is just an average), it is not surprising that we perceive monitors differently. A through testing is a must to find the best match for each lightbox, monitor and viewer combination. Best regards, Refik On 07.03.2019 00:05, "colorsync-users on behalf of Louis Dina" <colorsync-users-bounces+rtelhan=icloud.com(a)lists.apple.com on behalf of lou(a)loudina.com> wrote: Graeme and Claas, Thanks for the additional information on soft proofing, monitor profiling and achieving a better monitor to print match. I learned a lot during this discussion and it plugged some gaps and misunderstandings in my knowledge. Good information to know!! Thanks again. Lou It's worse than that though. AFAIK, Photoshop, ICC and the desktop > conspire against using display profiles in Absolute Colorimetric intent, > AKA soft proofing side by side mode. > > 1) As I understand it, Photoshop's proofing mode only uses a > pseudo-absolute > mode. The print profile is set to Absolute colorimetric while the display > profile is left in Relative Colorimetric. So this gives you an > impression of the white shift due to the paper color, but adapted to > the white point of the display. It isn't actually attempting > an absolute colorimetric match. > > 2) ICC V4 disables display profile Absolute Colorimetric intent by > mandating the white point tag be set to D50. So a standard CMM > won't render the display output with the absolute intent, > ruining any attempt at an absolute colorimetric match. > > 3) Even ignoring 1) and 2), if your desktop and application have > their own GUI elements showing, they will be rendered relative > to the native display white point, and so will upset your adaptation > state, and make the proofing output appear too yellow. > > So given all these problems, the only practical approach is > to calibrate the display so that it has a white point that > matches the paper white. That way a Relative Colorimetric > rendering will work for a soft proof side by side comparison. > > Cheers, > Graeme Gill. > > ------------------------------ > > The reason for this is that most instruments which are usually used are > simply inaccurate in measuring CCT. > Using an accurate instrument an adjustment of the monitor WP to the same > CCT as your viewing cabinet gives a visual match. > But these instruments are out of budget of a normal end user. > > > > > > > So given all these problems, the only practical approach is > > to calibrate the display so that it has a white point that > > matches the paper white. That way a Relative Colorimetric > > rendering will work for a soft proof side by side comparison. > > Using Photoshop I agree. > There are dedicated softproofing applications around where the absolute > approach works though. > > Best regards > > Claas > > _______________________________________________ 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/rtelhan%40icloud.com This email sent to rtelhan(a)icloud.com

3 2

Re: colorsync-users Digest, Vol 16, Issue 6
by Louis Dina 06 Mar '19

06 Mar '19

Graeme and Claas, Thanks for the additional information on soft proofing, monitor profiling and achieving a better monitor to print match. I learned a lot during this discussion and it plugged some gaps and misunderstandings in my knowledge. Good information to know!! Thanks again. Lou It's worse than that though. AFAIK, Photoshop, ICC and the desktop > conspire against using display profiles in Absolute Colorimetric intent, > AKA soft proofing side by side mode. > > 1) As I understand it, Photoshop's proofing mode only uses a > pseudo-absolute > mode. The print profile is set to Absolute colorimetric while the display > profile is left in Relative Colorimetric. So this gives you an > impression of the white shift due to the paper color, but adapted to > the white point of the display. It isn't actually attempting > an absolute colorimetric match. > > 2) ICC V4 disables display profile Absolute Colorimetric intent by > mandating the white point tag be set to D50. So a standard CMM > won't render the display output with the absolute intent, > ruining any attempt at an absolute colorimetric match. > > 3) Even ignoring 1) and 2), if your desktop and application have > their own GUI elements showing, they will be rendered relative > to the native display white point, and so will upset your adaptation > state, and make the proofing output appear too yellow. > > So given all these problems, the only practical approach is > to calibrate the display so that it has a white point that > matches the paper white. That way a Relative Colorimetric > rendering will work for a soft proof side by side comparison. > > Cheers, > Graeme Gill. > > ------------------------------ > > The reason for this is that most instruments which are usually used are > simply inaccurate in measuring CCT. > Using an accurate instrument an adjustment of the monitor WP to the same > CCT as your viewing cabinet gives a visual match. > But these instruments are out of budget of a normal end user. > > > > > > > So given all these problems, the only practical approach is > > to calibrate the display so that it has a white point that > > matches the paper white. That way a Relative Colorimetric > > rendering will work for a soft proof side by side comparison. > > Using Photoshop I agree. > There are dedicated softproofing applications around where the absolute > approach works though. > > Best regards > > Claas > >

1 0

CFP Open - CIC27 21-25 October 2019 | Paris, France
by Roberta Morehouse 06 Mar '19

06 Mar '19

The IS&T Twenty-seventh Color and Imaging Conference (CIC27), 21-25 October 2019, is the premier annual technical gathering for scientists, technologists, and engineers working in the areas of color science and systems, and their application to color imaging. This year, CIC27 is collocated with MCS'19, the 21st International Symposium on Multispectral Colour Science. Participants represent disciplines ranging from psychophysics, optical physics, image processing, and color science to graphic arts, systems engineering, and hardware and software development. While a broad mix of professional interests is the hallmark of this conference, the focus is color. If you are involved in this diverse field, submit your research findings and ideas that support the development and success of the next wave of innovations in color science. 21-25 October 2019 | Paris, France Learn more @ www.imaging.org/color TOPICS: Color Perception Capture, Display, and Print Material Appearance and Color Color in Illumination and Lighting Color Theory Image Quality Multispectral Imaging Specific Color Applications SUBMISSION OPTIONS: Journal of Imaging Science and Technology (JIST-first) Deadline: 24 March 2019 Conference Proceedings Paper Deadline: 7 April 2019 Final papers are due in electronic format no later than 3 September 2019. CALL FOR WORKSHOPS & SHORT COURSES - Deadline: 7 April 2019 Workshops are scheduled on Tuesday, 22 October for 2.5 hours Email: color(a)imaging.org w/last name in the subject line Subject: CIC27 Workshop Proposal Short Courses are scheduled on Monday, 21 October and Tuesday, 22 October for 2-4 hours Email: color(a)imaging.org w/last name in the subject line Subject: CIC27 Short Course Proposal . Topics related to subjects included in the conference topics . Provide a topic description, format (i.e., short papers; panel discussion; hands-on, etc.), and a list of speakers/moderators (confirmed or potential) Questions? color(a)imaging.org Connect with our community! Twitter @ImagingOrg #CIC27 - Subscribe to our Color and Imaging list LinkedIn: IS&T Color and Imaging Conference (CIC) group

1 0

Re: Monitor White Point Confusion
by Nagy Péter 06 Mar '19

06 Mar '19

Hi Lou, What you would like to do is IMHO possible in theory, but you have to take into account the capabilities of the math model and the devices you use. If you try to mimic the actual printed piece on your screen (meaning you switch to soft-proof mode in Photoshop) you’re working in the 8-bit realm of the current graphics software and device drivers. If you’re far away from the target (eg. on a screen calibrated to a white point of 6500K) the color management engine has to perform a large correction to achieve the desired result. Measurement and profiling errors add up, and the color you see on screen will not be perfect. On the other hand, your original approach (calibrating to 5700-5800) is almost perfect, as that’s the ‘perceived’ white point of today’s OBA-stuffed coated papers under 5000K lighting. In this case, the color management engine performs a relatively small conversion on the white point, so the errors will be smaller or negligible. Until we don’t have 10 or more bit ‘deep’ device drivers and monitors (and work with 16 bit images in Photoshop), the best you can do is to calibrate to the closest perceived white. Another consideration might be to employ displays which are more conservative on the contrast; we don’t need 1:10000 for soft proofing. Kind regards, Peter Nagy

3 2

Re: colorsync-users Digest, Vol 16, Issue 5
by Louis Dina 05 Mar '19

05 Mar '19

Peter Miles and Peter Nagy, Thanks, you both confirmed what Refik (thank you) shared and what I have just learned. This was always a bit of a muddle to me, but finally it is clear. I've been using 5600-5800K monitor WP for years with great soft proofing success, and now I know why it works so well, and why 6500K doesn't. Mystery solved! Thanks everyone. Lou > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2019 04:26:58 +0000 > From: "Miles, Peter" <P.Miles(a)massey.ac.nz> > To: "colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com" > <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> > Subject: Re: Monitor White Point Confusion > Message-ID: <53F81896-AC30-4325-8C52-8A9874C4CD95(a)massey.ac.nz> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > > Hi Lou. > I can confirm what Refik is saying from having made on-screen > measurements• using an i1pro and Spectrashop a few years back. > > > Regards > Peter Miles > > > *A few years back I wanted to clarify in my mind the same question Lou > asked. > So I measured the on-screen colour of a soft proof in photoshop when the > 'simulate paper color’ was on. I compared that to measurements I made of > the display white point. I did this on a profiled Eizo at a 3 different > white point settings . > > From the measurements it was clear that the on-screen colour of the > soft-proof (with ‘Simulate Paper Color’ on) was different for each display > white point used. > And from comparing the ab plots in Spectrashop it was also clear that the > on-screen colour of the soft-proof (with ‘Simulate Paper Color' on) was > being shifted ‘relative' to the white point of the display. > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2019 08:46:00 +0100 > From: Nagy Péter <peter(a)colorcom.hu> > To: colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com > Subject: Re: Monitor White Point Confusion > Message-ID: <72488E8B-6BE0-4DBF-8332-9776FADD134A(a)colorcom.hu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Hi Lou, > > What you would like to do is IMHO possible in theory, but you have to take > into account the capabilities of the math model and the devices you use. If > you try to mimic the actual printed piece on your screen (meaning you > switch to soft-proof mode in Photoshop) you’re working in the 8-bit realm > of the current graphics software and device drivers. If you’re far away > from the target (eg. on a screen calibrated to a white point of 6500K) the > color management engine has to perform a large correction to achieve the > desired result. Measurement and profiling errors add up, and the color you > see on screen will not be perfect. > > On the other hand, your original approach (calibrating to 5700-5800) is > almost perfect, as that’s the ‘perceived’ white point of today’s > OBA-stuffed coated papers under 5000K lighting. In this case, the color > management engine performs a relatively small conversion on the white > point, so the errors will be smaller or negligible. > > Until we don’t have 10 or more bit ‘deep’ device drivers and monitors (and > work with 16 bit images in Photoshop), the best you can do is to calibrate > to the closest perceived white. Another consideration might be to employ > displays which are more conservative on the contrast; we don’t need 1:10000 > for soft proofing. > > Kind regards, > > Peter Nagy > > ------------------------------ > > ********************************************** >

1 0