On Jun 6, 2014, at 5:41 PM, tlabarbera <tlbtlb@mail.com> wrote:
Ben Goren <ben@trumpetpower.com>: The point of color management is to both define a standard set of criteria by which to judge all of those variables and to provide consistent ways of transitioning between the two.
Bruce Fraser (sadly missed) used to discuss color management using a dictionary analogy.
I may mangle this but, basically, what I took away from his discussion when I was learning about color management is that by hardware (vs. by eye) calibrating my monitor, I am setting my monitor to a known state which essentially defines which language the "dictionary" is using. This then allows me to use other language "dictionaries", that is, different (color managed) devices (like printers, monitors, etc.) each of which has its own (color management) language "dictionary", so that the "translation" from one language (device) to another language (device) results in a match, in predictable color (within the limits of current technology).
sadly, [visual] poetry is the least translatable.
So...somewhat simplified, when I'm in Photoshop (or whatever imaging software that uses color management) and I've chosen my color management options, I adjust the color of an image and when I send that image to another device (another language)--my Epson 4000 printer for instance--the translation from monitor (device, language) to printer (device, language) to the paper (another device, language so to speak--no pun intended...'-}}) I'm printing on is both predictable and accurate and the printed image will match what I see on my screen.
Terrie tlbtlb@mail.com _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/etaffel%40me.com
This email sent to etaffel@me.com