On Jun 4, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Graeme Gill <graeme2@argyllcms.com> wrote:
[I]n fact an appearance adjusted reproduction may be truer to the original intention that the works themselves as exhibited.
A few things spring to mind. First, I haven't done a lot of this sort of thing, but ArgyllCMS makes it very easy to create a printer profile optimized for viewing conditions as measured with a spectrophotometer. What few times I've made use of that feature, it's worked fantastically. If you actually know where the print is going to be viewed and what the light is like there, you can easily make a print that's more true-to-life than the original -- but only for that one viewing condition. It may well look ugly in daylight, but it'll look great in its intended viewing condition. Graeme, is there any chance that that might extend to the input phase as well? That is, might one be able to get a spectrophotometer reading in an artist's studio and somehow combine that with the image made on the copy stand so as to create a digital original that matches the print not under standard viewing conditions but the artist's working conditions? Last...my parents subscribe to National Geographic. And the photography is, of course, wonderful...but everything always looks dark in my parent's living room in the evening. It looks great when I hold it under a bright light, but I don't think that's typical viewing conditions for this publication. Knowing the standards of the publisher, I'm sure it perfectly meets whatever specification for standard viewing conditions they're targeting...but I would question whether they've chosen an optimal standard to adhere to. Cheers, b&