edmund ronald wrote:

Spectral mutilation is one of those deep religious issues which provoke strong feelings on this list :) Maybe we shouldn't go there again?

You wildly exaggerate. It's a difficult topic only because there is no clear cut answer - this is why both cut and no-cut instruments are available. My summary would be: It depends on your situation. For some people a UV-cut instrument provides an easy way of solving FWA/OBE issues. [My theory is that this is only the case when they are viewing the results in a UV poor environment]. For others, it does not solve their FWA/OBE issues at all. It also limits the use of the instrument - you can't measure the effect of FWA/OBE if you are filtering out the UV! For those with the right tools and knowledge, a UV included instrument lets them deal with FWA/OBE in more flexible and sophisticated ways. Graeme Gill.

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:11 AM, Klaus Karcher <lists@digitalproof.info>wrote:

Graeme Gill wrote:

...

For some people a UV-cut instrument provides an easy way of solving FWA/OBE issues. [My theory is that this is only the case when they are viewing the results in a UV poor environment].

I guess UV poor viewing booths will become more and more rare in the future as the 2009 revision of ISO 3664 tightened the tolerances for the UV Metamerism Index M(UV). While it was reatively easy to meet the ISO 3664 M(UV) criterion in the past, several manufacturers had or still have to increase the UV portion of their fluorescent lamps (and have to replace UV absorbing panes found in some elder viewing booths) in order to meet the new tolerances.

This is one more reason /not/ to buy UV cut instruments IMHO. Even better would be to buy an instrument which meets the (also relatively new) ISO13655:2009 measurement condition M1, which provides a measurement light source much closer to D50 than the lamps commonly found in current UV-included (mostly M0) or UV-cut (M3) instruments.

Unfortunately M1 instruments are still rare (to my knowledge there is only Konica Minolta FD-5 / FD-7 and Barbieri SpectroPad at the moment).

Klaus Karcher Ok, I guess I too can participate in the theology seminar :)

Ok, I guess I too can participate in the theology seminar :) My contribution: I see no reason why a spectro cannot work with an external light source, even room light, given fiber optic technology. Edmund

Two channels, one for calibration. Light would be brought to sample by fiber attached to head, thereby solving the gloss/flare issue. . Light constancy would be the responsibility of the operator. Anyway, I think I've seen some such contrivances around. Did you ever take apart an EyeOne? On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:43 PM, Klaus Karcher <lists@digitalproof.info>wrote:

edmund ronald wrote:

...

My contribution: I see no reason why a spectro cannot work with an external light source, even room light, given fiber optic technology.

Calibration? Gloss? Flare? Reproducibility? Measurement conditions (measurement geometry, temporal constancy of external light)?

Getting results /repeatable/ in the ∆E < 1 or just < 3 ... 5 range with (arbitrary) external light sources is no walk in the park -- that's for sure.

Klaus

I haven’t as yet upgraded to Lion. But my understanding is that the users Library folder is now invisible. Those without Admin privileges are going to find it difficult (impossible?) to install ICC profiles. That seems to put the burden on every software product that builds ICC profiles, let alone those of us sharing them for print use. On one hand, I have to ask, what was Apple thinking? But I’d rather ask, is there a solution, an Applescript or something that will accommodate these users. As an aside, going back to OS9, installing ICC profiles was as simple as dropping them on the System Folder. Our Windows friends have a contextual menu to install them from any location. OS X progressively makes simple things like installing profiles more and more difficult. Shame. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/

On Jul 26, 2011, at 1:22 PM, Andrew Rodney wrote:

I haven’t as yet upgraded to Lion. But my understanding is that the users Library folder is now invisible. Those without Admin privileges are going to find it difficult (impossible?) to install ICC profiles. That seems to put the burden on every software product that builds ICC profiles, let alone those of us sharing them for print use. On one hand, I have to ask, what was Apple thinking? But I’d rather ask, is there a solution, an Applescript or something that will accommodate these users.

Yes I've noticed this change also and to me it seems untenable, as I mentioned on this issue yesterday on the ColorSync-Dev list. No response yet to the inquiry so far. So on the one hand the main /Library/ColorSync/Profiles folder permissions have changed from 775 to 755, which means that the group owner no longer has permission to write to that folder. The group owner for this folder is group admin. Most users are admins, except in corporate environments or mom and dad and the kids, who are often demoted intentionally to non-admins or normal users. Therefore most users (admin level permissions) cannot in Lion, unlike Snow Leopard, add or subtract profiles from this folder without authenticating every single time (name and password) since the root user is the only one that can change the contents now. What's absurd to me is that the fonts folder in the same location is NOT set to 755 permissions. Fonts are significantly more likely to be a security attack vector than ICC profiles. And yet admins can add/subtract fonts at will, but not ICC profiles. So I think this is either an oversight on Apple's part or it's flawed logic. It's certainly a hassle. Since ~/Library is now hidden by default, while applications that save profiles to these locations will not be affected, by default the vast majority of users, whether admin or non-admin, will have no understanding of how to reveal that folder and its contents to either manually add or subtract profiles from this location. So the result of this change, if I understand correctly is: a.) Normal (non-admin) users effectively cannot add or subtract ICC profiles at all without an application that does it for them. b.) Admin users can effectively only add or subtract ICC profiles if they authenticate every time. !!! seems totally knee jerk and unnecessary. I for one will unhide my user Library folder, and change permissions on the /Library/ColorSync/Profiles folder back to the way they were. But we can't expect developers to do this for us. They will have to add code to their application so that the admin user can authenticate anytime a profile is going to be saved in /Library.

As an aside, going back to OS9, installing ICC profiles was as simple as dropping them on the System Folder. Our Windows friends have a contextual menu to install them from any location. OS X progressively makes simple things like installing profiles more and more difficult. Shame.

Agreed. Chris Murphy

On Jul 26, 2011, at 1:45 PM, Steve Upton wrote:

Also, the root-level Library folder is still visible, but more locked down than before (apparently)

Any application that does not already have authentication built into it, will not be able to save or remove or overwrite profiles in /Library/ColorSync/Profiles. Which means any app that makes profiles and defaults to this location will get an error and be unable to write out profiles here without an update. And adding authentication to an application is non-trivial. I doubt many developers will want to do this and instead will start opting to redirect profiles to ~/Library/ColorSync/Profiles instead... I'm still trying to get my head around why ICC profiles are locked down and yet fonts are not. That just doesn't make sense to me. Chris

I have it installed. Correct on the User/username/Library folder. That does have a relatively simple solution, but goes beyond annoying. The root Library/Colorsync/Profiles folder is visible, but you do have to authenticate before you can add anything. Again annoying, Coloreyes for example, cannot put a monitor profile in the root Profiles folder. The Epson print drivers do appear to be working as expected. There is no sign of random Gutenprint drivers popping up. And of course neither Profile Maker, Profiler, etc will run. Dana Rasmussen Seattle

I haven¹t as yet upgraded to Lion. But my understanding is that the users Library folder is now invisible. Those without Admin privileges are going to find it difficult (impossible?) to install ICC profiles. That seems to put the burden on every software product that builds ICC profiles, let alone those of us sharing them for print use. On one hand, I have to ask, what was Apple thinking? But I¹d rather ask, is there a solution, an Applescript or something that will accommodate these users.

As an aside, going back to OS9, installing ICC profiles was as simple as dropping them on the System Folder. Our Windows friends have a contextual menu to install them from any location. OS X progressively makes simple things like installing profiles more and more difficult. Shame.

Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/ _______________________________________________ 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: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/geek707%40gmail.com

This email sent to geek707@gmail.com