On Jul 25, 2012, MARK SEGAL <mgsegal@rogers.com> wrote:
Yes, useful test - but before doing it, if you have not done so already and if you think the nature of your previous results may call for it, I'd suggest running the images through the Develop Module using an RGB profile that roughly simulates high quality press printing, to see whether it may be worthwhile tweaking any of them a bit before sending. I think it helped in my case.
Mark, What RGB profile "roughly simulates high quality offset printing (e.g., the "GRACoL2009" they refer to)? Why not use Photoshop (even an older version) and the correct profile to soft-proof the images? If an image soft-proofs badly, fix it, re-import into LR and send it off... That seems better than trying to force LR to do something it's not designed to do (soft-proof CMYK). As for rendering intent, there's probably not a huge difference, and this is a crude check anyway, as the Blurb quality control is questionable to begin with. Using LR seems like trying to eat soup with a fork... --Rich Wagner
On Jul 25, 2012, at 1:38 PM, Rich Wagner wrote:
What RGB profile "roughly simulates high quality offset printing (e.g., the "GRACoL2009" they refer to)?
Good question. And does Blurb even produce output that conforms to this?
Why not use Photoshop (even an older version) and the correct profile to soft-proof the images?
IF and when Blurb actually supplies an output profile for the book printing conditions, that would be the way to go. Better if they told us what rendering intent they force on the conversions and if BPC is used or not. This is a bit like many consumer RGB lab workflows where you’re told you have to supply documents in sRGB but to make you feel like the lab is color management aware, they will send you a profile to soft proof you can’t use anywhere else. Nor do we know if the profile even reflects the print conditions. I’d prefer if labs like this would just stick to novice, non color management practices and just force you to send them sRGB and skip the silly soft proof exercises. Or better, just implement a true color management workflow as many labs do; supply the actual output profile(s), let you use it to convert your data as you please and post edit that data if you desire.
Using LR seems like trying to eat soup with a fork...
Yup. But this isn’t really their fault in it is an RGB engine and probably always will be. Should they allow CMYK soft proofing but not allow the user to convert the data? What does it do when untagged CMYK is imported? We get another giant Photoshop-like Color Settings dialog. Messy. CMYK is Photoshop territory. In terms of an RGB product and one that supports printing books, I think the Aperture folks did a better job in just forcing the issue of exporting RGB and not even going near CMYK soft proofing for their printing. Out of sight, out of mind. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
Rich, I forget which profile I used. I fished around for a few (in Photoshop) and by a purely visual series of comparisons I believe I may have landed on Epson's 3800/FAP, but I may be mistaken. The main thing was to be able to have an RGB profile that dumbed-down the image in a soft-proof on display in LR to roughly what a quality press would produce on paper. Once I found a profile that takes me that far, it's more efficient to use it rather than futzing around with exporting and re-importing images between applications - more steps and nothing really to gain, but you know, depending on the kind of soup there's something to be said for eating at least some of it with a fork :-). I'm not sure I agree Blurb quality control is so questionable. Mark ________________________________ From: Rich Wagner <Rich@WildNaturePhotos.com> To: ColorSync Forum <colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 3:38:15 PM Subject: Re: MultiProfiler question On Jul 25, 2012, MARK SEGAL <mgsegal@rogers.com> wrote:
Yes, useful test - but before doing it, if you have not done so already and if you think the nature of your previous results may call for it, I'd suggest running the images through the Develop Module using an RGB profile that roughly simulates high quality press printing, to see whether it may be worthwhile tweaking any of them a bit before sending. I think it helped in my case.
Mark, What RGB profile "roughly simulates high quality offset printing (e.g., the "GRACoL2009" they refer to)? Why not use Photoshop (even an older version) and the correct profile to soft-proof the images? If an image soft-proofs badly, fix it, re-import into LR and send it off... That seems better than trying to force LR to do something it's not designed to do (soft-proof CMYK). As for rendering intent, there's probably not a huge difference, and this is a crude check anyway, as the Blurb quality control is questionable to begin with. Using LR seems like trying to eat soup with a fork... --Rich Wagner _______________________________________________ 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/mgsegal%40rogers.com This email sent to mgsegal@rogers.com
participants (3)
-
Andrew Rodney
-
MARK SEGAL
-
Rich Wagner