Re: MultiProfiler question
Andrew Rodney <andrew@digitaldog.net> wrote:
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.
They do supply a CMYK profile... and they recommend Perceptual with BPC. http://www.blurb.com/downloads/Blurb_ICC_Profile.icc http://www.blurb.com/guides/color_management/image_prep_pdf Of course, if you submit a CMYK PDF, you can do the conversions to their color space any way that you want.
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.
Sure, but even Costco can give you specific profiles for each printer/paper combination in each store - you can get an incredible match with some pretty elementary color management. (See, for example, http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/Profiles/Arizona_profiles.htm#AZ) Costco is a best-kept-secret for many wedding photographers. I've used it, with FTP submission of images converted to their printer space, with great results. Easy, cheap and accurate.
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.
My vote is for the latter. Users should hold Blurb to the fire... until they get a reasonable match. And given that Blurb does provide a profile, I'd use that for soft-proofing (in Photoshop), and if the hardcopy differs significantly from the soft proof, pressure them to re-print. It's just unfortunate that you can't do an accurate soft-proof from LR. Blurb does have a page devoted to color management: http://www.blurb.com/resources/color_management They also note: "At this time Adobe Photoshop® is the only application that we support" They need to do some work to get the LR interface up-to-speed, including documenting a reasonable workflow. --Rich
I think this is the key issue. Adobe and Blurb have signed-up to offer an integrated service that has a big technical gap in it called "proper soft-proofing". This should be fixed in some kind of collaborative effort between them - whatever is easier - a sufficiently accurate RGB profile that works in LR, or an LR adaptation to read their CMYK profile. When migrating from display to printed book there is enough difference of image appearance to warrant a special effort to fix this. For now we have three choices (1) don't softproof and see what happens, (2) find an RGB profile that comes closest to the effect of their CMYK profile, or (3) export every image to Photoshop for softproofing using their profile and re-import it to LR for exporting over to Blurb. I tried #2 and found it worked well enough. #3 in principle should be more accurate but it is a nuisance and defeats the purpose of the integration between Blurb and LR. And yes, if Blurb is producing sub-par output, customers should hold their feet to the fire. Mark ________________________________ From: Rich Wagner <Rich@WildNaturePhotos.com> To: colorsync-users@lists.apple.com Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 1:40:52 AM Subject: Re: MultiProfiler question ............................. My vote is for the latter. Users should hold Blurb to the fire... until they get a reasonable match. And given that Blurb does provide a profile, I'd use that for soft-proofing (in Photoshop), and if the hardcopy differs significantly from the soft proof, pressure them to re-print. It's just unfortunate that you can't do an accurate soft-proof from LR. Blurb does have a page devoted to color management: http://www.blurb.com/resources/color_management They also note: "At this time Adobe Photoshop® is the only application that we support" They need to do some work to get the LR interface up-to-speed, including documenting a reasonable workflow. --Rich _______________________________________________ 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
On Jul 26, 2012, at 6:16 AM, MARK SEGAL wrote:
I think this is the key issue. Adobe and Blurb have signed-up to offer an integrated service that has a big technical gap in it called "proper soft-proofing". This should be fixed in some kind of collaborative effort between them - whatever is easier - a sufficiently accurate RGB profile that works in LR, or an LR adaptation to read their CMYK profile. When migrating from display to printed book there is enough difference of image appearance to warrant a special effort to fix this. For now we have three choices (1) don't softproof and see what happens, (2) find an RGB profile that comes closest to the effect of their CMYK profile, or (3) export every image to Photoshop for softproofing using their profile and re-import it to LR for exporting over to Blurb.
Not to appear too self serving but there is a 4th choice. Those users who have ColorThink Pro with the optional ColorCast module can "embed" the proofing effect of any ICC profile (RGB, CMYK, or more channels) INTO an existing RGB profile like AdobeRGB or ProPhoto. This produces a "normal" device profile that can be used for soft or hard proofing in any application that will support the profile's color model (RGB, CMYK). It's an easy way to do 5, 6, 7-channel soft proofing in Photoshop. I don't see any reason why a CMYK output profile couldn't be embedded into AdobeRGB for soft proofing in LR. Regards, Steve Upton
On Jul 26, 2012, at 1:36 PM, Steve Upton wrote:
It's an easy way to do 5, 6, 7-channel soft proofing in Photoshop. I don't see any reason why a CMYK output profile couldn't be embedded into AdobeRGB for soft proofing in LR.
Cool tip Steve! Now all we need is an actual set of profiles from Blurb for their actual print conditions and papers. I sure hope someone from Adobe, specifically the LR team reads this because should such profiles become available from Blurb, it would be great if there were some licensing of these ColorCast profiles available from you. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
On Jul 25, 2012, at 11:40 PM, Rich Wagner wrote:
They do supply a CMYK profile... and they recommend Perceptual with BPC.
For what? Which paper stock? Have you seen the differences in just the paper options? I think I’ll measure them but dollars to doughnuts, I’ll bet just the paper white dE is at least 3 or more.
Of course, if you submit a CMYK PDF, you can do the conversions to their color space any way that you want.
Again with what profile? For what aim?
My vote is for the latter. Users should hold Blurb to the fire... until they get a reasonable match.
Agreed! Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
On Jul 25, 2012, at 11:40 PM, Rich Wagner wrote:
They do supply a CMYK profile... and they recommend Perceptual with BPC.
For what? Which paper stock? Have you seen the differences in just the paper options? I think I’ll measure them but dollars to doughnuts, I’ll bet just the paper white dE is at least 3 or more.
Blurb sent me paper samples initially. There are 5. For grins I measured them with the EyeOne Pro-2 (which worked fine using the older PMP ColorPicker which was nice). Standard: 94.9/1.16/-2.63 Premium Luster: 96.7/1.85/-5.62 Premium Matte: 96.11/1.73/-5.77 Proline Pearl: 95.3/1.54/-420 Proline Uncoated: 97/1.93/-6.44 These guys like papers with high OBAs! I loaded the Blurb ICC profile from their site into ColorPicker and the worst dE 2000 report for just paper was for Proline Uncoated with a dE of 3.8. Standard had the lowest dE at 1.2 with the others in the three’s. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
On 07/26/2012 10:24 PM, Andrew Rodney wrote:
Standard: 94.9/1.16/-2.63
Premium Luster: 96.7/1.85/-5.62
Premium Matte: 96.11/1.73/-5.77
Proline Pearl: 95.3/1.54/-420
Proline Uncoated: 97/1.93/-6.44
These guys like papers with high OBAs!
I loaded the Blurb ICC profile from their site into ColorPicker and the worst dE 2000 report for just paper was for Proline Uncoated with a dE of 3.8. Standard had the lowest dE at 1.2 with the others in the three’s.
Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
Next step: If you can rely on a Blurb workflow that always uses the same Indigo and paper source it may be a good idea to send a book file with profiling targets and create your own profile when it gets back. The same detour that was needed for Mac/Adobe/Epson target printing can be used I guess. I did see a message that said the Blurb gamut is actually larger than sRGB and advised to use AdobeRGB. Never tried Blurb but thinking about it. -- Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst Dinkla Grafische Techniek Quad, piëzografie, giclée www.pigment-print.com
On Jul 27, 2012, at 4:42 AM, Ernst Dinkla wrote:
I did see a message that said the Blurb gamut is actually larger than sRGB and advised to use AdobeRGB. Never tried Blurb but thinking about it.
Isn't at least one of the issues is that Lightroom is sending sRGB to Blurb......sending AdobeRGB isn't even an option? Terry
On Jul 27, 2012, at 9:33 AM, Terence Wyse wrote:
Isn't at least one of the issues is that Lightroom is sending sRGB to Blurb......sending AdobeRGB isn't even an option?
Yes and no (not an option). The upload converts everything to sRGB. Same with export to PDF. FWIW, Aperture is sending Adobe RGB (1998) which one can check by examining the PDF one can optionally export. Plotting the Blurb CMYK profile (which questionably defines the actual print process) next to sRGB in ColorThink shows the CMYK profile has a pretty nice chunk of green and teal/blue and a smaller chunk of yellow that falls outside sRGB. Adobe RGB nearly contains the entire gamut. So in this context, Adobe RGB would be ‘more better’ <g>. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
In case anyone had any doubts what the Blurb ICC profile is modeling, it's definitely GRACoL2006 Coated1, right down to the paper white L*a*b*. What they're using is essentially a copy of the IDEAlliance GRACoL profile and has little to do with how they're actually printing. Here's a dE2000 report from ColorThink Pro comparing GRACoL Coated1 to "Blurb_ICC_Profile.icc". I used the Hutch Color HC2052 RevF CMYK values and assigned each profile to this color list in a CTPro worksheet and compared (the GRACoL profile I used was one of my own making using the GRACoL dataset but using i1Profiler to build the profile: -------------------------------------------------- dE Report Number of Samples: 2052 Delta-E Formula dE2000 Overall - (2052 colors) -------------------------------------------------- Average dE: 0.21 Best 90% - (1846 colors) -------------------------------------------------- Average dE: 0.19 Worst 10% - (206 colors) -------------------------------------------------- Average dE: 0.44 Max dE: 0.82 -------------------------------------------------- Here's the same comparison only this time using the official IDEAlliance GRACoL profile and comparing to the Blurb profile: ------------------------------------------------- dE Report Number of Samples: 2052 Delta-E Formula dE2000 Overall - (2052 colors) -------------------------------------------------- Average dE: 0.00 Best 90% - (1846 colors) -------------------------------------------------- Average dE: 0.00 Worst 10% - (206 colors) -------------------------------------------------- Average dE: 0.00 Max dE: 0.00 -------------------------------------------------- Uh, YEA, I'd say the Blurb profile is an exact duplicate of the official IDEAlliance GRACoL profile! :-) As a side note, my i1Profiler "GRACoL" profile is a closer match to the actual GRACoL dataset than the "official" IDEAlliance profile...go figure: i1Profiler GRACoL profile compared to GRACoL dataset: -------------------------------------------------- Delta-E Formula dE2000 -------------------------------------------------- Average dE: 0.11 Worst 10% - (163 colors) -------------------------------------------------- Average dE: 0.24 Max dE: 0.46 -------------------------------------------------- "Official" IDEAlliance GRACoL profile compared to GRACoL dataset: -------------------------------------------------- Delta-E Formula dE2000 Overall - (1617 colors) -------------------------------------------------- Average dE: 0.18 Worst 10% - (163 colors) -------------------------------------------------- Average dE: 0.26 Max dE: 0.70 -------------------------------------------------- What's bothersome to me about their supplied profile is this likely doesn't represent how they're actually printing, they're just using GRACoL as a generic CMYK target or "working space". The papers they're using certainly don't match GRACoL and, in my experience profiling Indigos and other digital presses, these devices typical don't match GRACoL...although using profiles or device links and internal color management they can get reasonably close. Regards, Terry Wyse ______________________________________ Terence Wyse, WyseConsul Color Management Consulting G7 Certified Expert FIRST Level II Implementation Specialist On Jul 27, 2012, at 12:01 PM, Andrew Rodney wrote:
On Jul 27, 2012, at 9:33 AM, Terence Wyse wrote:
Isn't at least one of the issues is that Lightroom is sending sRGB to Blurb......sending AdobeRGB isn't even an option?
Yes and no (not an option). The upload converts everything to sRGB. Same with export to PDF. FWIW, Aperture is sending Adobe RGB (1998) which one can check by examining the PDF one can optionally export.
Plotting the Blurb CMYK profile (which questionably defines the actual print process) next to sRGB in ColorThink shows the CMYK profile has a pretty nice chunk of green and teal/blue and a smaller chunk of yellow that falls outside sRGB. Adobe RGB nearly contains the entire gamut. So in this context, Adobe RGB would be ‘more better’ <g>.
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: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/wyseconsul%40mac.com
This email sent to wyseconsul@mac.com
On Jul 27, 2012, at 10:39 AM, Terence Wyse wrote:
In case anyone had any doubts what the Blurb ICC profile is modeling, it's definitely GRACoL2006 Coated1, right down to the paper white L*a*b*. What they're using is essentially a copy of the IDEAlliance GRACoL profile and has little to do with how they're actually printing.
On their web page, they state:
The Blurb ICC Profile is based on the GRACoL2009 reference used in high-end commercial printing. Our entire print network adheres to this standard on all of their print devices for the most consistent results possible with print on demand. By using this color profile, you may soft proof your images while in RGB to see how they will look when printed, or use the profile to actually convert your images to the CMYK color space of the print device to eliminate the press-side conversion. This gives you more control over the images and how they will eventually print.
http://www.blurb.com/guides/color_management/workflow So what would lots of fun would be to send off an RGB target within a book measure it and compare that to the profile as a reference. As to which paper, who knows.
What's bothersome to me about their supplied profile is this likely doesn't represent how they're actually printing, they're just using GRACoL as a generic CMYK target or "working space". The papers they're using certainly don't match GRACoL and, in my experience profiling Indigos and other digital presses, these devices typical don't match GRACoL...although using profiles or device links and internal color management they can get reasonably close.
Exactly! What’s the point? Also interesting is a forum post they have with respect to ICC profiles where one poster suggested that the reason Blurb doesn’t supply individual profiles for all papers is “you can’t profile an Indigo” which is silly, but not refuted by Blurb. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
On Jul 25, 2012, at 11:40 PM, Rich Wagner wrote:
They do supply a CMYK profile... and they recommend Perceptual with BPC.
I just got notice of a paper change from Blurb and the web page that talks about it says something I find confusing: ...there are some subtle changes you might notice: Slightly glossier sheen Four points brighter Slightly bluer We’ve calibrated the printers with our current ICC profiles, so there’s no need for you to do anything on your end http://blog.blurb.com/paper-change-coming-north-american-printers/?utm_mediu... Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
Sounds to me like "we're sourcing a less expensive paper that has more optical brighteners added"....and with that, more variability under different lighting/viewing conditions. Is this progress...or not? Terry ______________________________________ Terence Wyse, WyseConsul Color Management Consulting G7 Certified Expert FIRST Level II Implementation Specialist On Sep 6, 2012, at 1:44 PM, Andrew Rodney <andrew@digitaldog.net> wrote:
On Jul 25, 2012, at 11:40 PM, Rich Wagner wrote:
They do supply a CMYK profile... and they recommend Perceptual with BPC.
I just got notice of a paper change from Blurb and the web page that talks about it says something I find confusing:
...there are some subtle changes you might notice: Slightly glossier sheen Four points brighter Slightly bluer We’ve calibrated the printers with our current ICC profiles, so there’s no need for you to do anything on your end
http://blog.blurb.com/paper-change-coming-north-american-printers/?utm_mediu...
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: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/wyseconsul%40mac.com
This email sent to wyseconsul@mac.com
On Sep 6, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Terence Wyse wrote:
Sounds to me like "we're sourcing a less expensive paper that has more optical brighteners added"....and with that, more variability under different lighting/viewing conditions. Is this progress...or not?
Why they changed the papers isn't my immediate concern but rather what they are doing to "calibrated the printers with our current ICC profiles, so there’s no need for you to do anything on your end" process. There were four or so papers I measured, all different. One supplied profile. Now there is a newer paper and they are doing what to the printers or profile? Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
On Sep 6, 2012, at 2:13 PM, Andrew Rodney <andrew@digitaldog.net> wrote:
Why they changed the papers isn't my immediate concern but rather what they are doing to "calibrated the printers with our current ICC profiles, so there’s no need for you to do anything on your end" process.
There were four or so papers I measured, all different. One supplied profile. Now there is a newer paper and they are doing what to the printers or profile?
I think it's obvious that they're probably running HP Indigos or iGens or something and are simply using their respective RIPs built-in color management engine. I've done a fair amount of Indigos and it's pretty straightforward to profile these presses and then set up the CM engine where you spec GRACoL (or whatever) as the CMYK source along with RGB profiles and the rest and then insert the press/paper-specific profile as the output. The only problem with Indigos (it's been few months so maybe I don't have this exactly right) is that you can only specify a single global rendering intent for CMYK and RGB.....if it were me, I'd want RelCol+BPC for CMYK and Perceptual for RGB. The other not-so-subtle detail is how they would handle embedded profiles. I would hope they would honor ALL embedded profiles, including CMYK, but I'm not so sure. I'm sure the folks at Blurb are smarter than this(!)...but I still find to many owners/users of digital presses that consider any other profile other than the one THEY specify as the source to be "wrong" or "bad"...so they typically tell the CM engine to ignore embedded profiles and assign their own source profiles whatever's coming in to the system. Anyway, my point is that it's not necessarily a "bad thing" that they are holding their custom press/paper profiles close to the vest and telling folks to simply use GRACoL as their source/assumed CMYK profile and let their system handle the specific press/paper conversion....that's really how it should work. Most of these systems require several-times-daily calibration/linearization and I assume these folks are also updating their ICC profiles on a periodic basis. In my opinion it would be a nightmare trying to keep a knowledgeable or not-so knowledgeable user base up to date with their ICC profile du jour. Terry
On Sep 6, 2012, at 12:30 PM, Terence Wyse wrote:
Anyway, my point is that it's not necessarily a "bad thing" that they are holding their custom press/paper profiles close to the vest and telling folks to simply use GRACoL as their source/assumed CMYK profile and let their system handle the specific press/paper conversion....
Why not just tagged RGB? RGB to GRACol to CMYK, what's useful? Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
On Sep 6, 2012, at 2:44 PM, Andrew Rodney <andrew@digitaldog.net> wrote:
On Sep 6, 2012, at 12:30 PM, Terence Wyse wrote:
Anyway, my point is that it's not necessarily a "bad thing" that they are holding their custom press/paper profiles close to the vest and telling folks to simply use GRACoL as their source/assumed CMYK profile and let their system handle the specific press/paper conversion....
Why not just tagged RGB? RGB to GRACol to CMYK, what's useful?
Tagged RGB should be fine...but users might be disappointed with the results since virtually any standard RGB color space, even sRGB, is going to (mostly) have a wider gamut than the digital press. I think either converting to GRACoL beforehand or at least soft-proofing the job using GRACoL is the way to go. Again, tagged RGB should be OK *as long as their system is set to honor embedded profiles*. Personally, I'd be inclined to take the "gamut hit" up front and convert to GRACoL before handing it off to Blurb...that way the final result would more likely meet my expectations. But tagged RGB should be fine as long as you know what you're doing...and soft-proof. :-) Terry
On Sep 6, 2012, at 1:17 PM, Terence Wyse wrote:
Tagged RGB should be fine...but users might be disappointed with the results since virtually any standard RGB color space, even sRGB, is going to (mostly) have a wider gamut than the digital press.
Going to GRACol doesn't change that. So this would be more a end user feel good workflow?
I think either converting to GRACoL beforehand or at least soft-proofing the job using GRACoL is the way to go.
Go where? That's where I'm confused. I've got a profile that is soft proofing based on something I'm not printing. OK it might be close. Might as well soft proof RGB to GRACOL then hand off RGB and hope for the best. Color management without real soft proofing (just use any profile you stubble upon).
Personally, I'd be inclined to take the "gamut hit" up front and convert to GRACoL before handing it off to Blurb...that way the final result would more likely meet my expectations.
I'm not following how you are getting those expecations though. The 'use GRACoL' approach sounds like what we heard for years: Just use SWOP V2 (even if our output isn't SWOP V2). Seems a tad pointless unless I'm missing something. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
The fundamental problem is that LR only reads RGB profiles. A set of RGB profiles is needed that would replicate the characteristics of the Blurb papers, unless Adobe finds a way of getting LR to read CMYK profiles, in which case of course the onus would again be on Blurb to create relevant profiles we could use. Adobe and Blurb need to be "encouraged" to resolve this set of issues. Mark ________________________________ From: Terence Wyse <wyseconsul@mac.com> To: 'colorsync-users?lists.apple.com' List <colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 2:30:24 PM Subject: Re: MultiProfiler question On Sep 6, 2012, at 2:13 PM, Andrew Rodney <andrew@digitaldog.net> wrote:
Why they changed the papers isn't my immediate concern but rather what they are doing to "calibrated the printers with our current ICC profiles, so there’s no need for you to do anything on your end" process.
There were four or so papers I measured, all different. One supplied profile. Now there is a newer paper and they are doing what to the printers or profile?
I think it's obvious that they're probably running HP Indigos or iGens or something and are simply using their respective RIPs built-in color management engine. I've done a fair amount of Indigos and it's pretty straightforward to profile these presses and then set up the CM engine where you spec GRACoL (or whatever) as the CMYK source along with RGB profiles and the rest and then insert the press/paper-specific profile as the output. The only problem with Indigos (it's been few months so maybe I don't have this exactly right) is that you can only specify a single global rendering intent for CMYK and RGB.....if it were me, I'd want RelCol+BPC for CMYK and Perceptual for RGB. The other not-so-subtle detail is how they would handle embedded profiles. I would hope they would honor ALL embedded profiles, including CMYK, but I'm not so sure. I'm sure the folks at Blurb are smarter than this(!)...but I still find to many owners/users of digital presses that consider any other profile other than the one THEY specify as the source to be "wrong" or "bad"...so they typically tell the CM engine to ignore embedded profiles and assign their own source profiles whatever's coming in to the system. Anyway, my point is that it's not necessarily a "bad thing" that they are holding their custom press/paper profiles close to the vest and telling folks to simply use GRACoL as their source/assumed CMYK profile and let their system handle the specific press/paper conversion....that's really how it should work. Most of these systems require several-times-daily calibration/linearization and I assume these folks are also updating their ICC profiles on a periodic basis. In my opinion it would be a nightmare trying to keep a knowledgeable or not-so knowledgeable user base up to date with their ICC profile du jour. Terry _______________________________________________ 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
Probably no way to do that (replicate GRACoL or a custom paper profile with an RGB profile) easily....but this might be a good case for a ColorThink Pro "ColorCast" profile. Perhaps Blurb should consider purchasing that software so they could create a ColorCast "RGB simulating CMYK" profile....otherwise, you'd simply have to soft-proof in LR using GRACoL. I think one of the questions raised though is whether Blurb should consider letting out into the wild their actual press/paper profiles....in my opinion, no, as it might create more confusion. Better to tell users to simply supply GRACoL or sRGB files and let their internal RIPs convert on the fly. Terry On Sep 7, 2012, at 2:06 PM, MARK SEGAL <mgsegal@rogers.com> wrote:
The fundamental problem is that LR only reads RGB profiles. A set of RGB profiles is needed that would replicate the characteristics of the Blurb papers, unless Adobe finds a way of getting LR to read CMYK profiles, in which case of course the onus would again be on Blurb to create relevant profiles we could use. Adobe and Blurb need to be "encouraged" to resolve this set of issues.
Andrew Rodney wrote:
Why they changed the papers isn't my immediate concern but rather what they are doing to "calibrated the printers with our current ICC profiles, so there’s no need for you to do anything on your end" process.
There were four or so papers I measured, all different. One supplied profile. Now there is a newer paper and they are doing what to the printers or profile?
It sounds like they are fudging it - but that's not necessarily bad if all you are after is a perceptual ("looks good") result. The nature of the printing process matches the media relative nature of ICC profiles - they both separate the substrate from the colorant, so any non-absolute intent tends to track in terms of overall tonal and color reproduction with any slight change in substrate color. Any changes in tonal behaviour may be compensated for by a calibration system. Of course there is complete failure of the ICC profile to track absolute color change, so it's not going to work for side by side proofing. Graeme Gill.
participants (7)
-
Andrew Rodney
-
Ernst Dinkla
-
Graeme Gill
-
MARK SEGAL
-
Rich Wagner
-
Steve Upton
-
Terence Wyse