Hi guys, it's been along time since I've emailed the Apple ColorSync list so I'll keep it relatively straight forward. <g> Can I please ask for your recommendations with regard to the best device link software available? Our main concerns are to retain solid black text and K drop shadows. If our budget can stretch to higher end products, do you guys have experience with Alwan CMYK Optimizer when reducing TAC by GCR methods and still outputting purist CMYK from original files. Is the latter a real danger area with device link profiles or will my preferred economical upgrade to ColorThink Pro v3 from v2 suffice here. CMYK to CMYK conversions will now the best option for our Litho stationery franchise company Printing.com? They do not accept files greater than 280 TIL. Best regards, Christian Macey Production Manager Transcribe Print www.transcribeprint.co.uk 020 7432 0000 07793 114 394
Alwan Link Profiler is one of the best in terms of creating static device links....for a workflow product, Alwan CMYK Optimizer is very good as are a number of other solutions. Terry ______________________________________ Terence Wyse, WyseConsul Color Management Consulting G7 Certified Expert FIRST Level II Implementation Specialist On Jan 3, 2012, at 4:51 PM, Christian Macey wrote:
Hi guys, it's been along time since I've emailed the Apple ColorSync list so I'll keep it relatively straight forward. <g>
Can I please ask for your recommendations with regard to the best device link software available?
Our main concerns are to retain solid black text and K drop shadows. If our budget can stretch to higher end products, do you guys have experience with Alwan CMYK Optimizer when reducing TAC by GCR methods and still outputting purist CMYK from original files. Is the latter a real danger area with device link profiles or will my preferred economical upgrade to ColorThink Pro v3 from v2 suffice here.
CMYK to CMYK conversions will now the best option for our Litho stationery franchise company Printing.com? They do not accept files greater than 280 TIL.
Best regards, Christian Macey Production Manager Transcribe Print www.transcribeprint.co.uk 020 7432 0000 07793 114 394 _______________________________________________ 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/wyseconsul%40mac.com
This email sent to wyseconsul@mac.com
Today I read a post in a forum and felt very frustrated and angry. The OP asked how to use his printer profiles and got an answer (and it was the only answer) "just add it into an appropriate folder. Then go to proof setup and choose Monitor RGB". Hell! But I won't blame him. The one to blame is User Interface. Color management can be simple or confusing. But the User Interface in Adobe products are terrible. Too many menus scattering everywhere, and they can cancel-out each other. Why is there Convert to Profile in Edit and Proof Setup in View. Yes you can argue that to Proof is to see the right color, so it should belong to View. But I think it could have been better. And then in Proof Setup, why must I check the Display Options (Simulate Paper Color/Simulate Black Ink) while it should have been already checked. Why must there Macintosh RGB, Windows RGB, Monitor RGB , Working CMYK, etc. When user can do it manually. Too many choices = confusion. Actually I think if Adobe sticked with Photoshop v5 policies about Color Management: only one working space (each for RGB and CMYK). People will understand Color Management better by forcing them to do things manually. Just a rant.
On Jan 4, 2012, at 10:21 AM, Nipat Paiboonponpong wrote:
But I won't blame him. The one to blame is User Interface. Color management can be simple or confusing. But the User Interface in Adobe products are terrible. Too many menus scattering everywhere, and they can cancel-out each other.
I understand your frustration. I know Adobe is thinking deeply about these issues (especially soft proofing) and is trying to re-think how color management should be implemented in Lightroom. So far so good - Lightroom is amazingly refreshing for Photographers. It's color management requires very little thinking and is powerful. Industrywide, we need more out-of-the-box, new-decade thinking. Solutions that balance power and flexibility with elegance are needed. Elegance should not be undervalued as it's the key, IMO, to ease-of-use and widespread adoption. Scott Martin www.on-sight.com
As I'm sure most of you know, there is a (relatively) new specification for D50 viewing conditions: ISO 3664:2009 read more at http://www.idealliance.org/specifications/swop/ I was wondering if anyone has actually made the full switch to new lamps and what (if any) issues have arisen? We have GTI booths & lights and the upshot for us has been that there is significantly more UV content in the light than in the older lamps. Because most of our proofs are on inkjet proofing stocks that have no OBAs, those proofs have an almost identical appearance as the do under the older lamps. However, since most press stocks have a significant amount of OBAs, the difference between proof and press is now more pronounced. I realize that this may be a more "accurate" representation of the difference between proofs and press, but as far as clients are concerned, our proofs are now *less* accurate. It seems that the de facto standard for high-end inkjet proofing stocks is that they have no OBAs, which makes proof to proof matching easier (my certified GRACoL proof matches your certified GRACoL proof), but makes proof to press matching harder. The new lighting standard just makes this situation more obvious. I was wondering if anyone uses proofing stocks with OBAs specifically to try to match closer press stocks, and if so, how's that working out for ya? Any advice, stories or comments surrounding these issues would be greatly appreciated! -Todd Shirley
I have switched and found no issues whatsoever with the new lamps. Most of the publications papers we print have little or no optical brighteners. We use Just-Normlicht lamps, btw. Best / Roger -----Original Message----- From: colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=videotron.ca@lists.apple.com [mailto:colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=videotron.ca@lists.apple.com] On Behalf Of Todd Shirley Sent: January-04-12 1:52 PM To: ColorSync Users Mailing List Subject: ISO 3664:2009 lighting standard As I'm sure most of you know, there is a (relatively) new specification for D50 viewing conditions: ISO 3664:2009 read more at http://www.idealliance.org/specifications/swop/ I was wondering if anyone has actually made the full switch to new lamps and what (if any) issues have arisen? We have GTI booths & lights and the upshot for us has been that there is significantly more UV content in the light than in the older lamps. Because most of our proofs are on inkjet proofing stocks that have no OBAs, those proofs have an almost identical appearance as the do under the older lamps. However, since most press stocks have a significant amount of OBAs, the difference between proof and press is now more pronounced. I realize that this may be a more "accurate" representation of the difference between proofs and press, but as far as clients are concerned, our proofs are now *less* accurate. It seems that the de facto standard for high-end inkjet proofing stocks is that they have no OBAs, which makes proof to proof matching easier (my certified GRACoL proof matches your certified GRACoL proof), but makes proof to press matching harder. The new lighting standard just makes this situation more obvious. I was wondering if anyone uses proofing stocks with OBAs specifically to try to match closer press stocks, and if so, how's that working out for ya? Any advice, stories or comments surrounding these issues would be greatly appreciated! -Todd Shirley _______________________________________________ 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/graxx%40videotron.ca This email sent to graxx@videotron.ca
Todd Shirley wrote:
As I'm sure most of you know, there is a (relatively) new specification for D50 viewing conditions: ISO 3664:2009 read more at http://www.idealliance.org/specifications/swop/
Any advice, stories or comments surrounding these issues would be greatly appreciated!
In principle the solution is simple - use the same stock for proofing as will be used for printing. Such an approach may not actually be be practical when the inks and printing process between proofing and printing are quite different. Locating a proofing stock with a similar level of FWA/OBE may be possible, although it raises the difficulty in locating a proofing stock quite a bit. Another solution direction would be to use a profiling system that takes into account the effects of the illuminant UV component and the different levels of FWA/OBE in the two stocks. X-Rite have such a solution and (ahem!) so does Argyll. Such things complicate the profiling though, and still necessitate locating appropriate proofing stock, although this should widen the margin a great deal. Graeme Gill.
We all know that Camera Raw uses a modified working color space with a gamma of 1 and the colors of Prophoto RGB. But when does the conversion from the camera profile to that color space happen? At the time of import? And why does Camera Raw use an intermediate color space? It will be converted to one of the four color spaces at the time of export? And what about other converters? Capture One uses a camera profile and you can export the file in that space. Does that mean that the editing is done in the camera color space? Stefan
On 7 Jan 2012, at 11:21 , Stefan Ohlsson wrote:
We all know that Camera Raw uses a modified working color space with a gamma of 1 and the colors of Prophoto RGB. But when does the conversion from the camera profile to that color space happen? At the time of import?
Camera Raw does the conversion in the raw processing phase. Specifically, after the demosaicing, Camera Raw computes the conversion matrix form camera RGB to XYZ D50 and then from this to RIMM RGB (i. e. ProPhoto gamma 1). Mauro Boscarol
participants (9)
-
Christian Macey
-
Graeme Gill
-
Mauro Boscarol
-
Nipat Paiboonponpong
-
Roger Breton
-
Scott Martin
-
Stefan Ohlsson
-
Terence Wyse
-
Todd Shirley