Color Profiles

From: "Bobby77501"

I also have Monaco’s soft proofing system
which lets me make profiles for my … printer
(Epson 1280) – which I did. My problem is that I don’t know how to use these profiles in Photoshop

You can use the Epson 1280 profiles by doing a ‘soft proof’ (read about the details in Help).

Basically, if the profiles are in the correct directory (and Monaco should have put them there) just do View > Proof Setup > Custom and from the drop down menu for "Profile" select the right profile for the paper/ink you’re using.

For Intent you want either Relative Col or Perceptual (easy to save the settings for both so you can compare and see what looks better … read up on Rendering Intents in Help for more info).

To simulate the reduced brightness range of the paper compared to the monitor you should also check the box for ‘Paper White’ (which will make it look dull until you get used to it, but that’s life).

I usually save the settings for various papers and rendering intents so I don’t have to do this every time I soft proof.

If the profiles for your monitor and printer are accurate you should get a good match on screen for what the print will look like.

You can also open up multiple soft proofs of the same document by doing Window

Arrange > New Window and proofing that to a second profile, then toggling

back and forth between the two proofs to see which looks better.

Then when you’re ready to print just do File > Print with Preview and make sure the Source Space says ‘proof’ and the Print Space profile is the same as the proof profile. In the Epson dialog box make sure you set Color Management to No Color Adjustment (I don’t have the 1280 on this system anymore so the dialog box might be slightly different than this) or you’ll end up with two conversions and the print will look magenta.

Sounds like a lot of hassle but once you’ve done it 50 times it will seem easy enough 🙂

Bill

"Bill Hilton" wrote in message

From: "Bobby77501"

[snip]

Then when you’re ready to print just do File > Print with Preview and make

sure

the Source Space says ‘proof’ and the Print Space profile is the same as

the

proof profile.

[snip]

I told him more or less exactly the same thing in the other PS newsgroup, except for this setting. FWIW, I’ve printed using Source Space of Document, and Proof with [seemingly] identical results. The only thing that seems to be crucial is that you designate the actual profile in Print Space.

I do know that John Cone insists that "Proof" is the setting you must use, whereas Bruce Fraser says Document is what you want, and that Proof is used for something else…but I can’t remember what. The few canned profiles I used to use also suggested Document, but I guess I’m still unclear.

What is your understanding?

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–

when you’re ready to print just do File > Print with Preview and make sure the Source Space says ‘proof’ and the Print Space profile is the same as the proof profile.

From: "Flycaster"

I told him more or less exactly the same thing in the other PS newsgroup, except for this setting. FWIW, I’ve printed using Source Space of Document, and Proof with [seemingly] identical results

I do know that John Cone insists that "Proof" is the setting you must use

I bought some 1280 profiles from Cone a couple years ago, before Epson made theirs available in the PIM, and I’m sure that’s where I first picked up on doing it this way, following Jon’s instructions.

whereas Bruce Fraser says Document is what you want, and that Proof is used for something else…but I can’t remember what.

What is your understanding?

Fraser is a very smart guy, but it sounds like you’ve tried both ways and both have the same result? Do you have a link for what Bruce said, or a book title? I have "RW Color Management" and "RW Photoshop" but probably for V6, not 7. He does a better job than anyone I’ve read at explaining how this stuff works so I wouldn’t mind reading his take on it.

Basically there seem to be at least 3 or 4 ways of using the profiles to print accurately, and at least a dozen ways to mess it up with the Epsons (my most common are not turning on the proof and printing as CMYK instead, or setting the wrong paper type in the Epson driver or not turning off Epson CM). Since I got good results with Cone’s technique I didn’t delve into it further but maybe I should.

Bill

Flycaster wrote:

I told him more or less exactly the same thing in the other PS newsgroup, except for this setting. FWIW, I’ve printed using Source Space of Document, and Proof with [seemingly] identical results. The only thing that seems to be crucial is that you designate the actual profile in Print Space.

Use your common sense. The document space is the space of the document. The space you want to use is a different one, namely the printer space. So for printing, a conversion from document space to printer space has to be done. "Proof" shows you that conversion, so "proof space" shows your document WHEN CONVERTED to printer space.

How can you use this during printing?

If you use the printer profile as the printer space, you can use the ‘document’ or ‘proof’ as the source. It doesn’t matter, because in both cases the correct conversion will take place.

If you use "Same as source" as print space, you MUST use "Proof" as source (because the proof space is identical to the printer space, the source space is not). If you would use ‘document’, NO conversion would take place and the print would be off color.

An alternative method is to convert the document to the print profile (using the "convert to profile" menu). Then you can simply use "source space" as printer space, because the source space is now identical to the print space. In this case you don’t need soft proofing at all, because you are already looking at your document in printer space.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Flycaster wrote:

I told him more or less exactly the same thing in the other PS newsgroup, except for this setting. FWIW, I’ve printed using Source Space of Document, and Proof with [seemingly] identical results. The only thing that seems to be crucial is that you designate the actual profile in Print Space.
I do know that John Cone insists that "Proof" is the setting you must use, whereas Bruce Fraser says Document is what you want, and that Proof is used for something else…but I can’t remember what. The few canned profiles I used to use also suggested Document, but I guess I’m still unclear.

Understanding color spaces is not so difficult, if you consider them as if they are different languages. Let’s say that you have a document written in English, and your have a French printer (a printer that will only print in French). How do you use that?

In order to get a good French print, you need a proper translation. If not, the English text will simply be changed into French word by word, which of course will NOT give you a good translation. There are options: Photoshop can translate for you first, or the translation can be done ‘on the fly’ during printing, but one of the two MUST do the translation.

If you choose ‘document space’ as the source space for printing, you tell Photoshop to use the original English text. So no translation has been done yet. In order to get a translation, you will have to choose ‘print space’ (French translation) in the print setup. Translation will take place during printing and all will be well. The only disadvantge is that you have no way of seeing the French text before it is printed, so you cannot do any manual corrections.

You can also use a ‘Proof’ in Photoshop. In that case, Photoshop will show you how the text looks if it was translated, without really altering the document. Consequently, ‘Proof space’ is a correct French translation, but done by Photoshop first rather than ‘on the fly’. This method gives you the possibility to do some manual corrections before you print the document. To print this text, you only have to tell Photoshop to use this proof in stead of the original document (use ‘Proof space’ as source). Next you can tell the printer it doesn’t have to bother about translations, because that was already taken care of. Select ‘same as source’ as printer space.

Finally, you could use "Convert to profile" in Photoshop. This also translates the English text into French, but the difference with ‘Proof’ is that the document itself is now translated, so the original English text is gone. So save this document under another name if you want to keep it for more prints! Again you can do manual corrections before you print. Because you now already have a French translation, you do not need to ‘proof’ anything anymore and you also do not need a translation during printing. You simply choose ‘document space’ as your source and use ‘same as source’ as the printer space.

Does this make any sense to you?

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

Flycaster wrote:

I told him more or less exactly the same thing in the other PS

newsgroup,

except for this setting. FWIW, I’ve printed using Source Space of

Document,

and Proof with [seemingly] identical results. The only thing that seems

to

be crucial is that you designate the actual profile in Print Space.

Use your common sense. The document space is the space of the document. The space you want to use is a different one, namely the printer space. So for printing, a conversion from document space to printer space has to be done. "Proof" shows you that conversion, so "proof space" shows your document WHEN CONVERTED to printer space.

How can you use this during printing?

If you use the printer profile as the printer space, you can use the ‘document’ or ‘proof’ as the source. It doesn’t matter, because in both cases the correct conversion will take place.

If you use "Same as source" as print space, you MUST use "Proof" as source (because the proof space is identical to the printer space, the source space is not). If you would use ‘document’, NO conversion would take place and the print would be off color.

An alternative method is to convert the document to the print profile (using the "convert to profile" menu). Then you can simply use "source space" as printer space, because the source space is now identical to the print space. In this case you don’t need soft proofing at all, because you are already looking at your document in printer space.

John, I just got off the phone with my service bureau owner, who has had conversations with Adobe and Bruce Fraser on this issue. As suggested [but not clarified] in RWP, it would appear that we are all operating under a misunderstanding. FWIW, both Bill Hilton and I have been using profiles for quite a long time and this is NOT necessarily "common sense." What we’re dealing with here is a, relatively speaking, undocumented setting.

Apparently, "Source Space=Proof" is to be used when you want to hard-proof a device that is *different* from your printing device. For example, say you want to hard-proof a US sheetfed CMYK file on an Epson 7600: you set up the soft proof with the CMYK profile, set Source:Proof, and use the correct profile *for your printer* in the Print Space. You will end up with a hard proof of the final CMYK output, as best your printer, profile, and Photoshop CMS can manage. As explained to me, Source:Proof uses the on-the-fly profile conversion rendered in the soft-proof to describe the file *before* it is converted, if at all, to the printer profile.

Now, here’s where it gets muddy. If you soft-proof with your Epson 7600 profile, use "Source:Proof" and "Print Space: the same profile", you have, in essence, "double-converted" the file, albeit from the "same" space to the "same" space. The problem is, according to my contact, the soft-proof on-the-fly rendering is not completely accurate, so with rounding errors and slight inaccuracies, you *will* end up with a conversion that has different file information than if you had simply converted from "Document." Likewise, similar "inaccuracy" errors will occur if you use "Source:Proof" and "Print Space: Same as Source." As I mentioned to Bill, however, I saw no glaring differences, but I will now run another test an pay closer attention.

So, if what I have been told is correct, the two workflows for day-in, day-out inkjet printing are either "Source Space:Document, Print Space: Profile" or "Convert to Profile, Source Space:Document, Print Space:Same as Source." Last, you STILL want to use the soft-proof even when you run a pre-printing "convert to profile" because you cannot approximate "paper-white" in the "convert to profile" preview screen. IOW, even though the final output is identical, the screen rendition and match is much more accurate in the soft-proof window.

If either of you find out anything different, please let me know. I wish that I could find the e-mail I got from Bruce about 3 years ago on this subject, but it’s gone into the ether somewhere. IIRC, however, he did say that Jon Cone’s workflow was problematic, but that in many cases the visible differences would be insignificant. Regardless, I do remember him suggesting the use of Document for the optimum results.

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–

From: "Flycaster"

As suggested [but not clarified] in RWP, it would appear that we are all operating under a misunderstanding.

Apparently, "Source Space=Proof" is to be used when you want to hard-proof a device that is *different* from your printing device.

I read up on this in the Photoshop Help files. As I interpret what Help says I think the way I first suggested sounds right (also agreeing with what Jon Cone and Johan say).

Here’s what Photoshop Help says in the "Using Color Management When Printing" section:

<quote>
To color-manage a document while printing:

3) Select an option for Source Space:

* Select Document to reproduce document colors as interpreted by the profile currently assigned to the document. <<Note: I interpret "profile currently assigned to the document" to mean the working space, ie, Ektaspace or AdobeRGB for me >>

* Select Proof to reproduce document colors as interpreted by the current proof profile. This option is useful for generating hard proofs of your soft-proof settings. (See Soft-proofing colors.)

<<Note: I interpret this pretty much as it says, use this when you’ve assigned a profile for soft proofing and want to print. "current proof profile" is the Epson ICM profile I’m proofing to at the moment as set with the View > Proof Setup > Custom command .>>

</quote>

So I’m happy with using "Source Space = Proof", based on what this seems to say.

If I have some time I’ll try it both ways (try a really oddball working space to see if using Document throws it off?) but I’m OK with the print results I’m seeing so far with the set-up I first suggested.

Bill

From: "Flycaster"

Now, here’s where it gets muddy. If you soft-proof with your Epson 7600 profile, use "Source:Proof" and "Print Space: the same profile", you have, in essence, "double-converted" the file, albeit from the "same" space to the "same" space.

I’ve seen a fair number of "double-converted" prints, generally when someone was setting up to print from a soft proof but didn’t turn off color managment in the Epson window so it got converted first by the profile and then again by the Epson driver.

Everyone of these was very ugly and unusable, with a strong magenta cast.

So I’d assume if there was really a double conversion going on when using Source:Proof instead of Document we wouldn’t be getting such good prints.

So, if what I have been told is correct, the two workflows for day-in, day-out inkjet printing are either "Source Space:Document, Print Space: Profile" or "Convert to Profile, Source Space:Document, Print Space:Same as Source."

I’ll agree to the second one (Convert to Profile), but SS: Document seems to go against what the Photoshop Help files say to use when soft proofing.

The problem is, according to my contact, the soft-proof
on-the-fly rendering is not completely accurate, so with rounding errors and slight inaccuracies, you *will* end up with a conversion that has different file information than if you had simply converted from "Document."

One way to check whether this is true is to take a file with with color patches (instead of a continuous tone photo), make a copy and convert to a printer profile. Then record the new values for the patches. Compare these RGB triplets with the original unconverted file with a soft proof set to the profile you’re converting to … just set the second reading in the info palette to read "Proof Color" and see if the numbers from the soft proofed file are the same as the values in the converted file.

Maybe I’ll give this a go …

Bill

Bill Hilton wrote:

when you’re ready to print just do File > Print with Preview and make sure the Source Space says ‘proof’ and the Print Space profile is the same as the proof profile.

From: "Flycaster"

I told him more or less exactly the same thing in the other PS newsgroup, except for this setting. FWIW, I’ve printed using Source Space of Document, and Proof with [seemingly] identical results

I do know that John Cone insists that "Proof" is the setting you must use

I bought some 1280 profiles from Cone a couple years ago, before Epson made theirs available in the PIM, and I’m sure that’s where I first picked up on doing it this way, following Jon’s instructions.

whereas Bruce Fraser says Document is what you want, and that Proof is used for something else…but I can’t remember what.

What is your understanding?

Fraser is a very smart guy, but it sounds like you’ve tried both ways and both have the same result? Do you have a link for what Bruce said, or a book title? I have "RW Color Management" and "RW Photoshop" but probably for V6, not 7. He does a better job than anyone I’ve read at explaining how this stuff works so I wouldn’t mind reading his take on it.

Basically there seem to be at least 3 or 4 ways of using the profiles to print accurately, and at least a dozen ways to mess it up with the Epsons (my most common are not turning on the proof and printing as CMYK instead, or setting the wrong paper type in the Epson driver or not turning off Epson CM). Since I got good results with Cone’s technique I didn’t delve into it further but maybe I should.

"at least a dozen ways to mess it up"? You are being *very* forgiving. How Adobe and Epson managed to create such a huge pit is beyond me.

Once I can print successfully with a media and setup, I save the custom setting at the Epson driver and call it when printing. That way, I at least don’t mess up at the driver side.

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote:

Use your common sense.

ROTFL!

Color management is not trivial to begin with. Adobe and Epson, etc. certainly did not implement it with the non-techie lay person in mind. Adding oil to fire, the authors jumped in and offered clear as mud "tutorials". Yeh, just use your common sense.

Bill Hilton wrote:

From: "Flycaster"

Now, here’s where it gets muddy. If you soft-proof with your Epson 7600 profile, use "Source:Proof" and "Print Space: the same profile", you have, in essence, "double-converted" the file, albeit from the "same" space to the "same" space.

I’ve seen a fair number of "double-converted" prints, generally when someone was setting up to print from a soft proof but didn’t turn off color managment in the Epson window so it got converted first by the profile and then again by the Epson driver.

Everyone of these was very ugly and unusable, with a strong magenta cast.
So I’d assume if there was really a double conversion going on when using Source:Proof instead of Document we wouldn’t be getting such good prints.

There is no double conversion. Why should there be? If your source is the same space as your destination, there is no conversion at all.

So, if what I have been told is correct, the two workflows for day-in, day-out inkjet printing are either "Source Space:Document, Print Space: Profile" or "Convert to Profile, Source Space:Document, Print Space:Same as Source."

I’ll agree to the second one (Convert to Profile), but SS: Document seems to go against what the Photoshop Help files say to use when soft proofing.

Not really. If you use SS: Document and PS: Printer profile, you will get a correct conversion and so you will get a good print. However, if you didn’t do a soft proof first, you do not KNOW how the print will look. And color management is also about knowing what you will get.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote:

Understanding color spaces is not so difficult, if you consider them as if they are different languages. Let’s say that you have a document written in English, and your have a French printer (a printer that will only print in French). How do you use that?

In order to get a good French print, you need a proper translation. If not, the English text will simply be changed into French word by word, which of course will NOT give you a good translation. There are options: Photoshop can translate for you first, or the translation can be done ‘on the fly’ during printing, but one of the two MUST do the translation.

[snip]

Translating between two languages is a fair analogy for converting between two profiles. The process can be straight forward if:

– the two languages are well defined
– there is only one translator involved
– the translator is competent

When printing from PS to Epson, none of the above is true. You know many languages (have many profiles), but you don’t know how to pick the right translator to do the right job. There may be more than one translator involved (double conversions) double translating for you, and you are unaware of it. The translator can be incompetent and do not understand slangs (out of gamut) and you only find out about it too late ("Did I order THAT?".

In other words, Lost in Translation.

wrote:

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote:

Use your common sense.

ROTFL!

Color management is not trivial to begin with. Adobe and Epson, etc. certainly did not implement it with the non-techie lay person in mind. Adding oil to fire, the authors jumped in and offered clear as mud "tutorials". Yeh, just use your common sense.

You quoted four words and left about fifty. I’m not saying that color management is trivial. However, it is not as difficult as it sometimes seems to understand how to use a printer profile correctly. And using common sense certainly helps. It always does.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

wrote:

Translating between two languages is a fair analogy for converting between two profiles. The process can be straight forward if:
– the two languages are well defined
– there is only one translator involved
– the translator is competent

When printing from PS to Epson, none of the above is true.

I disagree. The languages are the color spaces of the document and the printer/paper combination. Both are well defined by their profiles. There is also only one translator involved: Photoshop. Yes, Photoshop offers different possibilities and color engines, that is true. But once you’ve made your choice there is only one translator.
Whether the chosen translator is competent remains to be seen, indeed.

You know many languages (have many profiles)

True, but irrelevant. You only have two profiles that matter: the document profile and the printer/paper profile. The fact that there are a lot of other profiles as well is irrelevant. There are also a lot more languages in the world, but that doesn’t matter when you translate from English to French.

but you don’t know how to pick the right translator to do the right job.

Why not?

There may be more than one translator involved (double conversions) double translating for you, and you are unaware of it.

The analogy helps you to understand whether or not that could happen. In some situations people are afraid that there may be double conversions, but the language analogy helps to understand that this is not the case.

The translator can be incompetent and do not understand
slangs (out of gamut) and you only find out about it too late ("Did I order THAT?".

Out of gamut is not like slang that the interpreter doesn’t understand. It’s like a special expression that doesn’t exist in the other language. A good interpreter knows how to translate it into the closest expression in the other language. And if you soft proof you should see those misunderstandings before you make your print. That’s what soft proofing is all about.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

"Bill Hilton" wrote in message

From: "Flycaster"

Now, here’s where it gets muddy. If you soft-proof with your Epson 7600 profile, use "Source:Proof" and "Print Space: the same profile", you

have,

in essence, "double-converted" the file, albeit from the "same" space to

the

"same" space.

I’ve seen a fair number of "double-converted" prints, generally when

someone

was setting up to print from a soft proof but didn’t turn off color

managment

in the Epson window so it got converted first by the profile and then

again by

the Epson driver.

Everyone of these was very ugly and unusable, with a strong magenta cast.
So I’d assume if there was really a double conversion going on when using Source:Proof instead of Document we wouldn’t be getting such good prints.

I’m pretty sure this is not the type of double-conversion, with which you and I are so familiar, that he is talking about. Rather, I *think* it is more akin to converting to the same profile, twice. The further implication is, as is the case with *every* conversion, information is tossed. As to whether or not it’s relevant, that’s another matter.

So, if what I have been told is correct, the two workflows for day-in, day-out inkjet printing are either "Source Space:Document, Print Space: Profile" or "Convert to Profile, Source Space:Document, Print Space:Same

as

Source."

I’ll agree to the second one (Convert to Profile), but SS: Document seems

to go

against what the Photoshop Help files say to use when soft proofing.

Interestingly, in RWP Ver.6, page 210, Bruce writes: "The Source Space radio buttons let you choose the Document space (to reproduce the image as well as your printer allows) or the Proof Space (to produce a hardcopy of your soft-proof simulation…)" Trying reconcile these two disparate statements with the Photoshop help section, which I too have read, is what led me to write to John that this is "a, relatively speaking, undocumented setting."

The problem is, according to my contact, the soft-proof
on-the-fly rendering is not completely accurate, so with rounding errors

and

slight inaccuracies, you *will* end up with a conversion that has

different

file information than if you had simply converted from "Document."

One way to check whether this is true is to take a file with with color

patches

(instead of a continuous tone photo), make a copy and convert to a printer profile. Then record the new values for the patches. Compare these RGB triplets with the original unconverted file with a soft proof set to the profile you’re converting to … just set the second reading in the info palette to read "Proof Color" and see if the numbers from the soft proofed

file

are the same as the values in the converted file.

My hunch is they will be very similar, regardless. I didn’t get the impression that the kind of errors they refer to are big at all. Moreover, as noted, I have been unable to see an qualitative difference in the prints.

The bottom line is both settings may give virtually the same, if not identical results; if that’s the case, then it doesn’t matter. It would appear that using either method accomplishes the primary objective of converting the file to the printer profile: I’ve got the test prints to prove it. Nonetheless, having said that, it is perplexing that Jon Cone and a couple of other profile makers would be so squarely on one side of the fence, whereas Bruce Fraser, other custom profile makers, and my service bureau are so seemingly adamant about using the other setting. It would be nice to get a defiinitive answer…if indeed there even is one!

You’d think someone at Adobe should have THE answer. That they might have actually included it in the manual or in the help section is, otoh, probably asking too much.

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–

From: "Flycaster"

I’m pretty sure this is not the type of double-conversion, with which you and I are so familiar, that he is talking about.

OK, I agree with you here. You won’t see the magenta shift 🙂

Rather, I *think* it is
more akin to converting to the same profile, twice. The further implication is, as is the case with *every* conversion, information is tossed.

I duplicated an IT8 target and converted one of the copies to a printer profile and compared the new RGB values to the original copy soft proofed. The numbers were the same for the colors I checked (so long as the rendering intent was the same … really a big difference between Perceptual and RelCol on the saturated colors).

So basically I think you get the same numbers regardless of which way the file gets translated. If there’s a rounding error (it’s going to LAB for the conversion) it has to be pretty small I’d guess.

Interestingly, in RWP Ver.6, page 210, Bruce writes: "The Source Space radio buttons let you choose the Document space (to reproduce the image as well as your printer allows) or the Proof Space (to produce a hardcopy of your soft-proof simulation…)"

I have this book (I have too many Photoshop books 🙂 and just re-read this passage. I *think* what he’s describing is something I wouldn’t do, namely try to use the printer at hand to show what a print on a different printer would look like. In other words, soft proof to say a newsprint profile (to use the example he uses in the book) but output it on whatever printer you have available, say an Epson. And then, as he says in the book, you can "shove it under your art director’s nose, saying "See? This is how it’ll look on newsprint".

Personally I think he’s putting too much faith in color management if he feels he can do this with any great accuracy since printers are so different and there aren’t many perfect profiles out there. For example I’ll bet if I printed a file on my 2200 with Premium Luster and then tried to print this Premium Luster profile onto a properly profiled sheet of say Watercolor-RW it would look like crap because the gamut is much smaller. He seems to say you could do this by setting Source:Proof to Premium Luster and Print Space Profile to the other paper, and they would look alike. I don’t think so.

If you look back at the brief history of ICM color management there was early euphoria over the possibilities of getting a perfect match between different devices (and consultants who figured they’d get rich preaching the gospel?), followed by a bit of a backlash (led by Margulis?) as people started to realize the limitations, due mainly to gamut differences and difficulty of getting highly accurate profiles. I think when he wrote this he was euphoric about the possibilities of CM. I don’t know if he feels quite the same today 🙂

Anyway, this was an interesting diversion …

Bill

"Bill Hilton" wrote in message
[snip]

Anyway, this was an interesting diversion …

Agreed. And I just printed out four new test images, using all methods discussed: if they’re not identical, the difference is far too small for me to care.

I’ll e-mail Bruce, and if he has any real insights [that I actually comprehend], I’ll copy them to a new post.

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–