Inno' sometimes it's important to listen to others, they may be telling you something useful.
i.okorji-at-ntlworld.com (I G Okorji Esq.)::11/5/04::5:05 am:: GMT+0100 I'm happy to accept that you are able to get prints from your system which satisfy you. If it stops there that's great. No one on this list is trying to sell you anything, you are free to work how you like. Until you start sending files out for reproduction in print, that is. The reason you're hearing from us all about the possibility of error down the line as a result of working by an <empirical> method such as your own is that many of us dread the idea of someone using these methods in a pro-workflow. It wouldn't be the first time an ad agency has said <no more digital files> as a result of a terrible print job, all becasuse a photographer got his par of the equation wrong. You see, if a photographer supplies digital files which have been colour corrected to make nice looking prints from his own unprofiled printer, then big problems can occur with printed reproduction. Mainly due to unreasonable expectations. (I'm afraid that a generic printer profile counts as <unprofiled>). Many of the contributors to the list (and most especially Bob Marchant) have worked long and hard (on a voluntary basis) to try establish working practices for photographers as a group. Practices which help avoid these pitfalls. If you personally are working purely to make prints inside your own closed loop then you are - of course - free to go ahead and use whatever method you like to get you there. It is not a good idea though, to espouse these methods as nirvana on an open list and to suggest that anyone spending money on a wider gamut screen or on calibration equipment is an idiot who is wasting his/her money. We all want to save money, imagine the effect you're having on as newcomer for whom you discredit the concept of colour management. I make printer profiles almost every day, you'd be amazed by how different the printers are. >On 10/5/04 6:21 pm, Jack Lowe wrote: > > >> ...A PowerBook display will not 'suffice' as it doesn't display as >> many printable colours as the Cinema displays (to use my example). > >This is absolutely wrong, with due respect. no. with respect, Jack is right. he has both, he has the opportunity to check his statement. me too. >The amount of colours any >monitor displays is not necessarily determined by its brand or size. if amount = gamut (colour range) then you're wrong. if amount = theoretical number of differing colours then you're right, but it's not the same thing as gamut. you seem to be suggesting that all screens (which are claimed to be 8 bit capable) are identical, have you ever looked at a number of screens together? >Monitor >colours are determined by the bit depth which ranges from 1 bit depth >(Bitmap) to 24-32 (true colour). 32 bit, how's that work? 8 bit per channel x 3 channels = 24 bit I've always wondered, where does Windows' 32 bit come from in a 3 channel display environment? CMYK has an extra channnel, so now we have 32 bit, are you suggesting that CMYK has a larger colour range than RGB, since it encompasses more potential colours. >The 24 bit depth represents about 16.7 million colours and this is the >highest you can obtain from the very best of the cinema display >ranges. The PowerBook like the Cinema display are both LCD monitors >and they function in exactly in the same principle providing exactly >the same amount of colours. no, that's not true. different LCD technologies have different capabilities in showing strong colours. >They only differ in terms of screen resolution which has nothing to do >with the quantum of colour. The higher screen resolution offered by >the cinema display is only necessary in view of the size of the >screen. In the context of the cinema display ranges, there is a direct >relationship between the size of the monitor and screen resolution. >The larger the screen, the higher the resolution it needs for images >to appear the same size and in the same detail (M Freeman, 2003: >Digital Photography). I will reserve my comments regarding CRT >monitors when compared to LCDs for another occasion, but it will >suffice to say that the rules about the quantity of colour display >applies to both equally. wrong again, I'm afraid. CRT's also differ in capability. >> >> In some areas of the spectrum, the capabilities of your 2100 will >> far exceed the gamut of your PB monitor. A cinema display, for >> example, will enable you to see more (but not all) of those colours >> (particularly cyans, magentas and yellows). >> >Where did you get this from? Knowing Jack, probably from experimentation, testing, scientific measurement and visual comparison. To indicate that since ANY screen can display 8 bit (16.7 million) colour makes all screens equal is ludicrous. It just doesn't work that way. Others have suggested Chromix Colorthink, but you'd need device profiles to load for comparison, and the demo is limited, I've tried that and a PB-LCD (my 15 inch G4 Powerbook) has a smaller colour space than my 20 inch Apple Cinema LCD and smaller, too than my Epson 2100. Why not go to: http://www.colormanagement.nl/acdcolor/gamut_old_new.html and click on <view movie>, here you can see Colorthink in action - comparing the colour gamuts of a 17 inch Apple LCD with a 20 inch Apple LCD. Apple themselves link to this site (as they do to mine); I think, therefore, you'll find that the information thereon is accurate. Both 17 and 20 LCD can display 8 bit colour, but yet their colour gamuts differ considerably. As you will see. A Powerbook LCD is much smaller than either. This means that in, say, cyan, printable differences may exist in areas invisible to the viewer of any monitor screen, let alone a smallish gamut screen like a Powerbook. Of course if you personally use <colour LCD> as your workingspace as you have stated , then you are removing these colours in the first place, remember we've told you that some (2100) printable colour is not included in your <colour LCD> space. You are, potentially, discarding printable detail from your original image. I'd try sRGB if you want a smallish working space. I hope this helps Inno' if it feels like you're being flamed it's only because we all care. Regards, NeilB. Apple Solutions Expert colourmanagement.net :: Consulting in Imaging & Colour Management custom profiling, training, implementation, seminars, resell:: Gretag+eyeOne. basICColor Display etc. XRite. GTI viewing booths www.colourmanagement.net/ :: www.apple.com/uk/creative/neilbarstow/ =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
