Michael Wilkinson wrote: > Thomas, Interesting comment "I was talking about using scanners for > profiling printers, something they are not made for."
Mikey, prompted by your previous mail "Surely a 3 colour..." I was pointing out the flaws of using current (and cheap) scanner technology for creating good profiles. That said I've tried it with an Imacon 848 and it still doesn't work I wasn't discussing the quality that may come in some years, but rather the current state of things. I have no doubt that a scanner in a not too distant future, aided by good math and clever software, will be able to make profiles that are agreeable to most people. But that's not the current state of things. Most people would find the profiles to be less that satisfactorily (I'd done a few of these tests so I know this for a fact. > I'm not saying you are wrong at this point in time but clearly if profiling is > to be made a standard feature of anyone's workflow ,and it should be, then it > has to be by an affordable process. Yes, if it should - but again it isn't, and many pouple couldn't care less. If cm i to reach the endusers it should be done the HP way inho (slap a spectrophotometer on the printer and calibrate each one to a certain standard. And then use a good canned profile. HP still doesn't do it quite right but the concept is brilliant. I love to scuba dive and in the future I'm pretty sure someone will invent a James bond like gadget that will allow you not to have to dive with air tanks, but rather extract the oxygen from the seawater. Such a device just don't exist yet (Possibly excluding special forces), so it's pretty irrelevant when discussing current scuba gear for sports divers. > Yesterday Quantel Paintbox cost �250,000. > Today Photoshop cost �750 or so. Quantel also had more corporate jets and helicopters <G> > I can not afford a perfect profile to be made > of my Epson 1270 on paper of choice, I only use it for thumbnails of images on > the CD / DVD I'm supplying, but it would be good to provide an accurate > representation,hence the ( misguided) choice of printfix Now if Printfix can > produce a profile that is "OK" ,despite the awful scanner they provide, then > tomorrow someone will be providing a next generation version that does a > better and probably cheaper job. See above. You previous comment "surely a 3 colour scanner..." seemed to indicate that is indeed indeed possible today to make near perfect profiles - I said it isn't, you started to talk about rifles and motorcycle engines and hammers. > I'm in no way denigrating the far sighted > people like yourself who have pioneered and championed colour > management,without you we would still be burning coal,I'm just aware that it > will be brought to the masses at affordable price,s and soon. It's there but scanners are not it. > I'm of the > opinion that the likes of Epson, HP etc should be providing colour management > as standard with their printers in a way that enables users to choose their > own inks and papers. Many Hp printers actually ship with a 20nm spectrophotometer aboard. However the quality of the colour of this still, in my opinion, is not good enough. > Stanley, who make hammers, don't design them for just > one sort of nail, its a choice left to the user. Dude, I could easily write about hundreds of tools that were misused for good and bad purposes (ranging from atoms to the Hoover dam), but it still doesn't change the fact that a scanner with current technology can't generate a good profile, which is even more true if the scanner is a cheap heap of junk. As I'm sure you'll agree there is usualy a quality difference between using a �14000 and a �50 scanner. Cheers, Thomas. =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
