On Dec 12, 2003, at 2:04 AM, Henrik Holmegaard wrote:
On torsdag, dec 11, 2003, at 19:11 Europe/Copenhagen,
Chris Murphy
wrote:
Because of how SWOP certification works, if you
want a SWOP certified
proofing system I'd consider any product on the list
quasi-proprietary, even if it's fully ICC based.
There are two positions, as Roger Breton pointed out a while ago:
(1) A printing press is by definition too unstable to be usefully
described in an ICC CMYK printer profile, and print profiling software
and print profiling instruments cannot usefully be applied to such a
task.
(2) In the U.S. there is an organization which certifies proofing
systems according to a process for which the same organization has set
no real colorimetric tolerances.
The second position is intended to provide assurance without pressing
for instrument-based colorimetric tolerances. This position did not
and does not make sense.
Pre-certification of proofs without printing tolerances versus
self-certification of proofs with printing tolerances isn't much of an
argument . . . the latter wins out every time -:).
Which is why I call it quasi-proprietary. That the process is not ideal
does not mean it's invalid. It works within the scope of a market that
has a low threshold for accepting something that smells like color
management. And that has to do with a lot of things that are beyond the
scope of this list, not the least of which is that the U.S. market had
early experience with the technology before it worked well and got
burned on it rather badly.
Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (TM)
www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor
---------------------------------------------------------
Co-author "Real World Color Management"
Published by PeachPit Press (ISBN 0-201-77340-6)