On Dec 11, 2003, at 8:00 AM, Henrik Holmegaard wrote:
To be honest I never understood how those folks had a
mind to get an
RGB workflow flowing without agreement on a default source gamut, a
set of default destination gamuts, and a way to check if the
cross-rendered ICC color proof was on target.
I'd feel better about it if the profiling applications had an option to
specify what source space is being used, therefore gamut compression
could be optimized on that source space. Instead of something very
generic, which then means generic results regardless of what the source
space is.
To put some sort of workflow standardization in place,
the main thing
is to make the U.S. consultants work with the ECI and stop their
support for proprietary solutions based on profiling a proofing system
(Approval . . . whatever).
I don't care for Approval myself, but it's common and once you know its
idiosyncrasies will proof SWOP quite well. 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. It's not like you can put together your own equipment,
profile it, verify it conforms to TR 001 and the proof comparator, and
say "I can make SWOP certified proofs." You have to follow a prescribed
process.
Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (TM)
www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor
---------------------------------------------------------
Co-author "Real World Color Management"
Published by PeachPit Press (ISBN 0-201-77340-6)