>Not at all. A color management system simply gives >numeric values assigned to pixels a meaning; a context >within human gamut or what we call a color space. >There's no excepted standard for how an Epson printer >on Matt paper produces a red. Profiling this printer >simply defines it's color space and allows us to define >the correct numeric values for that specific device in >order to produce a desired color appearance.
I think we're saying the same thing. A color space is an accepted standard.
>Again, not necessarily so. The Convert to Profile command does alter every pixel.
Yes, you can use Convert to Profile to alter every pixel, but in the workflow described in the article, pixels are not being altered.
>You'll have NO direct control over anything other than >the luminance of the Fluorescent backlight. Any >adjustment you think you're altering is all happening at >the video graphic card which results in banding.
That's true, and thanks for expanding on the details. The point was simply that you'll have more control and better accuracy from an LCD.
> Always! Any alteration in a driver setting will alter the output and the profile has to reflect this behavior or it's of no use.
Many printers ship with "generic" profiles that give no indication of what settings were intended for use with the profile. Other printers ship with a variety of profiles that clearly delineated the settings that should be used.
> A color-management system works by trying to understand how far each of your
> input and output devices deviate from an accepted standard.
Not at all. A color management system simply gives numeric values assigned to pixels a meaning; a context within human gamut or what we call a color space. There's no excepted standard for how an Epson printer on Matt paper produces a red. Profiling this printer simply defines it's color space and allows us to define the correct numeric values for that specific device in order to produce a desired color appearance.
> Note that the actual pixel values in your document are not altered. Instead,
> the color is skewed on-the-fly so that it appears closer to correct on your
> target device.
Again, not necessarily so. The Convert to Profile command does alter every pixel.
> If you're serious about color management, you may be frustrated by the lack
> of more advanced controls in the Eye-One software.
What are you referring to? EyeOne Match has provisions that very few products provide such as the ability to set a native gamma and native white point for calibration. Other than the Sony Artisan, I know of no other product that provides a setting for native gamma.
> If you're calibrating an LCD, you probably won't have access to white or black
> point controls, so you can ignore these steps in your calibration software and
> documentation.
You'll have NO direct control over anything other than the luminance of the Fluorescent backlight. Any adjustment you think you're altering is all happening at the video graphic card which results in banding.
> Sometimes, paper profiles are intended for specific driver settings.
Always! Any alteration in a driver setting will alter the output and the profile has to reflect this behavior or it's of no use.
> Your image most likely contains far more colors than your printer can print.
Not so. You set your camera to produce sRGB, the encoding will funnel the original data into that color space. The Epson K3 inks far exceed the gamut of sRGB (and even that of Adobe RGB (1998))
Submitted by Andrew Rodney on Tue, 08/22/2006 - 12:49.
Response
>Not at all. A color management system simply gives >numeric values assigned to pixels a meaning; a context >within human gamut or what we call a color space. >There's no excepted standard for how an Epson printer >on Matt paper produces a red. Profiling this printer >simply defines it's color space and allows us to define >the correct numeric values for that specific device in >order to produce a desired color appearance.
I think we're saying the same thing. A color space is an accepted standard.
>Again, not necessarily so. The Convert to Profile command does alter every pixel.
Yes, you can use Convert to Profile to alter every pixel, but in the workflow described in the article, pixels are not being altered.
>You'll have NO direct control over anything other than >the luminance of the Fluorescent backlight. Any >adjustment you think you're altering is all happening at >the video graphic card which results in banding.
That's true, and thanks for expanding on the details. The point was simply that you'll have more control and better accuracy from an LCD.
> Always! Any alteration in a driver setting will alter the output and the profile has to reflect this behavior or it's of no use.
Many printers ship with "generic" profiles that give no indication of what settings were intended for use with the profile. Other printers ship with a variety of profiles that clearly delineated the settings that should be used.
This piece should have been assigned to Bruce Fraser!
> A color-management system works by trying to understand how far each of your
> input and output devices deviate from an accepted standard.
Not at all. A color management system simply gives numeric values assigned to pixels a meaning; a context within human gamut or what we call a color space. There's no excepted standard for how an Epson printer on Matt paper produces a red. Profiling this printer simply defines it's color space and allows us to define the correct numeric values for that specific device in order to produce a desired color appearance.
> Note that the actual pixel values in your document are not altered. Instead,
> the color is skewed on-the-fly so that it appears closer to correct on your
> target device.
Again, not necessarily so. The Convert to Profile command does alter every pixel.
> If you're serious about color management, you may be frustrated by the lack
> of more advanced controls in the Eye-One software.
What are you referring to? EyeOne Match has provisions that very few products provide such as the ability to set a native gamma and native white point for calibration. Other than the Sony Artisan, I know of no other product that provides a setting for native gamma.
> If you're calibrating an LCD, you probably won't have access to white or black
> point controls, so you can ignore these steps in your calibration software and
> documentation.
You'll have NO direct control over anything other than the luminance of the Fluorescent backlight. Any adjustment you think you're altering is all happening at the video graphic card which results in banding.
> Sometimes, paper profiles are intended for specific driver settings.
Always! Any alteration in a driver setting will alter the output and the profile has to reflect this behavior or it's of no use.
> Your image most likely contains far more colors than your printer can print.
Not so. You set your camera to produce sRGB, the encoding will funnel the original data into that color space. The Epson K3 inks far exceed the gamut of sRGB (and even that of Adobe RGB (1998))