[argyllcms] Re: Fluorescent Whiting problems?
- From: Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:04:02 +1100
Tomas Svab wrote:
I tried fluorescent compensation off and on without a noticeable of a
difference in the printed page.
fluocomp="-iD50 -o1931_2 -f" -> the proof preview in Photoshop looked
blue (as expected)
fluocomp="-iArgyll_V1.0.4/ref/D50_0.0.sp -o1931_2 -f" -> proof preview
looked more natural
It depends somewhat on the intent you are using, the viewing conditions
and what you are attempting to do.
Often people use a white relative (relative colorimetric, perceptual etc.)
intent, so the paper is assumed to be the white point and should
always look white. If the paper doesn't look white, then either it's
very heavily tinted, or your viewing conditions are providing some other
strong cue to set your (the observers) white adaptation.
If you're doing side by side proofing, then typically absolute colorimetric
is being used to try and match the paper colors. This will only be successful
though if the proofing paper is the same color or whiter than the target
(ie. that it can be tinted to match the target).
If the paper looks white but other colors are off, then it might be that
the colorant/paper/whitener interaction is causing it. Without being
able to measure your viewing illuminant UV levels it's hard to
be scientific about it, but if I were you I would try FWA compensation
with D50_2.0.sp to see if it moves things in the right direction (hopefully
too far in the right direction), or whether D50_0.0.sp is the right direction.
The other thing to think about if you are attempting side by side proofing
is whether there are FWA effects in your target. These will have the
opposite effect. So if D50_0.0.sp improves your proof (output profile) but not
far enough, try FWA compensation on your target (input profile) with D50_1.2.sp
or greater.
Graeme Gill.
Other related posts:
