[argyllcms] Re: FWA Compensation

  • From: Vladimir Gajic <vgajic67@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:19:16 +0100

Hello Graeme,

thank's for the hint. If I correctly understood, the -i option is to be used in 
spec2cie than. In wich case the -I make sense, or does it make no sense at all 
when using standard types of measurement devices?

One more question about the new ISO viewing conditions concerning the latest 
light sources containing UV:

Currently I proof under FOGRA39 standard conditions, wich means that I'm using 
a proofing substrate without FWA. Most prints made under ISO 12647-2 condition, 
but on papers containing FWA, turn very bluish under the new light sources. 
That means that I either have to change my proofing substrate, or a 
modification of the characterization data has to be made in order to achieve a 
similar visual impression. Both ways are not realy what I want to do. Anyway, 
in a closed proofing workflow the second way would be prefered. 

My question finally: does it make sense to use illumread and the fwa 
compensation in this context, measuring the fwa content under the new lightning 


Am 10.02.2012 um 00:04 schrieb Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> Vladimir Gajic wrote:
>> Now I´m using spec2cie in order to create XYZ and Lab -data. When I
>> specify -i file.sp I´m getting a fwa content from about 1.09, wich
>> corresponds to the value I get in colprof. Specifying -I file.sp
>> results in fwa content from 1.43. Therefore I would be gratefull if
>> someone can light me up ;)
> Hi,
>    don't touch the -I option unless you know what you are doing.
> The default should be correct for the type of instrument you have
> (Currently it's always 'A' type, because the Spectrolino/DTP41/i1pro
> all use incandescent illumination), and this will have been the
> assumption in illumread as well, and it needs to match.
> Graeme Gill.

Other related posts: