Graeme,
very interesting discussion between you and Edmund.
"
The advantage is that it is a device profile, and so can be used in
workflows
that don't know how to handle device links. Other than that there are
several
disadvantages - the precision and smoothness is worse, because the overall
transform is the result of the concatenation of up to two cLUT tables though
a space (PCS) that is much larger than either the source or destination
space
(and hence the cLUT is less densely sampled and hence less efficient),
and the
source space the gamut mapping is setup for is disconnected with the
profile,
which means that there is the possibility of a mix-up where the wrong source
profile gets used with it.
"
Convincing enough for me not to use this approach.
The reason why I'm looking for another way is because of Covid-19,
usually, I ask the people to come to my place so we can do softproofing
and decide if any further adjustment are needed before doing the
physical print.
I understand it's a nightmare, different screens and profiles having no
idea of their quality, different lighting condition, etc. I'm thinking
of making smaller prints before committing to the full size print.
Any suggestion(s) for a better solution?
YG