[argyllcms] Re: RGB printer profiling, A2B tables

  • From: Klaus Karcher <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 18:09:16 +0100

Klaus Karcher wrote:

But then again, the graphic industry badly *needs* a standardized gamut mapping to sore and carry media independent data.

Graeme Gill wrote:

I guess I'm not understanding the motivation for that. Where
intechanegebility depends on it I can understand, and for some
sort of baseline standard it may be acceptable to do so,
as long as there is scope for doing things in other ways
as well.

IMO interchangeability and archive-safeness depend on it. Let me give you a brief abstract of a discussion at the printing across borders list a few days ago to explain it:

Your intention was to point out that the differences between vendor
dependent gamut mapping strategies are more grave than those
between different print conditions.

Exactly. [...]

You're right: It's a pity, but it seems to be still more secure for
a customer to estimate/guess the print conditions and deliver
tagged CMYK than to deliver media independent data and hope that
the one who makes the separations has the same preferences for
software vendors and rendering intents than the client. In this
case device link profiles can unsheathe their advantages.

I do think it's best for customers to deliver CMYK. But they need to deliver CMYK I can print and get their intended appearance. [...]

Media independence, late binding and blind exchange are great concepts, but there are still some stumbling blocks to be removed.

So long,

Other related posts: