Alastair M. Robinson wrote > > Yup - but to my mind the bigger problem is that such a gamma adjustment > means ink coverage is no longer directional proportional to input value, > which means ink limiting becomes a very hit-and-miss affair - printing, > say, [80,80,80,20] could well become [32,32,32,1] when printed - a patch > the CMS believes will have an effective ink coverage of 260% ends up > being only 97%! Needless to say this has major implications for the > gamut of a profile created for such a print path. > I completely agree with Alastair. Graeme, I suggest to include the inverted calibration curves into profiling process and compute wither ink limit reached or not with backward conversion of linearization. By such way the limits can be truly physical and real amount of inks can be accounted.