![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() How is that possible? unless the SW2700PT is being under reported at 99% AdobeRGB coverage. the resultant graphs indicate that the device, in this case my Benq SW2700PT 27" 99% AdobeRGB monitor is dead on with the factory calibration.īut when compared to AdobeRGB the Benq color space coverage is > the AdobeRGB color space. So putting the burden upon Adobe and the LR team to provide more functionality isn’t going to help.How accurate is the SW in making its' color profiles?įor instance, i made a graphical test Evaluate Device RGB calibration. Blurb at this point isn’t setup to provide anything close to a color managed workflow. Adobe RGB would be much better with still a tiny amount of OOG if we believe that the GRACol aim is valid for Blurb.Īt this point, simply sending the images to Blurb without soft proofing is the only viable solution because making decisions based on any soft proofing we can currently use is not valid. ![]() Lastly, if you compare even the GRACol profile to sRGB which is uploaded to Blurb, you see a significant amount of out of gamut blues, teals and some yellows that sRGB can’t contain as you've correctly pointed out. But it isn’t worthwhile until we have actual profiles for the actual print process. That’s an expensive option and what we really need is for Adobe/Blurb to possibly licence this from CHROMIX and supply to all LR users. Those users who have ColorThink Pro with the optional ColorCast module can "embed" the proofing effect of any ICC profile (RGB, CMYK, or more channels) INTO an existing RGB profile like AdobeRGB. Then there is the issue of soft proofing CMYK in Lightroom although there IS a possible solution that Steve Upton who writes ColorThink pointed out on the ColorSync list. The alternative is for Blurb to simply supply the 4-5 actual profiles from the actual papers. In fact, the deltaE differences in just the two most different papers are nearly dE4! So you have a profile supplied (they actually say on their website it is GRACol 2009 ) that isn’t anything like any of their papers and worse, their papers are all over the place, full of OBA’s that don’t act anything alike. I've measured all the papers Blurb provides, just the papers alone are not even close to GRACol 2006. It's a generic CMYK profile based on GRACoL 2006, and further, we're expected to believe it's based on all the papers one can select? Again, unless one is supplied the actual ICC profile used to convert the RGB data, soft proofing and attempting to evaluate the output with a bogus profile is, well bogus. The real problem is that's a bogus profile! It doesn't define their output. The problem is that the smaller gamut Blurb.icc CMYK profile falls outside the sRGB color space in certain parts of the Yelllow, Green, and Blue spectrum, which effectively clips these colors when sending sRGB profiled images. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |