Rafe wrote:
>Dan's approach is to go by the numbers
(RGB values, or L*a*b values, or CMYK values)
rather than the appearance of the image on the
screen. So in a way, Dan's approach is quite
absolute and mathematical, if followed rigorously.
My question in all of this is that if you don't go by "The appearance of the
image on the screen," how do you know what you're correcting, or how to
correct it? When you describe CM as a "Black Art," you attribute much more
User Friendliness to it than it has, IMHO. ;-)
(and yes, I read the book) :-)
Best regards--LRA
>From: rafeb <rafeb@channel1.com>
>Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: Which Buggy Software?
>Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 22:33:07 -0400
>
>At 07:29 PM 7/15/01 +0100, Tony Sleep wrote:
> >On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 07:14:41 -0400 rafeb (rafeb@channel1.com) wrote:
> >
> >> And as it turns out, I am a big Dan Margulis
> >> fan... hence my rotten attitude about ICC
> >> color management, etc. I think, once you
> >> start working in the "Margulis" mode, you're
> >> probably spoiled forever from using these fancy
> >> profiling and monitor-calibration tools.
> >
> >Just as a matter of interest, how does he accomodate interchange of RGB
> >files with other systems, eg reprographic houses? Lend them your monitor?
> >;)
>
>
>Nope. Dan's approach is to go by the numbers
>(RGB values, or L*a*b values, or CMYK values)
>rather than the appearance of the image on the
>screen. So in a way, Dan's approach is quite
>absolute and mathematical, if followed rigorously.
>
>I've sent PS 4 files for printing on Lightjet
>and have never been disappointed by the output.
>No profiles involved, nor did the lab inquire about
>profiles, or make recommendations. AFAIK, the
>lab did not modify the images I sent.
>
>Call me lucky, maybe.
>
>
>rafe b.
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
