Thanks, Roy.
I think I understand now.
Working on a PC means I have to import the final image into QTR for
printing. So, if I use the soft proofs built from your 21 step
wedge, I would have to add an adjustment layer and tweak the images
to my satisfaction first, as always.
Using your new Gray Lab spaces, I would still have to make the
conversion manually in PS to the Matte or Photo Gray space, and save
it as a converted file for importing into QTR for printing.
Certainly faster and easier than creating a separate adjustment layer
and tweaking it. I guess the Mac still has a few advantages over the
PC.
So, I have a choice of two excellent ways to get in print what I saw
on screen.
Great contribution to a perennial problem.
Thanks again, Lou
p.s. I have ProfileMaker, and I don't recall any restrictions on
sharing profiles with that software. Is i1 Match different??
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington"
<roy@h...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "ldina"
<lbdina@c...> wrote:
> >
> > Roy,
> >
> > I have built "proofing profiles" using your 21 step grayscale for
> > QTR. They seem to do a very good job of simulating what I will
get
> > off my printer. And, so do you new LAB spaces. Thanks for your
> > great work.
> >
> > What is the difference between the two?
>
> Well I discovered that except for the proofing color any of the
soft proofs
> seemed to work equally well for my editing. It makes sense since
all the
> QTR profiles are linearized to the same Lab scale.
>
> The icc profiles I made with the Eye-One work well but they are
kind of time
> consuming and particularly space comsuming. The few soft proofs I
have
> for downloading are bigger that the total size of everything else
put together.
> Each profile is about 500K whereas these new generic ones are less
than
> 500 bytes each (yes, 1/1000 the size). There's also a matter of
licensing
> I can't distribute profiles made with i1Match software so I just
have been
> distributing soft-proofs.
>
> So the new lab space and lab printing profiles are my own and they
are
> simple, grayscale only, mathematically straight rather than
measurements.
> Since I can distribute the icc profiles themselves rather than just
soft-proofs
> they can be used for printing and take advantage of the color
management
> in Photoshop.
>
> >
> > I'm guessing that your LAB Matte and LAB Photo Paper profiles are
> > generic profiles which eliminate the need to create proofing
profiles
> > with a specto and profiling software for those that don't have
these
> > tools or don't want to fool with them. When I use either
technique
> > for proofing (checking the Preserve Color Numbers box) the
results
>
> There's basically two approaches for soft-proofing and printing.
> The old way without using CMM (color management) is to print without
> profiles -- i.e. Same as Source -- and use the soft proofing to
show what
> is going to come out. Here we make the profile but soft-proof with
> Preserve Color Numbers. This says "show me what happens if I don't
> use CMM". You are simulating the print space.
>
> The new way is to use CMM for printing and let the CMM convert your
editing
> space into the print space on the fly. You really have no need to
soft-proof
> anymore (as long as you don't need the color). If you unclick the
Preserve
> Color Numbers there's no change in the display. The regular view
is as
> good as the soft-proof without any extra work. Also since you are
using the
> CMM you can actually deal with any working space not just the gray
lab space.
>
> Roy
>
>
> > are nearly identical. Both seem to give me great results. The
21
> > step proofing profile, of course, lets me see the actual color
toning
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> > of the actual profile.
> >
> > Just trying to better understand.
> >
> > Thanks, Lou