Prev: Monitors slowly evolving
Next: Why can't a non-SLR have equivalent quality?
From: Scotius on 12 Jul 2010 01:45
Do publishers use highly advance monitors or
super-knowledgeable graphics professionals who know how things will
turn out even if they can't preview them?
From: David J Taylor on 12 Jul 2010 03:03
"Scotius" <yodasbud(a)mnsi.net> wrote in message
news:6tal36l5eshssvql3vfqh9rhdurbn2av24(a)4ax.com...
> Do publishers use highly advance monitors or
> super-knowledgeable graphics professionals who know how things will
> turn out even if they can't preview them?

"What is the point of having 16 bit colour if a computer monitor can only
display 8 bit colour? How do you edit 16 bit colour when you can only see
8 bit?"

Precision - so that when you adjust the levels in the image, you still
have more than enough bits.

David

From: Rich on 12 Jul 2010 23:13
On Jul 12, 12:09 pm, krishnananda <kris...(a)divine-life.in.invalid>
wrote:
> In article <i1een7$qs...(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
>  "David J Taylor" <david-tay...(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
> > "Scotius" <yodas...(a)mnsi.net> wrote in message
> >news:6tal36l5eshssvql3vfqh9rhdurbn2av24(a)4ax.com...
> > > Do publishers use highly advance monitors or
> > > super-knowledgeable graphics professionals who know how things will
> > > turn out even if they can't preview them?
>
> > "What is the point of having 16 bit colour if a computer monitor can only
> > display 8 bit colour? How do you edit 16 bit colour when you can only see
> > 8 bit?"
>
> > Precision - so that when you adjust the levels in the image, you still
> > have more than enough bits.
>
> > David
>
> In the print advertising industry we used to make comprehensive layouts
> ("comps") for proofing, client presentations, editing, etc. This was
> done with various printing technologies (color laser, solid-ink, Iris
> prints, large scale photographic proofs) which could emulate the 4-color
> offset printing process that would produce the final product. At the
> very least they all depended on the CMYK gamut as they all were seen in
> reflected light. None of these could accurately match Pantone colors.
>
> On-screen proofs were considered inferior and unreliable -- CRT monitors
> deeded daily attention to be "accurate" etc.
>
> Now, for the most part, the newer generation of art directors do
> everything on screen, and make client presentations in PowerPoint. There
> are often big surprises when the printed pieces come off press, as no
> monitor can fully emulate CMYK. And the younger art directors don't know
> what Pantone means.
>
> There are always trade-offs.

Thank those who decided to use RGB for monitors and CMYK for printing.
From: nospam on 12 Jul 2010 23:22
In article
<6b4a8c66-5c71-41e7-b62c-e9a3e38ae51f(a)k39g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Rich <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> > There are always trade-offs.
>
> Thank those who decided to use RGB for monitors and CMYK for printing.

go learn about additive and subtractive colour.
From: bugbear on 19 Jul 2010 04:41
Rich wrote:
>
> Thank those who decided to use RGB for monitors and CMYK for printing.

What do you think they should have chosen?

;-)

BugBear
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Monitors slowly evolving
Next: Why can't a non-SLR have equivalent quality?