Datacolor User to User Support Group.

Check the softproof in SpyderProof using the lower rightmost image.  
Check this against the same image in Photoshop, and tell me if our  
highlight proofing is better than Photoshop's.

C. D. Tobie
WW Product Technology Mngr.
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
DataColor.com
CDTobie@...

On Dec 13, 2008, at 7:18 PM, "prof_mgt551" <prof_mgt551@...>  
wrote:

> Thanks for your prompt response. I tried different L values for Ref
> White and rebuilt the profiles. This changes the soft proof's pure
> white value, but doesn't reveal much more detail (if any). I notice my
> other profile soft proofs have the same issue.
>
> It is nice that SpyderPrint lets you make these L value adjustments
> for the Ref White and Black, quickly generate a new profile and then
> immediately check the soft proof in Photoshop.
>
> One additional question: where does SpyderPrint keep the data files? I
> would like to back these up.
>
> Thanks for your help
>
> --- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, Cdtobie <CDTobie@...> wrote:
>>
>> I'd start by adjusting the L* value for Ref White when building the
>> profile. Sounds like one point should about do it. Photoshop has some
>> issues with softproofing whites, so it may not be possible to get it
>> perfect.
>>
>> C. D. Tobie
>> WW Product Technology Mngr.
>> Digital Imaging & Home Theater
>> DataColor.com
>> CDTobie@...
>>
>> On Dec 13, 2008, at 5:17 PM, "prof_mgt551" <prof_mgt551@...>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Using SpyderrPrint v 3.5b9 I created a profile of Museo Portfolio  
>>> Rag
>>> printed on my Epson 3800 using the high quality target plus gray.
>>>
>>> After tweaking the shadow detail slider to open up the shadows in  
>>> the
>>> print plus adjusting the reference black to improve the soft  
>>> proofing
>>> in Photoshop, I am happy with the print quality the new profile
>>> provides.
>>>
>>> Soft proofing in Photoshop looks good except that the soft proof  
>>> clips
>>> the highlights. The actual print has nice highlight gradation, but  
>>> the
>>> soft proof clips a couple of steps off the scale. In the soft proof,
>>> step 250 is the last step to show separation from pure white. On the
>>> print, step 252 is the last step to show separation from pure white,
>>> so the soft proof clips a couple of steps. I am not sure how to
>>> correct the soft proof so that it shows the the actual print's  
>>> fuller
>>> highlight detail.
>>>
>>> Any suggestions on how to tweak the soft proof highlight detail? I  
>>> am
>>> using the Printer Evaluation Image available at outbackprint.com.
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>