Datacolor User to User Support Group.

I respectfully disagree that the basic information presented in the article
is misrepresentative of what color rendering does. Are you saying that a
saturation intent is NOT more vivid than perceptual? If they are not, why
does your partner, in the very next email sent to the forum, Mr. Tobie, say
"The brightest one possible (Saturation intent)..."? Maybe we're into
semantics. Brighter? Vivid? Six of one, 1/2 dozen of the other.

The definitions in the article are sound. Maybe not how it is said in
"inkjetspeak", but true to the concepts of rendering. FYI, here is how the
International Color Consortium (for you plebes, that's what icc means)
defines "Saturation Intent":

"3.1.3 Saturation Intent
The exact gamut mapping of the saturation intent is vendor specific and
involves compromises such as trading off preservation of hue in order to
preserve the vividness of pure colors. It is useful for images which contain
objects such as charts or diagrams."

Source:
 http://www.color.org/iccprofile.xalter

I guess maybe they're still using that "same old line" as well.....


pjs
"Light makes photography. Embrace light. Admire it.
Love it. But above all, know light.
Know it for all you are worth,
and you will know the key to photography."
George Eastman


-----Original Message-----
From: David Miller
Subject: Re: [colorvision_group] Re: Why "Saturation" for rendering
intent w. Spyder3Print?

>>>It's things like this "primer" from IBM that gives people the
wrong idea about rendering intents. (what does IBM really know
about color printing...? :-)

Particularly what they say about "Saturation" and business
graphics. This is the same old tired line that people keep referring
to when talking about "not" using Saturation when making photographic
prints.<<<