Chris Murphy <lists@...>
Mysteriously, however, after this half-decade ofI know this is not true off the top of my head. At Seybold Boston, Best
Practices Conference in a session called Cases in Outstanding Color
moderated by Don Carli, there was a speaker who did discuss their use of
ICC profiles. I'd have to log onto the Seybold web site to get the
transcript and find out who this was because I don't remember the speaker
Also, a customer of mine, without my intervention, was encouraged to use
and was provided an ICC profile by their printer, Courier Printing, a
book printer. The profile made good separations, and is being used to
produce in-house soft proofs and hard proofs.
There is a local company in Denver that reportedly uses ICC profiles,
although I'm not sure to what degree. The name of that printer is
I know that R.R. Donnelly is using ICC profiles to some degree, although
I don't know to what degree (I'm not their consultant unfortunately).
Everone who is using Photoshop 6 to make any kind of conversion is using
ICC profiles whether they want to or not because Photoshop 6 only uses
ICC profiles. The idea you can get away from this is ridiculous.
or b)So what's the point? That if they graft ICC profiles onto traditional
methodology that they aren't using ICC profiles? That they aren't using
color management? I don't understand what you're getting at Dan.
Look at every CTP implementation on the planet and you'll see they are
grafted onto traditional workflows as well. Does that mean these printers
aren't using CTP? Or they aren't real CTP workflow? What? Please clarify.