I just received printed samples and proofs of various jobs the printer
has done and it looks like the proofs are not very accurate. Good
enough for most jobs, not for color critical work. I just can't
understand why a direct to plate printer wouldn't have a press
profile.
Because it's damn difficult to make a good one. I do this sort of thing
on a regular basis (profile presses) and my default position is to
always profile either their analog proofing system or digital halftone
dot proofer, assuming they can achieve an acceptable match. me: "Can
you match your current proof?" them: "yes" me again: "OK then, THAT'S
what we're going to profile!". Seriously, it's a lot easier to profile
a semi-stationary target such as an analog proof rather than a moving
target such as a press. Having said that, there are some very good
reasons to want to attempt to profile a press, just not a lot of them.
:-)
Roger, do you have any actual specs for the sheetfed coated v2
profile. I thought it was done from a 175 line, 350 max density press
run.
Well, there's no such thing as a "350 max density press run". The press
run always has the potential of 400% total ink, it's what you choose to
set as the practical total ink limit in the profile you build where the
350% comes in. And it's largely an image thing. Vector graphics and
other page elements are not restrained by whatever total ink limit is
deemed prudent but that's not the same as saying it's a good thing
either.
As far as USSheetfedCoatedv2, yes, it's total area coverage is 350% and
assumes about 21-24% dot gain or so (best guess from looking at the B2A
table). Midtone gray balance is about c50m39y38. And I think Roger's
right that it's from an analog Matchprint circa 199?, at least that's
the legend.
