On 1/19/05 12:09 PM, "Steve Laws" <email@hidden> wrote:
This sounds backwards to me. Is this possible? Can a press be
manipulated to match a proofer using a generic profile. And why would
you do this.
In fact, except for some special high-end cases, this is the way to go.
Although "Adobe Sheetfed Coated v2" is probably not a good choice
(given the
unknown origin), and a GraCol profile would be better (for sheetfed).
And the terms "generic" or "canned" usually carry a "low quality"
connotation, but let me remind you that some good things come in cans
too.
That "generic" can be a very high-quality construct.
A press can be manipulated more than anything else. It can be
manipulated to
match a proof, as long as the proof is a realistic representation of
offset
printing with inks and paper conforming to some standards (as most
are).
If everyone were to go the "I profile my press" route, a customer would
never be able to print the same job accurately in different parts of
the
country. Can you imagine Sports Illustrated being printed in several
places
around the US, and everyone of them having it's own "press profile"?
What they do is establish a "standard press profile", be it one
developed
internally (from averages, from a reference site, whatever), and then
make
the proofs to that profile. And then make the presses all over the
world (or
at least the country) that print for them, match those proofs. Exactly
like
the situation you describe, except for the fact that they probably
don't use
"Adobe Sheetfed Coated v2".
Profiling an individual press falls in four levels of "desirability":
- nonsense: it's nonsense to profile an individual press when it's not
particularly high-quality, when it's not tightly controlled (some
printers
don't even use densitometers), when they change consumables brands
every
month chasing price or availability.
- unnecessary: it's not necessary to profile an individual press when
that
printer vows to adhere to a certain printing standard, such as ISO or
GraCol
or SWOP. In that case, using the "canned" (in fact "standardized" is a
better word) profile for the standard should be enough, in fact even
better,
than using individual press data. You can build your own profile from
the
standardized data, if you want your particular flavour of max ink and
black
generation.
- good idea: if you are willing to deviate from the 'standards'
because you
can achieve a better quality by doing so, if you want a really perfect
match
proof-to-press and have very tight press controls.
- necessary: if you print with techniques, consumables or practices
that
differ from the standards; for example if you use special screening
(such as
stochastic, hybrid, etc), if you use your own set of densities, if you
use
special inks (high pigment, etc), if you use a special platemaking
technique, etc.
My 2 cents.
-- Roberto Michelena
EOS S.A.
Lima, Peru
