Re: Standard CMYK Proofing
Re: Standard CMYK Proofing
- Subject: Re: Standard CMYK Proofing
- From: Steve Upton <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 23:07:07 -0800
At 12:07 PM -0500 3/21/02, Scott Griswold wrote:
>
Am am looking for a recommendation for a CMYK workflow. I am running the
>
BestColor RIP with an Epson 10000CF and would like to know others success
>
using this as a proofing device. We are trying to establish a standard
>
in-house workflow for conversion and proofing to take care of our first
>
round color that we can then send to multiple printing companies and get
>
consistent results.
We have found that getting a real proof made can be very useful - even if you don't use it as the final proofing target.
The problem with these "virtual" reference profiles is you don't have anything in your hand to compare it to. It may look good but is it correct?
Layout a page with the profiling target and a sampling of CMYK images and other test bits. Get a proof made - avoid digital, go for the real film if you can. Approvals are OK too. Build a profile from the target on the proof and then print the same CMYK images through your proofing workflow.
Now you are finally comparing apples to apples. The real proof and the digital simulation of the exact same page.
As I mentioned, you don't even have to use it as your final setup but you will a much better idea if your proofing system is doing its job. We have had great success with this method.
>
>
On a related note. When separating to CMYK should the profile used for
>
separation also be used as the reference for proofing?
Not necessarily. Separating to a standard and then simulating a real proof is valid - although it can be confusing. We have even built hybrid profiles for such tasks where the separation tables are of one type and the proofing tables of another. It's best to work up to this one as it can confuse....
>
Or should a
>
conversion be taking place from the color space of the file to the
>
simulation or reference profile used on the output device? Lets take for
>
instance the U.S. Sheetfed Coated profile that photoshop uses. If I were to
>
separate using this profile but then used the BestRef5 Profile as the
>
reference on the Bestcolor, should there be a conversion between these two
>
profiles in order to avoid a mismatch?
no not really. But, while you may be making great 'standard' CMYK, it may not be the best for the proof. That is, the job will look good on a press running to the standard (at least that's the idea) but may not look the same on the digital proofer. If you use the standard profile for the proofer as well then you should see a match. Either way you are using a 'virtual' proof profile and don't really know what it actually should look like.
>
>
There seems to be so many ways to convert and so many references for
>
proofing. What I am looking for is a solid starting point that will allow me
>
to create a good separation and a good proof that most any printing company
>
can match on their proofing system and press.
Yup - understandable desire. Again, start with a real proof and go from there.
Regards,
Steve
________________________________________________________________________
o Steve Upton CHROMiX www.chromix.com
o (hueman) 866.CHROMiX
o email@hidden 206.985.6837
________________________________________________________________________
--
_______________________________________________
colorsync-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.