RE: Press Profiling Best Practices
RE: Press Profiling Best Practices
- Subject: RE: Press Profiling Best Practices
- From: "Broudy, David" <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 11:58:31 -0600
>
-----Original Message-----
>
From: Ryan Thrash [mailto:email@hidden]
>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 4:11 PM
>
To: email@hidden
>
Subject: Press Profiling Best Practices
>
>
>
When creating profiles for printing presses, or proofing systems that
>
will effectively be a "press", how do you create the test charts for
>
optimal results (in our case with Monaco Profiler). I think it should
>
depend on the type of printing process you're
>
emulating/profiling. For
>
instance, with sheetfed vs. web on a Polaproof:
>
>
I assume we would want to set up our ink limit on the patch
>
charts from
>
Monaco Profiler to correspond to acutal printing conditions. In other
>
words, limit the targets to a 325% total ink for sheetfed work, and
>
300% for SWOP proofs (actually SWOP spec says that small, non
>
detail-critical images can have up to 320% total ink coverage).
how can you alter the target without destroying the relationship of each
patch to its values in the reference file?
you set total area coverage when generating the profile.
unless Monaco do it differently. I've never used their stuff...
>
I ultimately think we'll need at least two profiles: a "generic"
>
sheetfed profile with 325% TIC and normal gain curves on a
>
bright white
>
#1 paper, and another "generic" profile with 300% TIC and higher
>
(SWOP-spec) gain curves on 60# Monterrey Gloss (approved proofing
>
paper) for magazine/catalog/web work. (If we went to the same press
>
every time, we'd want to profile that, but we send work all over the
>
country and have to shoot for "average" conditions.)
you could use the Adobe US Web Coated profile for SWOP work as it is based
upon TR001. there's also some TR001 profiles at chromix.com with different
types of black generation.
for sheetfed I'm kinda waffly about the Adobe US Sheetfed Coated because I
think the 350% TIC is too high for a generic profile, the dot gain
compensation is too high for CTP, and there's a big range of repro
characteristics in coated papers. Kromecoat 100lb cover and Flimsella Dull
60lb book are way different.
you could make a profile from a target on a proof made to known aims such as
Gracol for a given range of paper types e.g. one for high-end coated, one
for cheap Flimsella, one for this n that etc.
you can get away with generalizing in SWOP because you're only dealing with
one set of specs. someone here mentioned a Gracol spec that's making the
standards-body rounds. a profile based on that would be pretty useful.
>
Which brings up an interesting side-question, how do you
>
reconcile the
>
SWOP-spec allowable variance of 300% or 320% TIC depending on
>
the image?
dunno. keep it to 300% is what I'd do even though 320 is permitted in some
cases. if things go bad on a run it's something a printer might try to pin
on you.
ever see a web wind-up? :) me either but it sounds nasty.
>
From a patch-generation standpoint, is there an advantage to
>
printing
>
with scrambled patches and if so, when?
I forget why but I use the randomized ECI target. something like it reduces
the effects of ink starvation? duh... need more coffee.
>
And finally, what quantity of patches should be used; is
>
there a point
>
of diminishing returns with too many target colors or the more the
>
merrier?
I haven't done a comparison of the ECI target vs. smaller ones. if there is
a point of diminished returns, nobody seems to know what it is. to me more
patches = better. just because.
d there's no such paper as Flimsella, I just like the sound of it b.
--
David Broudy
Jostens R&D
11300 Rupp Drive
Burnsville, MN 55337
952.882.3617
_______________________________________________
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.