Profiling a Press/Digi Proofing/Display/Conversion in one Profile?
Profiling a Press/Digi Proofing/Display/Conversion in one Profile?
- Subject: Profiling a Press/Digi Proofing/Display/Conversion in one Profile?
- From: "Stephen Marsh" <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 20:29:18 +1100
Hello list, areas of my question have been touched on before - but I have no
concise answer. I am hoping you can help point the way...
I work in prepress for a smallish printer - using a CTP workflow, and the
profiling/proofing was set-up before I joined the company. We are not happy
with our current profile and will outsource the profiling again. I am hoping
to have some input on this and would like to understand the process better.
I don't even know if what I want is possible.
Our press was profiled from average readings (I am presuming). This profile
is used to drive our CcMmYK Epson 9000 through an ORIS ColorTuner RIP on a
NT box. This profile is okay for proofing (but it could be better, thus
re-profiling). The profile also seems to provide an acceptable softproof on
our eyeball calibrated/profiled systems. However, the profile is useless for
a CMYK conversion in Photoshop.
So is it possible to have the consultant produce a profile that will:
a) Approx simulate our average common CMYK press conditions for CTP inkjet
proofing (sans halftones and spot colours)?
b) There is a separate display section of a profile - correct? Where does
this enter the picture, will the consultant spend extra time or whatever to
ensure that is close?
c) And finally, can the same profile create a CMYK separation that works for
a press? I have to presume that the current profile is good for the RIP but
is not meant for actually creating the separation - as the separated results
are crazy.
I commonly separate using custom CMYK or a SWOP v2 profile from APS6 - and
use the softproof set-up of APS6 to use the Epson profile which seems to
display okay. It would be nice if the one profile could be used for all
tasks - am I asking for too much, or is this common but perhaps costs more
so is optional?
Thanks for your time,
Stephen Marsh.