Re: Quark 5
Re: Quark 5
- Subject: Re: Quark 5
- From: Pete Carter <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:53:45 +0100
>
Pete Carter <email@hidden> writes:
>
>
> I seem to get either the Pantone colors looking reasonably accurate and the
>
> scans real bad or vice versa, or even both bad but never both good. Does
>
> POCE play a big part in this?
>
>
What might be going on is that pantone colors are not managed in
>
QuarkXPress 5 unlike in QuarkXPress 4. It was possible to start out with
>
a Pantone solid to process color and QuarkXPress would treat it as a
>
Quark color which you could color manage. You had to select a suitable
>
source CMYK profile for solid colors, and then it would repurpose the
>
color. If you specified a SWOP profile for solid, the old Pantone values
>
actually could be repurposed into something fairly usable for those with
>
reasonable (read LOW) expectations for reproducing Pantone solid to
>
process colors.
>
>
QuarkXPress 5 appears to treat solid to process as separate from Quark
>
colors. Quark colors must be RGB or CMYK (maybe one other like HSB, I
>
forget) for Quark to consider them "solids" for the purpose of color
>
managing them.
>
>
And QuarkXPress 5 uses the new Pantone solid to process equivalents as
>
well, which in some cases are TOTALLY different than the old values. And
>
insofar as I can tell, the specs Pantone has in their guidebook don't
>
conform to either SWOP or GRACoL. Whether there are printers in the
>
country who actually print this way remains a mystery. I'm sure they
>
exist, but I haven't found any yet.
>
>
Note that the solid to process values in QXP 5 match up with the solid to
>
process values in Illustrator 10, ID 2, and Photoshop 7 - and of course
>
the post May 2000 Pantone Solid to Process Guide.
>
>
So unless the press behaves like Pantone expects it to, the default solid
>
to process values in the ID 2 or QXP 5 libraries aren't going to work for
>
you. The images and the solid colors must be separated with the same
>
destination in mind in order for both to have a chance at reproducing
>
correctly.
>
>
Oh - and all typical warnings about the gamut of most Pantone colors
>
being outside the gamut of process printing, as well as the fact that
>
Solid to Process in general is a joke at best, totally misleading at
>
worst, that wanting Pantone colors without actually paying for ink mixed
>
in a bucket is wishful thinking, blah, blah, blah - apply.
>
>
Chris Murphy
>
Color Remedies (tm)
>
Boulder, CO
>
303-415-9932
>
_______________________________________________
>
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.
Thanks everybody for your comments, it's great to know I'm not the only one
banging my head against the wall!
Quark certainly seems to have some dark secrets lying within.
Chris your point about Pantone colours not being subjected to Quarks CMS
does seem to explain things to some extent, but are they still ignored at
the point of applying a profile in print settings when outputting to colour
proofer?
The worst part of all this for me personally is not managing to reproduce
scenarios it's like ' what did I uncheck? It's as if Quark has some kind of
built in 'Random colour generator'!
Regards
Pete Carter
_______________________________________________
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.