Re: Creating Separations for Dai Nippon
Re: Creating Separations for Dai Nippon
- Subject: Re: Creating Separations for Dai Nippon
- From: "John" <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 07:44:57 -0400
>
Original Message From Rick Gordon <email@hidden>
>
Subject: Re: Creating Separations for Dai Nippon
>
>
I'm seeking information on a set of variables to create an acceptably
accurate separation and which will >allow ME a means of having a reasonable
screen representation and soft proofing on MY end. Even if I >wanted to take
a pure by-the-numbers approach (and I'd rather not)
Rick
I understand yours, and everyone else's dilemma about wanting to "see" on
your monitor as close as is possible to the end product result. We too would
love it... but you just can't. You can get to the ballpark fairly easily...
but getting on base is tough, and you will never get to home. I've got tried
every type of monitor you could find from 23" Barco Calibratiors and on
down. We used to love the Trinitrons until we found we really couldn't tell
the difference between any of them to a $600 View Sonic. We rely on the pure
by-the-numbers approach for color evaluation.... any verify that to us, and
our customers with a profiled $35 Epson 10M proof. The "high rollers" pay
for the $300 Kodak Approvals. They match real close, and I can match either
one on press.
>
OK. So then the reality of CTP is that the CMYK you send is not the CMYK
that you get <
The reality is that the CMYK you send is bent and twisted and clipped here
and there, so that when the ink gets on the paper, it IS the CMYK you sent.
Left unmodified, plate limitations, dot gain, ink trap and variable
substrates would assure that it certainly did not match the CMYK your sent.
Also, bear in mind this is not just a CTP thing... the same applies to
outputting film and on a grander scale. To a printer, none of this is
anything new, we've been doing it for years... just to our own files. The
new problem of recent years is that now everyone does their own scans... and
I can understand that. But the majority look like crap. Not all... but
certainly over 50% of them. They say print it... we print it. We leave our
basic output setups the same. We can't "fine tune" junk. Generally speaking,
we are printing work for agencies now, that they would never have signed off
on years ago. With the exception of our high end furniture or clothing work,
the days of proofing for an agency and then correcting and re-proofing over
and over are gone. When they do the files everything is good because most
don't want to pay to fix it.
>
I'd need to know the validity of those >number formulas within the context
of a different inkset and workflow, wouldn't I?<
There is a misnomer concerning printing inks, that being that there are so
many different kinds out there, and that the files need to be prepared to
match them. Wrong. The biggest variable in commercial printing ink, are dry
times, rub resistance, gloss, strength, tack and body. Not one of those have
any bearing whatsoever on color. The only vairable that can affect color is
the hue. The black doesn't count, it never changes. The Cyan doesn't count,
it rarely changes. The Yellow is one of two ways... either "chrome" (red
cast) used exclusively for packaging, or standard. The Magenta is the animal
that can vary... some lean to the Rhodamine side, some to the Rubine. Most
printers use a middle of the road version. In either case, if I were
printing a job for you, and took out the magenta ink, and put in pure
Rhodamine, or pure Rubine, there is a good chance you might not even be able
to tell the difference. It would depend on the job and if you had any large
red areas to refference.
Hope some of this info. is of some value to the group... just trying to shed
a little light on our end of the chain while I'm trying to learn yours.
John
_______________________________________________
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.