Standards (was ECI 2002V or 2002R?)
Standards (was ECI 2002V or 2002R?)
- Subject: Standards (was ECI 2002V or 2002R?)
- From: "Darrian Young" <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 22:50:52 +0200
Henrik Holmegaard wrote:
>
Education is another broad concept which by nature
>
must explain the goal of each workflow step, the route to reach it, and
>
the possible difficulties which cannot be wrapped into an ease of use
>
product (let alone a pair of slim covers -:)).
>
...but reading the printing lists it seems to me there are also
>
folks who think of pointing devices and instruments more as vermin -:).
Alas, the main drawback of education is that one needs to want to learn in
order to do so.
>
... the point is that the upstream workflow is faced with
>
the practical problem of creating pages, and to do that CMYK printer
>
profiles are needed -:). If any old CMYK printer profiles are used
>
there are going to be more problems downstream than if printer profiles
>
are used which conform to a known workflow calibration standard.
Yes.
>
And if the press room is driven to realise that such a standard exists,
then
>
more press rooms will in fact try to calibrate to the standard in order
>
to be able to print more incoming work reasonably. It's just like
>
tennis, you can play to win on aces and loose the game or you can play
>
to keep the ball moving and win on averages.
I think here is where the problem is. It is important to differentiate
between a standard CMYK which any printer should be able to print if his
system is calibrated properly, but this standard does not necessarily need
to be followed on a day to day basis. Ex. A printer has his own prepress
and hence has his press profiled, uses this profile for his seps, and has
his proofing system set up to predict what will come out on this press. On
jobs he does all the work for, he is open to use his own special recipe to
give added value. But, if a job comes in which has been done outside, he
can proof it with a standard profile, calibrate the press to the standard
and print the job successfully. The idea of driving printers to always
adhere to a standard does not make sense to me. As in most countries print
houses are not goverment agencies, but rather private companies, there is
not a wish to print just like the next guy. That would mean that getting
the job only comes down to a price war. In printing, like in any other
business, one wants to print better than the next guy. On on hand this is
how one makes money, and on a more basic level is simply a matter of
survival.
Perhaps it is clearer if we apply the same standards logic to inkjets. The
WIO (World Inkjet Organization)decides that there are a lot of inkjets in
the market and hence makes a standard inkjet profile. So then it is up to
inkjet manufacturers to make all of their printers print the same. Epson,
HP, Canon, etc. all sit down and agree to make their printers produce the
same output (no more trying to make a printer have a larger gammut than the
rest, light black of course has no place until the rest also have the same
technology, resolution and variable dot technology must also be uniform,
etc.) This of course does not appear realistic or productive, but someone
who wants to print a poster or photograph may be happy they can do so with
only their standard inkjet profile at hand.
It may appear that I am competely against a standard which, of course, I am
not, but I think it needs to be put into the right context and does not
hinder the eternal quest for progress.
Regards.
Darrian Young
MGV
_______________________________________________
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.
| References: | |
| | >(no subject) (From: Henrik Holmegaard <email@hidden>) |