RE: Standards
RE: Standards
- Subject: RE: Standards
- From: "Darrian Young" <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 17:03:19 +0200
Peter Figen wrote:
>
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.
>
>If only this were the case. In every instance where printers have gone DTP
and are using
>
>digital proofing, the proofing systems are "calibrated to the press"
according to the
>
>various prepress departments. Only one of the digital proofing systems
was close to
>
>their formal analog system.
Hm. It IS the case. The word "every" implies that every printer eveywhere
is having your experiences, which unless you travel quite a bit is quite a
statement. I have the fortunate opportunity to speak from experience and
not from simple theory, and there are more than a small number printers here
who are working with their particular standard in addition to a traditional
standard for proofing and for printing.
Along to the next issue - "Only one of the digital proofing systems was
close to
their formal analog system." - I think this is suppose to be significant but
I am afraid you will have to explain it to me. Are you saying that the
digital proof which is printed on paper very similar to offset paper with a
simulation of that press looks different from the traditional glossy
Cromalin or Matchprint? Where is the problem?
>
>Only one vendor had or even knew what an ICC profile was, and
>
>NONE could offer proofs for any other standard, only whatever arbitrary
aim points their
>
>proofing system was set to.
Sounds like a great opportunity for you!
>
>These are my experiences with at least half a dozen reputable printing
houses in the
>
>greater Los Angeles area.
Reputable is not something which generally tends to impress me. There are
many reputable companies which print large volumes of medium grade material
(because that is their business), and less known comapanies which are more
much higher quality. The fact that close to nobody knows what an ICC
profile is (whether they decide to use it or not), and the fact that they
cannot offer proofs for any other standard doesn't exactly inspire color
awe.
>
>I just send them a ProfileMaker target, make my profile and go about my
business.
Well, at least it is clear where the problem lies. One cannot just send a
target to a printer, measure it and that's it unless one wants to have
negative experiences.
>
>I'm sure people in other regions will have the same results.
Once again "sure" sounds so absolute. I avoid using it when I can but in
this instance, maybe I will make an exception.
I am SURE that this is not what people in other regions will have due to the
fact that I am from Southern California and now in Spain do not have your
experience. Once again, I try to keep things within my own experience. :-).
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.