Soft and hard in Sweden
Soft and hard in Sweden
- Subject: Soft and hard in Sweden
- From: Henrik Holmegaard <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:44:08 +0200
>
We just established that while many modern inkjets have good stability as far
>
as device drift against itself, but that some printers of the same make and
>
model can vary quite widely. How in the world can you say that you are
>
satisfied with pre-made linearization curves?
A press has multiple ink zones across the width of the format and multiple
ink trains. An inkjet has only one ink zone across the width of the format
and one ink train. So across the format an inkjet is more stable than a
press. But in a workgroup situation where proofs are pulled at several
sites, the ability of two inkjets of the same make and model to print alike
using the same print mode and paper type depends on the calibration system
which has to keep the 'color devices' (: hardware configurations)
synchronized. The calibration system may be built in or it may be added
through RIP software and instrumentation. The calibration system may support
multiple roles, both checking the color device against itself and against
other color devices. In either case a control strip captured and compared in
the MeasureTool helps check repeatability. A calibration system is not as
such limited to checking a device against itself.
And a long-winded aside, sorry ...
Sweden has long had a concept of skipping the contract proof print in favour
of the soft proof with process control for repeatable printing. The argument
is that for digital ad delivery, first of all in newspaper printing where
the Swedish project started, the repepeatability of the press run is the
place to focus first. If the press run is repeatable and all workstations in
the workflow share the same ICC profile for the press run, contract proofs
are unnecessary.
The contract proof is based on the idea that the press must match the proof
and not the proof match the press. So in a contract proofing situation where
different hard proofs are involved, color management on the press has been
done by adjusting the ink zones across the flat. Targetting the press
instead of targetting the proofing systems, and delivering three channel PDF
data where objects are converted into the same separation / CMYK working
space profile on demand both obviate color management on the press.
Maybe the concept that the soft proof suffices is where workflows which are
the same day after day are headed. But does that imply that the proof print
will disappear in favour of the soft proof? The concept of workflow
simulation is developing rapidly and so is expertise in simulation. The
contract proof print is being redefined towards colorimetric verification,
but the colorimetric proof print will grow more common and more commonly
accepted as more publishers and printers see the advantages.
If publishers and printers used to recognize a proof by the brand of media
printed on the back, then they cannot rightly do so today. In the open
systems world every digital printer is a potentially capable proof printer,
if it enters the virtual ICC color network. So how does the publisher and
printer now recognize a proof print? Not only are digital color printers
available in quantity, but the variety of printing processes is also
growing. It comes down to the FOGRA concept of proof-verification by
instrument and by dE, not in practice by colorimetry alone but also not
without colorimetry.
_______________________________________________
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.