Re: Pantone
Re: Pantone
- Subject: Re: Pantone
- From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 08:30:10 -0500
Andy Hatkoff wrote:
>
> 3. There are rips with which Pantone has worked to develop a workflow
>
> whereby the postscript file passes the PANTONE Color name to the rip. The
>
> rip then replaces the name with the L*a*b* data so that it can get color
>
> managed as accurately as possible.
To which Graeme just replied:
>
Certainly my experience is contrary to this. I tried for some time
>
to get Pantone to talk about licensing their electronic swatchbook
>
to us, so that we could translate spot colors into L*a*b* and then
>
run the colors through our profiles and calibration system,
>
and they steadfastly refused, insisting that the "best" way
>
was for them hand calibrate all our products.
>
>
At something like $US10K a pop, and given the thousands of
>
combinations of products, devices, media and profiles
>
we currently sell, this was hardly a practical proposition.
>
>
Comparing some of our competitors Pantone certified spot
>
color results to the results we get when running the L*a*b*
>
numbers through our profiles and calibration system,
>
I know which approach I prefer from a technical and
>
visual accuracy point of view !
>
>
Graeme Gill.
Personnally, I'd be curious to know which RIP is Andy referring to. And as
far as PANTONE "hand calibrating a product" for $10K a pop inconcerned, I
think that makes sense for PANTONE economically to stick by that policy --
it is their way of living, after all. And it is a great marketing scheme. I
mean,if I was a Xerox or HP, wouldn't I want to have some kind of
authoritative endorsement to put on my printers in the form of a symbolic
sticker to vouch for the quality of colors produced by my printers? Don't
you think that the PANTONE franchise must be worth millions of dollars, now,
over the year? I mean for anyone looking at graphic design and printing, the
PANTONE trademark has become synonymous of "color quality", somehow, even
though most people on this list and elsewhere in the industry know better.
But for someone who has to decide what to buy, in terms of a color product
for graphic arts purposes -- like a printer, let alone a RIP --, the risk
perceived with buying a product that does bear the "PANTONE" seal of
approval is ** HUGE **. Even though this PANTONE "approval" (like you said
Graeme, it cost big money to Xerox to have this certification from PANTONE)
in the forms of PANTONE CMYK tables is meaningless when we all dig a little
deeper: it is only good with one media (which is never specified) and with
the printer in one given condition (using original toners at an unspecified
degree of humitity), and there is never any reference to degrees of Delta Es
matching in all those case. It is just presented as a given -- sort of
something to believe in blindfolded, that this is the truth. It takes some
time for some people to figure to pull their physical PANTONE swatckbook
(when they know such product exist) and compare with the "simulations".
So, in a way, I am not surprised that PANTONE has always refused to hand
ColorBus their electronic swatchbook: they'd be shooting themselves in the
foot if they did. Now I am curious what is the relationship with a company
like ColorBus wanting to use the PANTONE Lab values to do proper color
management in their RIPs, and companies like :
A) Adobe who licenses PANTONE Solid Coated for Photoshop, Illustrator and
InDesign;
B) Gretagmacbeth who licenses PANTONE electronic libraries for use with
EyeOneMatch and ProfileMakerPro;
C) X-Rite who licenses PANTONE electronic libraries to use with their
spectrophotometers and ink formulation product?
The cost to these companies must be a little more than just $10K a pop...
Roger Breton
Laval, Canada
email@hidden
_______________________________________________
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.