RE: colorsync-users digest, Vol 3 #1289 - 3 msgs
RE: colorsync-users digest, Vol 3 #1289 - 3 msgs
- Subject: RE: colorsync-users digest, Vol 3 #1289 - 3 msgs
- From: email@hidden
- Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 10:22:26 -0600
Can anyone direct me to a source that has the LAB data for SWOP?
Ritch Lefevre
Pre Press Supervisor
Kubin Nicholson
Desk: 414.438.8785
Cell: 414.477.4789
-----Original Message-----
From: email@hidden
[
mailto:email@hidden]
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 12:01 AM
To: email@hidden
Subject: colorsync-users digest, Vol 3 #1289 - 3 msgs
Send colorsync-users mailing list submissions to
email@hidden
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
email@hidden
You can reach the person managing the list at
email@hidden
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of colorsync-users digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Profile Editing/ Potential Disaster? (vanita)
2. Re: Profile Editing/Potential Disaster? (Kevin Muldoon)
3. Re: Profile Editing/Potential Disaster? (Roger Breton)
--__--__--
Message: 1
Cc: <email@hidden>
From: "vanita" <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: Profile Editing/ Potential Disaster?
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 09:09:40 -0500
To: <email@hidden>
Everyone, Thank you for the advice.
Vanita
On Mar 31, 2004, at 4:19 PM, <email@hidden> wrote:
>
>
> What we supply the client is an Approval
>
> proof and a cd containing the 2 versions of the file; one tagged as
>
a
>
> ColorMatch RGB and one a untagged CMYK file
>
>
Why not tag the CMYK file as well? That way if some poor soul (such
>
as myself) gets hold of it somewhere down the line they have someplace
>
to start. I'm assuming you are separating your RGB with the profile
>
that was created from the Approval? Tag it!
>
>
Like Roger said, if people aren't complaining and the printing
>
companies are not having any problems matching your Approval, then it
>
sounds to me like you're doing a great job!
>
>
Eric Bullock
>
Color Guy
>
Hecht's/Strawbridge's Advertising
>
685 N. Glebe Road
>
Arlington, VA 22203
>
>
703.247.2391
>
email@hidden
--__--__--
Message: 2
To: email@hidden
From: Kevin Muldoon <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: Profile Editing/Potential Disaster?
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 10:24:36 -0500
Vanita,
Actually, this does seem like a problem waiting to happen, if you are
marketing the proofs as contract proofs. Otherwise, keep on printing!
The Kodak Approval may be a SWOP certified digital proofer, but that
doesn't mean it lays inks/densities/dot gain in a SWOP certified
manner, like an old analog MatchPrint did. In fact, it doesn't at all,
which means the Kodak has a very different color behavior than does
SWOP! If you choose to profile the Kodak Approval, and separate images
into that profile before sending to the Kodak, your proof and digital
file would be working well outside of the SWOP (choose your TR00 here)
gamut.
That doesn't mean you should change your workflow, but it is something
to realize as you market your proofs. You could say 'Our Kodak Approval
is the best', but it is unlikely that you getting an accurate predictor
of press behavior with your current workflow. There is also the
possibility that if you send a digital file in CMYK to a printer, he
could assume that all he has to do is print it instead of first
converting it to a decent profile such as U.S Web Coated (SWOP) v2.
ESPECIALLY seeing that he's got a SWOP certified digital proof right
next to it!
That is my two cents!
Kevin Muldoon
TrueBlueDot
91B Brevard Road
Asheville, North Carolina
28806
cell: 828.776.1984
--__--__--
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 20:25:59 -0500
From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: Profile Editing/Potential Disaster?
To: Kevin Muldoon <email@hidden>, email@hidden
>
That doesn't mean you should change your workflow, but it is something
>
to realize as you market your proofs. You could say 'Our Kodak Approval
>
is the best',
>
... but it is unlikely that you getting an accurate predictor
>
of press behavior with your current workflow.
There we are. Thank you Kevin for your input. It seems to me that there are
two schools of thoughts on color management for output, today. There are
those who are looking for 'prediction' and those who expect a press to be a
'matching' device. It's an ongoing debate. Which is best? I tend to favor
the former but, realistically, it's not always possible. If, for instance, I
have a client who's a web offset printer, and this printer has a policy of
only running two kinds of Stora grades, then it makes sense for this printer
to 'profile for prediction'. But if I am in the position of Vanita and I
send jobs left and right, then I can only be in the position of 'please
match my supplied proof'. It seems both approaches are valid. But I'm always
tempted to say that 'prediction' is superior and this should be encouraged.
But that's a very normative view of things. As Gracol TR-004 slowly diffuses
its innovation in the industry, it will be interesting which paradigm will
prevail. Something along the old Beta vs VHS battle.
My two cents,
>
There is also the
>
possibility that if you send a digital file in CMYK to a printer, he
>
could assume that all he has to do is print it instead of first
>
converting it to a decent profile such as U.S Web Coated (SWOP) v2.
>
ESPECIALLY seeing that he's got a SWOP certified digital proof right
>
next to it!
>
>
Kevin Muldoon
Roger Breton | Laval, Canada | email@hidden
http://pages.infinit.net/graxx
--__--__--
_______________________________________________
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.
End of colorsync-users Digest
_______________________________________________
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.