Re: DTR004
Re: DTR004
- Subject: Re: DTR004
- From: "Terence L. Wyse" <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 19:50:09 -0400
On Apr 7, 2004, at 6:02 PM, Rich Apollo wrote:
Does the printer ...
1) truly expect that anything from the Pantone Process Guide is gonna'
match? (All the ColorMgmnt packages have thankfully supplied tools for
establishing optimal process matches - besides I know plenty of
printers who have put together their own process guides)
Well, the *customer* has the expectation that what he/she chooses from
the swatchhbook and specs in their document is going to match. Printing
to the same "standards" as the swatchbook is the only way that's going
to happen.
The second option is what you suggest and it's perfectly valid. Print
to your in-house standard, profile that standard and use the profile to
determine the optimal CMYK recipes that will match the swatchbook.
Nothing at all wrong with that but that's a place most printers aren't
willing to go.
2) have an obligation to "match customer supplied 'generic'
separations" or proofs?
If you say that you're printing to "SWOP" and you're handed images that
are separated to SWOP (USWebCoated(SWOP)v2 or similar) then I'd say,
yes, you have an obligation to match them. If not, you either have an
obligation to give the customer your press profile so they can prepare
the images correctly or be prepared to re-separate these images to your
standard.
or
does he/she rather have an obligation to predict on his/her in-house
proofer what will happen to those separations on-press?
The only way that will happen is if you the customer "into your shop"
by giving them your press profile and possibly be willing to
support/help them utilize this profile correctly for separating and/or
proofing.
The problem I see at many places is on one hand a printer will complain
about the quality of separations/proofs they're getting but on the
other hand are unwilling to pass along to the customer their "custom"
press profile as if it's some sort of trade secret. Can't have it both
ways. The only other option is to request tagged RGB files from the
customer and have them trust you to separate them correctly for your
conditions. Possibly the best of all options but probably the last
choice for most printers. This is somewhat complicated by the
difficulty in getting a proof/print from the customer that will
accurately simulate the final CMYK image while it's still in RGB mode.
Not impossible, just difficult.
3) consider that he/she is printing to TR004/GRACoL specs by utilizing
output curves to achieve the those aimpoints? At that point are you
really describing PRESS conditions/performance?
No sure I understand this question completely. The fact that you've
applied plate curves to get to TR004 dot gain (and density) doesn't
necessarily mean you're printing to TR004. I'd still say that you'd
need to profile your press as a final step. The point is, if you've hit
the correct dot gain, density and gray balance and your basic ink hues
are correct, you should be able to take an image separated to
GRACoL/TR004 specs and achieve a good result.
Lastly, Terry, I'm not talking about some weirdo,
I'm-gonna'-be-different-so-I'll-run-the-press-out-of-balance, in-house
standard. I'm asking if the printer (after testing) has found that the
optimal performance for the press occurs at something other than
TR004/GRACoL, what are opinions in the community. What if the
standards aren't optimal for that piece of equipment? Plate curves
give a lot of latitude and control, but I'm of the opinion that gently
is best. Else one runs the risk of introducing errors.
If the standards aren't optimal for your equipment, then I'd be asking
how/why is your equipment so different? But, again, if you find that
it's not optimal, then feel free to have your own in-house standard but
also be prepared for how that affects things upstream of the press as
far as matching process builds and supplied separations. And be
prepared for making color management more intrusive in your day-to-day
workflow than it is now.
I guess my whole point is that the closer you're printing to "accepted"
standards, the LESS you will have to deal with your own
color-management issues. As a guy who makes his living doing the
color-management thing, I guess I should be all for shops coming up
with their own individual standards (more work for me!). But I've come
to the conclusion that there's enough color issues out there and if
there's choices to be made that can SIMPLIFY color management as
opposed to making it more intrusive, then that's a good thing.
Good points Rich, I enjoy these kinds of discussions.
Take care,
Terry
_____________________________
WyseConsul
Color Management Consulting
email@hidden
704.843.0858
_______________________________________________
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: | |
| | >DTR004 (From: Rich Apollo <email@hidden>) |