• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag
 

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: DTR004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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>)

  • Prev by Date: CameraRAW
  • Next by Date: Re: Use of Ultrachrome inkjet proofs in production environments
  • Previous by thread: DTR004
  • Next by thread: DTR004
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread