RE: colorsync-users digest, Vol 3 #1203 - 13 msgs
RE: colorsync-users digest, Vol 3 #1203 - 13 msgs
- Subject: RE: colorsync-users digest, Vol 3 #1203 - 13 msgs
- From: bruce fraser <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 16:51:56 -0800
If you're tasked with the unenviable job of producing files that will
work equally well in 70 publications printed on 300 presses,
lowest-common-denominator is pretty much inevitable. In that
scenario, you need to concentrate on being safe. Great isn't even
worth considering. If you're doing a cover for Vogue, different rules
apply....
Best,
Bruce
At 7:46 PM -0500 2/5/04, Mark Rice wrote:
We do a lot of work for publication, and the results as seen in the
final publication are often baffling, compared to our high quality
proofs. We send PDF-X files to the publication, and matching SWOP is the
only thing we can count on.
Mark Rice
-----Original Message-----
From: bruce fraser [mailto:email@hidden]
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 7:38 PM
To: Mark Rice; email@hidden
Subject: RE: colorsync-users digest, Vol 3 #1203 - 13 msgs
Your point about profiling for specific presses is well-taken, but
you need to have some reasonable idea of the minimum highlight dot.
SWOP has become the sRGB of the print world, even being used for
sheetfed presses for which it's quite inappropriate.
RR Donnelley probably has more than 384 presses, but before I submit
a job I at least want to know whether it's web or sheetfed, coated,
uncoated, or newsprint. Submitting generic SWOP TR001 is fine for
plenty of midrange work, but you'd be insane to do so for anything
that was aiming to be high quality.
Bruce
At 7:23 PM -0500 2/5/04, Mark Rice wrote:
I have been a member of DDAP (Digital Delivery for Advertising
Production) and the Digital Ad Lab in NYC for many years. One of the
things that has come out of many debates at these meetings is that one
should NOT prepare files to match a particular press, unless you work
at that particular printing company.
The approved procedure is to match SWOP specifications. As someone from
RR Donnelly pointed out, "We have 384 presses. How do you know which
press we are going to run your ad on? It's our job to match the SWOP
standard proof on our presses."
Profiling for particular presses, unless you REALLY know where the file
is going, just contributes to entropy.
Mark Rice
www.zero1inc.com
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 18:17:11 -0800
To: email@hidden
From: bruce fraser <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: CMYK output profiles & dotgain
The one area where profiles may not compensate for dot behavior is in
the transition zone from minimum printable dot to paper white-it
depends on the target that was used to build the profile, and the press
behavior.
I find that it's best to determine the minimum dot the press can hold,
then manually set detail white to that dot value, letting specular
whites blow out to white paper.
If the profiling target has a rich set of patches in the highlights,
you may not have to do this, but if it was built from an IT8/7.3
target, you almost certainly should.
--
email@hidden
--
email@hidden
--
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.