No More RGB/Taking a CMYK delivery on-results and followup
No More RGB/Taking a CMYK delivery on-results and followup
- Subject: No More RGB/Taking a CMYK delivery on-results and followup
- From: Doug Walker <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:40:11 -0700
On Friday, June 4, 2004, at 05:54 AM, Andrew Rodney wrote:
Actually many are specifically produced to fingerprint a well defined
behavior like SWOP TR001. The problem is finding a printer who first
tells
you they conform to SWOP (certainly one of the three biggest lies in
the
world) and then finding they really do conform as specified by TR001
(and
soon TR004 for sheetfed). That being the case and not a lie, the SWOP
Coated
v2 profile from Photoshop will produce a superb conversion. This was
illustrated several years ago at Seybold in a profiling shootout.
Fellow posters,
I am pleased to share the results of one photographer doing CMYK
conversions destined for WEB offset as opposed to the client, in an
effort to bring take this topic round trip.
After much thought about using the printer supplied profile (supposed
secret sauce) I decided to use the US Web Coasted SWOP v2 profile for
my recent conversion and subsequent catalog printing for the following
reasons:
1) The profile provided by the printer (supposed secret sauce) had a
TAC of 400 so using that to separate to seemed beyond scary Evidently
just fine for softproofing but not suitable for Conversions.
2) The printer stated as such that for their WEB press advise clients
to use US Web Coasted SWOP v2 as they conform to SWOP. Supposedly if
files are sent untagged they use their own profile.
3) The paper I was printing to is a low grade 45lb Choctaw coated
stock...and as such is not requiring a high TAC. Actually, I learned
that the US Web Coasted SWOP v2 profile actually shows a TAC of
somewhere around 272 when can-opened and examined closely. (I would
name the source but not sure that protocol dictates or that they wish
to be noted.)
4) You can't go completely wrong when you use the advise of the
printer. I mean not in the blame sense. This does mean you still
cannot go completely wrong. 8)
The results:
The color is nuts on. No off color cast at all. I would hope that
this is the result of my using Gretag EyeOne Display and regularly
profiling my monitor.
The image has pretty good snap but I feel it is still a bit lacking in
the Blacks or could use a boost in contrast.
My guessing at possible causes:
1) I found out after talking to my client that they had Distiller set
to 600dpi? as opposed to 2400dpi? which they used to use for all
covers. They upgraded to the newer Distiller and evidently the default
is 600 and never got changed. The printer told them it needs to be
2400 and that the lower setting mushes the images.
2) I had worked the image, an overall dark and saturated image with
320 in the blacks and in the end my darkest blacks for TAC was 264.
Probably could have gone for 275 eh?
Can one really see a big difference with 5 points in the TAC? 10
points? Sure looks like it on the monitor.
Here is what I did to prepare the image in an effort to ensure success:
1) Applied Capture Sharpening and did initial tone edits in 16bit.
2) Used Selective Color>Blue to pull off Magenta which started around
95C 77M to somewhere around 90C 50M. It is really nicely blue. No
Magenta Blues. Thanks to this forum for that info! I am guessing I
could have probably gone 90C 55M and been just fine.
3) Used Selective Color>Nuetrals to see if the C was slightly higher
than the M or Y and exactly what was going on in the Neutrals. I
needed to pull muscle it around slightly at the highlights, the
midtones, and the same for lower 1/4 tones to get the Cyan a bit higher
and the M and Y to essentially be even. Nuts on neutral. No color
shift at all in diffused stainless and other metal nuetrals.
4) Did the Convert to Profile from AdobeRGB to US Web Coasted SWOP v2
using RelCol and BPC and dither on, embedding the profile. I know, I
know no one here can say for sure. But in this particular case the
printer said they INGORE profiles in their ORIS RIP. So my remaining
question is whether tagging messes with Quark 6.0, exporting to
Postscript, and subsequent Distiller to PDF. Still can't get to the
bottom of that question.
5) Used PhotoKit Sharpener for the output sharpening 300dpi, offset
printing examined at 100% and again at 50%, it made all the difference
in sharpness as before the client had sent covers to the printer
WITHOUT ANY Unsharp mask at all.
So for the next issue I will work to push the edges and boost contrast
a bit. I will examine further the ins and outs of exporting to
Postscript and subsequent Distilling to PDF through Distiller.
And it seems that the bad rap for AdobeRGB can be skirted with a bit of
dilligence.
Thanks for all your input on this. It can indeed be successful.
Doug Walker, FP
"Specializing in Corporate People in their Workplaces in a Clean, Bold
Classic Style!"
website:
http://www.walkerphoto.com
Phone (360) 943-1293
Member, ASMP, APA SF
_______________________________________________
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.