Re: Match the Proofer? (rambling part 1)
Re: Match the Proofer? (rambling part 1)
- Subject: Re: Match the Proofer? (rambling part 1)
- From: "Terence L. Wyse" <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 19:50:39 -0400
Boy, this is good thread. Almost a duplicate of what regularly pops up
on the ACT list. I have a LOT of (random) thoughts on this topic but
I'll try to make some sense of it.
Part of this whole "problem" comes down to...do we tolerate multiple
"custom" profiles that are specific to each print vendor or even
printer/press/paper specific or do we push for standards-based printing
(TR001, TR004)?
The color management consultant "purist" in me sez to let each printer
profile their specific/unique press/print conditions and either take in
tagged RGB and convert or let customers "in the pressroom" by handing
out their press profile.
The ex-scanner operator/prepress operator "realist" in me sez this is
nuts to expect those on the outside to have enough faith that I'll do
the RGB-CMYK conversion to their satisfaction OR for them to have to
deal with umpteen press profiles from every print vendor they may have
to deal with, assuming they even would KNOW who is eventually going to
get the job.
The more press calibration/profiling I do out in the real world, the
more I'm convinced that standard print conditions/characterization are
the only way to really resolve this situation. I'll tell you what, if I
was a print buyer, I'd first talk to my printer and determine first if
they're a web publication shop (TR001/SWOP) or if they're a commercial
shop (could be web or sheetfed which would point to TR004/GRACoL). Once
that is known, then target your images to their general print
conditions with one of these two "standards". Now comes the hard part;
tell them what you've done and then insist that they print to these
conditions or else and that you will supply them a proof (inkjet?) that
can be VERIFIED to comply with that spec, this way you BOTH have a
responsibility. I'd basically have my ducks in a row as far as my
proofing system (provide colorimetric data that shows that your proff
complies) and sort of jam this down their throats and expect THEM to
print to these widely-accepted print conditions. If they balk, then
keep shopping until you've found a printer that's down their homework
and has brought their pressroom into compliance. End of story.
Before I have all the printers jump on me for this, I've been there and
I know where you're coming from. But since the advent of CtP, things
have gotten sort of out of control. I would venture to say there's LESS
printers today printing to something resembling a standard than there
was 15-20 years ago. The basic problem is that many printers, rather
than adjust plate curves to bring them back to a "standard", are
thinking that they are printing "better" now that they have CtP when in
fact most will admit that 1) they can no longer match supplied CMYK
images (too flat/sharp) and 2) they can't hit Pantone process builds
anymore.
continued on part 2.......2 embed or not 2 embed: that is the question.
:-)
Cheers,
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.