• 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: Supplied RGB - SWOP is not TR001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Supplied RGB - SWOP is not TR001


  • Subject: Re: Supplied RGB - SWOP is not TR001
  • From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
  • Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 12:17:13 -0400

Rich, I forgot to mention. Please don't take the following as a direct contradiction of your opinion which I respect very much, btw, but the many times I spoke to the SWOP people and all the places I've read about SWOP, the recurring theme is that what SWOP mandates is for printers to match a SWOP proof. However they arrive at it SWOP won't dictate that. It's up to the printer to match a SWOP proof. So, yes, there are many, many variables but they rest with the printer not with SWOP, as you aptly point out.

Can you expand what you mean by SWOP conformance? Maybe we're both sayin the same thing?

Roger Breton

On 27-May-04, at 10:17 AM, Rich Apollo wrote:

On May 26, 2004, at 6:18 PM, email@hidden wrote:

Although there is supposed to be a SWOP standard - I see no
evidence of that in the reproduced pages. Colors and tonalities vary
wildly

SWOP is not necessarily TR001. SWOP is a description of a printing condition based on dot gain, solid ink density, line screen, paper, print contrast, etc. It is not a colorimetric characterization of that printing condition. There are many variables that can be altered while still keeping you within SWOP conformance.

All these prints you refer to - were they on the same paper? Did they use the same ink, blankets, coating? Heck, for that matter, were the presses running at the same speed? Were the chillers set to the same temperatures? Were the trap numbers the same? Was the web tension the same? Was there an expicit arrangement between the printers involved that they would conform to a colorimetric standard? Which one? To what tolerances? Were the separations generated in the same manner? Did each printer use the same UCR/GCR/black generation settings? Did the printed pieces match the proofs that were available press-side? Did the printers all use the same screening technology? Were the signatures laid out the same at each location?

Point is any or all of those printers may have been within SWOP conformance.


Rich Apollo
Priority Litho
314-344-1144
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.
_______________________________________________
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: 
 >Supplied RGB - SWOP is not TR001 (From: Rich Apollo <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Supplied RGB - SWOP is not TR001
  • Next by Date: Re: Microsofts "Longhorn" WCS (New CMS and ICC v4 support)
  • Previous by thread: Re: Supplied RGB - SWOP is not TR001
  • Next by thread: Re: colorsync-users digest, Vol 3 #1362 - 8 msgs
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread