• 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: Match the Proofer?
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Match the Proofer?


  • Subject: Re: Match the Proofer?
  • From: "Terence L. Wyse" <email@hidden>
  • Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 08:32:19 -0400

Hi Roger,

While I basically agree that print buyers/customers should be targeting a standard print condition, I wouldn't necessarily assume it should be TR001/SWOP. As a general rule, if the job is going to print on a web press using #3 grade paper or worse, the TR001/SWOP would be a reasonable target. Call this "publication" quality. If it's going to print on either web or sheetfed using better than #3 paper, then the target should be TR004 (DTR004) or what's loosely called "GRACoL". Call this "Commercial" quality.

And not to split hairs (I don't have many left to split anyway) but while you can call TR001 "SWOP", the inverse isn't necessarily true. TR001 is a specific set of characterization data that was run to SWOP tolerances for solid ink density and dot gain. So while TR001 is SWOP, you could also have a situation where somebody is printing to SWOP *tolerances* (which are relatively loose) and not printing close to TR001. TR001=SWOP but printing to SWOP does not necessarily = TR001. Just wanted to clarify that.

It's also interesting to note that the paper used for TR001 is no longer available from what I've heard (printers have told me this). If memory serves it was something like a #5 groundwood (nasty). So one could make the case that NOBODY can conform to TR001 at the moment!

For the "unitiated", TR004 (DTR004 for Draft TR004 at the moment) is the newly proposed standard for commercial offset/sheetfed printing. TR001 is to web offset publication work what TR004 will be to sheetfed commercial work. It's similar to SWOP except the solid ink densities (SIDs) are roughly +.10 higher and paper grade is #2 or better (dot gain/TVI is similar to SWOP). I've had a chance to play with the averaged data from the DTR004 press run that was done a few months ago as well as measuring actual DTR004 press sheets from the GRACoL press kit and, while I think it's going to be a good standard, I feel there are some problems with the current press run. It appears as if the pure yellow ink hue angle is a bit "red" by 2-4 degrees. Could be the result of some magenta ink contamination in the yellow ink train during the run (they admitted as much in the report). Also, the profile that results from the current characterization data results in a gray balance that's off a good bit from midtone to shadow. Basically the yellow is low from mid2shadow. Couple of possibilities: yellow SID was a bit too high (profile will adjust gray balance in the opposite direction of the "problem") during the run and/or the black ink that was used was a bit too warm ("warm" black vs. a "cold"/blue black). I'm hoping they will consider doing another press run to correct these issues before the DTR004 data becomes the final TR004 data set.

Regards,
Terry


On May 27, 2004, at 11:10 PM, Roger Breton wrote:

Ideally, the press should be the ultimate target, assuming it's able to replicate itself. But the colorimetric information about the press capability inthe form of an ICC profile is still far from being widespread. Admitteldy, there's still a large contingent of printers in north america that are still operating without any kinds of awareness of color management. That's a sad fact. So, no point asking these people for their press profile. They'll laugh at us. Out of ignorance and fear? Yes. Could be. But are we to simply walk away frm these printers? I'd say, when dealing with this group of printer, in my humble view, the best that one can shoot for it some standard printing condition like TR-001, if the job is on coated paper. Why?
I was at a client last week and, after profiling their press and seeing the poor results that they got in the past, having to put up with whathever CMYK separations their clients would throw at them, thank god there is the ICC and they will finally have access to custom profiles for their presses.Because now, they have a means of predicting what their clients's separations will look like when ran on their presses. No only that but they now have a way of comparing their proofs with their client's supplied proofs. So, instead of waiting for the job to hit their presses, untouched, and living with the constant hell that it creates, trying to match their client's proofs on their press, being constantly in the dark (the way their presses are setup, they have positively zero chances of hitting their client's proofs) they now have some power to change things. They can act on their client's supplied separations. Which have nothing wrong in themselves, if you ask me. But they're just not separated for their limited printing conditions.



_____________________________
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: 
 >Re: Match the Proofer? (From: "jc castronovo" <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Match the Proofer? (From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: switching environments
  • Next by Date: Re: Match the Proofer?
  • Previous by thread: Re: Match the Proofer?
  • Next by thread: No More RGB/Taking a CMYK delivery on
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread