Re: Match the Proofer?
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.