RE: eci ISO Coated vs. Adobe Europe ISO Coated
RE: eci ISO Coated vs. Adobe Europe ISO Coated
- Subject: RE: eci ISO Coated vs. Adobe Europe ISO Coated
- From: Marttila Jouni <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 09:08:44 +0200
Bob!
Could You provide some arguments why PPA have chosen to use those profile
settings. There seems to be a lot conversation about high GCR vs. medium
GCR, but very little clear arguments why? TAC 310 is for sure much "safer"
even for quality glossy papers in heatset but I would say most of the
printers should be able to print also 350% without problems.
My other question is about Profilemaker 5. You mentioned taht it gave you
more freedom with TAC and black generation. I have myself used only PM 4 and
PrintOpen 5.1 but there seems to be quite a lot of options also in
PrintOpen. Is there some special options in PM 5?
BR Jouni Marttila
>I've been working as part of the with the Periodical Publishers
>Association pass4press technical committee here in the UK to produce
>best practice guidelines for digital file supply. We're now into our
>second edition of pic4press , a document that defines the majority of
>the UKs magazine markets agreed colour workflow. Both last year and
>this year , we have recommended the use of the ECI profiles for colour
>separation in the absence of any defined target or supplied profile.
>
>However , I am not entirely at ease with these profiles , partly to do
>with the issues above. This year we are producing our own profile for
>glossy magazines that will be aligned with the PPA proof4press
>accreditation process , and recommending the use of the ECI profiles
>for other paper stocks ( once again when no other specific target or
>profile is available).
>
>The parameters for generating the PPA profile as agreed with the
>publishers, repro houses , software vendors , printers etc ( all
>represented on the main committee ) are :
>
>TAC 310% ( max black 95% ) . Medium GCR .Black start at 35
>%...so as
>you can see , much in alignment with the above comments .
>
>Personally , I prefer to build my own profiles using the FOGRA
>data and
>ProfileMaker 5.. This gives more control and versatility over black
>generation , and better rendering of our images both relatively and
>perceptually.It also gives a little more liberty on TAC that can be
>useful with some imagery. Our company now has a family of ISO based
>profiles that we can use on an image by image basis depending on the
>subject matter in question.
>
>On 26 Nov 2005, at 11:28, Paul Sherfield wrote:
>
>> Yes, the ISO coated does seem 'better' then the Adobe FOGRA 27
>> profile.
>
>Paul also kindly pointed out the link :-
>
>
>http://digitalproof.info/profcheck/profcheck5ir1b1.html
>
>Which proved to be assuring re using the FOGRA data and Gretag
>software
>as an option.
>
> Rolf Gierling wrote:
>
>>
>> But it shows in what dilemma we are and I have said that before: We
>> have and still need experts on one hand, but most of the people
>> working in the (photo)graphic and printing industry aren't.
>
>With my '(photo)grapher ' hat on , I'll take that on the chin , but
>will point out that as a group , photographers are a lot more
>clued up
> than is often assumed. It's more often than not the case that image
>files from photographers are fine until the next person in
>line , be it
>designer, or retoucher or pre press or printer , starts abusing them
><BG>.
>
>Regards,
>
>Bob Marchant.
>
> _______________________________________________
>Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
>Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
>Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
email@hidden
This email sent to email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden