Re: U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2
Re: U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2
- Subject: Re: U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2
- From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 07:39:31 -0400
Kevin,
> So, which is wrong? Are all of the SWOP certified proofers incorrect
I would not say so.
> OR is this profile supplied by Adobe seriously flawed in some manner?
Well, it might be different or, shall we say, we might consider it as one
possible interpretation of SWOP among many, depending which part of the
profile you are using (Device -> Lab or Lab -> Device).
> As a color separator, I'll put my money on the SWOP proof. As a color
> manager, I would have bet on the profile.
True. I'm in the same boat here. I think the key here is to consider the
profile as a *starting* point and not as an absolute.
> When using U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2 separations, I always see a very
> consistent blue-on-screen/purple-on-proof in my output to Matchprint
> and Kodak Approval proofing systems. Most notably with 4C separations
> of Reflex Blue and other colors of it's ilk.
I once (painstakingly) compared the CMYK to Lab conversion of SWOPv2 to
TR-001 and found some (not too disturbing) differences. Are you talking
analog Matchprint on Publication basis and Kodak Approval on some #5
substrate? (You said below that you are not using #5 groundwood)
> All thoughts on the subject are appreciated.
One thing is sure: SWOP conformance is strictly visual. So, in essence,
numbers (colorimetric) may not mean much as long as visually the proof
matches a SWOP certified sheet.
Speaking of SWOP-certified sheet, these days (at least last time I checked
in january 06), does not mean much either because there are none available.
SWOP's last runs did not succeed in visually matching the 1993 TR-001 press
run, I'm told. Has anyone seen a SWOP-certified sheet done on Monterrey
Gloss 60 lbs recently?
Kevin, I think your best starting point, short of embarking on a full scale
press profile for your press/media combination, is to compare your proofs to
a SWOP-certified sheet. See how you match that. I know that's the next thing
I want to do as soon as I can lay my hands on such a rare gem.
> -- Kevin Muldoon
>
>
> BTW, I'm not running a #5 Groundwood base. Would be happy to
> reprofile with this paper should anyone point this out as a potential
> issue.
Well, unless you have the chance of running very well maintained presses
(mechanically) and very well calibrated presses (using G7 methodology or
densitometrically-gray balance methodology) chances are your press/media
conditions are not exactly like SWOP. Meaning, when you get proofs with your
jobs, running the presses to density may not match the supplied proofs to
your taste. So, like everyone in the industry, you start to push the
densities up or down until you find you match the proofs better. You may
come to a point where you decide to alter the CTP curves in order to provide
that extra boost in one or the other process colors. But, when that happens,
invariably, color is going to match in some part of the image but not
overall. If no one talks to the client about the mismatch, nothing is going
to happen.
I suspect the best bet is to create a press profile if only to give you a
picture of what printing conditions you're in. And take it from there.
Sometimes I wish I'd make donuts for a living.
Regards,
Roger Breton | Laval, Canada | email@hidden
http://pages.infinit.net/graxx
_______________________________________________
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