Re: Creating Proofs for ISO Coated & FOGRA Proof Verification
Re: Creating Proofs for ISO Coated & FOGRA Proof Verification
- Subject: Re: Creating Proofs for ISO Coated & FOGRA Proof Verification
- From: Martin Orpen <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 11:56:48 +0000
On 8 Dec 2006, at 08:56, Joseph Yates wrote:
But with the ECI and DigitalProof forums in Germany now adding
measurements for changes in hue and the IPA Proof Round Ups adding
Visual Match - along with other criteria – since all the proofing
systems seemed to be able to meet the wide numeric DeltaE
tolerances - are these “verifications” which – as I understand them
– rely ONLY on numeric deltaE measurements - really going to give
me a accurate proof-to-press proof?
EFI's XL RIP taking the prize would suggest that scoring well on the
visual match and getting tight tolerances on the Fogra wedge aren't
mutually exclusive?
We would never send out proofs that exceed 3 dE on the Fogra wedge,
but that is because it is easy to do when you are using a device as
stable as an Epson ink jet. But the destination device isn't quite as
easy to control so the set dE tolerance can't be made too stringent
otherwise it isn't going to work for the press people who would not
be able to match very tight dE tolerances across a single sheet let
alone a whole run.
The most important things for me in choosing to adopt the Fogra
standards is process control and "open" standards.
We take more care over calibration and the the quality is measured
every time we create a proof. To question the quality of our proof
requires the recipients to be aware of both the Fogra and ISO
standards and have the necessary hardware and software to test the
accuracy. Therefore raising the expertise and awareness for everybody
in the production process.
This is a much better way of working than either a "visual standard"
or a proprietary one whereby the proof is claimed to be authoritative
but the recipient has no easy or independent way of testing it.
In the UK we are witnessing the death of a proprietary standard - the
PPA's dreadful Proof4Press. This consisted of a media wedge that
nobody could test independently because it relied on a black box
containing the characterisations of the devices from manufacturers
that bought into the process.
This amounted to buying your PPA approval simply by buying an
approved device - like Digital Cromalin - and an approved test kit.
No expertise required.
Likewise, the recipients approved the proofs by looking at the
sticker or flipping the proof over and looking at the logo on the
back. No expertise required and no need to purchase any test devices
- no wonder the "industry" loved this laughable "standard". It cost
the publications and printers nothing and guaranteed sales for DuPont
and Creo (whose executives were numerous on the committees that
thought up the "standard").
I'm not pretending that Fogra and ISO are perfect, but the working
methods are way better than old-fashioned visual and proprietary
methods. If a better standard or a better process control method
comes along then we'll adopt it - but I suggest that you take the
criticisms of those who don't offer a more open or testable workflow
with a very large pinch of salt...
BTW we are also using Ugra certification on our displays now. Trouble
is, we can't get any of our Apple Cinema Displays to pass any of the
test criteria apart from "layout" :-(
Regards
--
Martin Orpen
Idea Digital Imaging Ltd
_______________________________________________
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