Re: Creating a SWOP proof with an Epson
Re: Creating a SWOP proof with an Epson
- Subject: Re: Creating a SWOP proof with an Epson
- From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 18:41:34 -0400
> On 14 Jul 2006, at 12:47 pm, Roger Breton wrote:
>
>> In principle, the numeric method should agree with our visual
>> assessment.
>> That is, if a proof is on average less than 1 deltaE away from
>> TR-001, then,
>> it should agree with our visual sensation as well.
>
> That wouldn't be workable - what printer is going to accept an
> average of 1dE as a contract proof?
>
> FOGRA standards allow up to 3 dE for paper white, 5 dE for CMYK and
> 10dE for a rogue patch read from the rest of the target.
I must be misunderstanding you. Are you saying that your proofs show an
average of 3 dE away from the ISO Coated standard, which you say you have
embraced and been certified for below? You must be meaning to say that
"Fogra allow up to 3 dE for paper white (on the proof vs the reference
process), 5 dE for CMYK (on the proof vs the reference) and a max of 10 dE
(on the proof vs the reference)". But even then? I don't get it. Those
numbers seems a bit high. I am confused.
> Using "visual matching" in the 21st Century? SWOP is a compromise,
> not a standard.
SWOP is the agreed upon proofing reference for North American publications.
This just cannot be ignored this side of the pond. And, yes, to my
knowledge, it is still, in the 21st Century a "visual" standard.
> Lee should consider ISO standards. Find an *approved* paper source
> that isn't stuffed full of UV brighteners, a RIP that allows the use
> of L*a*b correction data, iterative calibration and the best/fastest
> spectros you can lay your hands on.
Would you mind be more specific, Martin: what works for you?
> We got certified by FOGRA earlier this year (using Epson 9600s) for
> ISO Coated and ISO Web Coated and haven't regretted it.
Are you in Europe or North America?
> Our proofs are tested before delivery and the dE values declared on
> the proof.
Care to quote some figures?
> They can be tested for accuracy by anybody further down
> the production chain
Of course they can. That's part of the beauty of open standards.
> and we get to see if there is any drift or
> output problems every time we make a proof.
100% agree with you, Martin. And the same can be said for any proofing
system, whathever the reference. But that does not help Lee much in solving
his "SWOP proofing" problem. If he needs to "proof SWOP" what do *you*
suggest he does?
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