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: Martin Orpen <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 00:40:38 +0100
On 14 Jul 2006, at 11:41 pm, Roger Breton wrote:
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.
The numbers need to be "realistic" as they have to be matched on press.
What's the point of trying to create a "contract proof" that can
never be matched on a press?
Our own proofs have rarely exceeded 2.2dE - but it's much easier to
control on a 9600 than on a press.
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 use Efi ColorProof XL driving a couple of Epson 9600s.
We use a DTP70 to measure the ECI targets and then create the
iterative lab correction profiles. Proof verification is carried out
using the Efi Proof Verifier module and an i1 (or rebadged ES-1000).
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?
London.
Our proofs are tested before delivery and the dE values declared on
the proof.
Care to quote some figures?
I'm at home, but the paper and CMYK figures usually range from 0.8 to
2 dE and we sometimes get a 2.6 on the other patches. If we ever get
near 3 dE we re-run the iterative calibrations.
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.
Embrace them then - you can't do this with SWOP can you?
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?
Use ISO Web Coated ;-)
He gets a dependable, repeatable and testable workflow that cannot be
challenged by an arbitrary "visual assessment"
Visual standards are a nightmare. FOGRA standards allow us to produce
a genuine *contract proof*.
Here in the UK we have tried to use a visual standard with the
Pass4Press and Proof4Press systems. They have proved to be useless.
Secret standards, untestable proofs, bad press-matches and
unenforceable contract proofs.
Call me cynical, but the aim of "visual match" systems like P4P and
SWOP are verification by reputation or by logo - If you see Cromalin
on the back of the proof then the accuracy is guaranteed...
We can do better than that in the 21st Century.
--
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