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: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:42:18 -0400
Martin,
> The numbers need to be "realistic" as they have to be matched on press.
I must be missing your point. The way I see it, the proof has to match as
closely as possible the press conditions it is trying to simulate, don't you
agree? Regardless of how the press will actually be able to match that
proof. This is exactly what IPA proofing contest is designed to test. But
I'll confess I don't know the details.
> What's the point of trying to create a "contract proof" that can
> never be matched on a press?
Are you saying that it's possible to build a proof that has some kind of
tolerance built in? I don't follow.
> Our own proofs have rarely exceeded 2.2dE - but it's much easier to
> control on a 9600 than on a press.
Ah! So, 2.2dE is the best match you have achieved to your ISO Coated. Is
that the best because iterating beyond that worsens the match? It would seem
likely.
> We use Efi ColorProof XL driving a couple of Epson 9600s.
Same here. v2.62. We chose not to upgrade to v3 because we'll instead put
our money in GMG ColorProof.
> We use a DTP70 to measure the ECI targets and then create the
> iterative lab correction profiles.
We use a DTP0 too to measure the ECI targets and then create the iterative
proof correction albeit using Heidelberg PrintOpen.
> Proof verification is carried out
> using the Efi Proof Verifier module and an i1 (or rebadged ES-1000).
Hope to get into that part using GMG. We chose not to buy that option off
EFI.
>> 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.
OK.
>> 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?
Sure we can: instead of iterating using Fogra data we iterate using
TR-001:1993 data. What's the harm?
>> If he needs to "proof SWOP" what do *you*
>> suggest he does?
>
> Use ISO Web Coated ;-)
Right.
> He gets a dependable, repeatable and testable workflow that cannot be
> challenged by an arbitrary "visual assessment"
In defense of visual assessment, I have found that even having iterated to
less than 1 dE is no guarantee of a good press match, but I'm curious to
hear what your experience taught you over the years. With EFI, I first
iterate and then adjust visually, using Fuji ColourKit ProfileEditor (which
performs wonderfully) and GMB ProfileEditor, until I get a satisfatory match
to my standard press sheets. It is by no means perfect but it surpasses
leaving the match stritcly up to iterative proof correction. And that's
regardless of UV or no-UV cut fitted instruments. Although we get better
matchs, bar none, without UV-cut filter. Press profiles are created with
Spectroscan.
> Visual standards are a nightmare. FOGRA standards allow us to produce
> a genuine *contract proof*.
Does Fogra sell certified sheets? Or is this only a SWOP, North American
practice?
> Here in the UK we have tried to use a visual standard with the
> Pass4Press and Proof4Press systems. They have proved to be useless.
Why, because every printers operates under different printing conditions? We
tried matching US WebCoated SWOP v2 proofs on our presses, striclty by the
number, and the results we nothing to write home about.
> Secret standards, untestable proofs, bad press-matches and
> unenforceable contract proofs.
I'll use what works ;-)
I'm proofing paradigm agnostic.
> 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...
Wasn't Cromalin SWOP-certified, Martin?
> We can do better than that in the 21st Century.
I'm open too. Hope I am not leading you to believe otherwise.
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