• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Photographers, printers, and proofs
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Photographers, printers, and proofs


  • Subject: Re: Photographers, printers, and proofs
  • From: Mike Strickler <email@hidden>
  • Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 22:36:29 -0700


"Produce accurate color" doesn't actually mean anything. "Reproduce color accurately" can mean something but one must define "accurate" very carefully. Even "certified proofs" can mean very different things to different people; most of these sheets are less than they should be, to put it mildly. Both proof makers and buyers need to pay close attention to the following:

All proofs for offset should be demonstrably compliant with the chosen standard (e.g., GRACoL, SWOP, FOGRA), whether the proofing system and media are officially blessed or not. Confirmation of a good proofing system is NOT a GRACoL or SWOP logo but a print of a proofing test form that includes the IT8.7-4 profiling chart along with test patterns and images that demonstrate good gray balance and tonal reproduction for visual assessment. The IT8.7-4 chart should be read, with the data compared to the official characterization data set, and DeltaE values should be within ISO 12647-7 tolerances. This test should be done at regular intervals, but particularly when the media or other system components have changed, or when buying proofs from a new source. For process control every proof should have the new Idealliance ISO 12647-7 control strip--within the image area so it is color managed with the rest of the proof. The strip must be read, not merely displayed, and results confirmed in a report that accompanies each proof. Remember, certified systems can produce lousy proofs just like uncertified systems, so insist on evidence that the proof really passes muster.

I totally agree that creative professionals can benefit hugely from in-house proofing systems (including most importantly good soft- proofing), but the commitment goes beyond merely installing a suitable system. It must also be maintained, and it may not be realistic to expect that the time and knowledge (or the purchase of a fast strip-reading spectro) necessary for this will be available at a studio or agency. The RIP manufacturers have tired hard to make recalibration friendly, but we're still finding that in practice it gets put aside far too often, even in many printing companies. So the budget usually must include the services of a qualified consultant who will keep everything in tune.


Mike Strickler

MSP Graphic Services
423 Aaron St. Suite E
Cotati, CA 94931
707.664.1628
email@hidden
www.mspgraphics.com


On 18 Apr 2008, at 17:12, Peter Hammarling wrote:

 I don't think it's practical for designer's to produce contract
type proofs in-house, if that's what this debate is about.

As a photographer ,I can assure you it's great to be able to produce in house certifiable proofs. It establishes the provenance of colour managed images in a hard copy form and works wonders when it comes to any 'debate' about colour accuracy. Our clients ( including agencies , design groups and direct t commissions ) all benefit from this . Surprisingly (<BG>) they have found that they seem to avoid ' colour corrections' further down the workflow when they are able to brandish the proof.



. Isn't it the job of the pre-press house and the printer to produce accurate colour?

I would have thought that it's the job of the pre-press house and the printer to maintain accurate colour . I know that this may appear as a minor and pedantic take on the semantics , but the difference is where the cost and responsibility lie for operating a properly managed workflow. In house proofing, be it at the photographer's or the designer's helps establish this. The cost of a hardware and software to produce ISO certifiable proof is now well within the budget constraints of most photographers working in the advertising and design group markets , so it shouldn't really be an issue for a design group.

Of  course , there is more of an investment required than hard cash.
It 's also necessary to understand the whole process including CMYK
separation. As an advertising  photographer working digitally , it's
become one of the tools of the job to understand the implications of
RGB to CMYK conversions when shooting and retouching.






_______________________________________________
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


  • Prev by Date: Re: Designers and color management
  • Next by Date: Re: Designers, Color Management, and Xrite , some thoughts and comments.
  • Previous by thread: Re: Designers, Color Management, and Xrite , some thoughts and comments
  • Next by thread: Re: Photographers, printers, and proofs
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread