Re: Photographers, printers, and proofs
Re: Photographers, printers, and proofs
- Subject: Re: Photographers, printers, and proofs
- From: Thomas Holm/pixl <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:28:27 +0200
On 19/04/2008, at 18.25, Mike Strickler wrote:
Fully agree with the above , but if it's a decent proofing device ,
I'd expect the DeltaE values to be tighter the ISO 12647-7
tolerances.
Well, at the time of installation, yes. And with diligence you can
maintain this, but frankly in practice this doesn't happen and
doesn't need to. If you're even close, especially on the gray
patches, I'd be thrilled, especially if the proof checks out
visually. The ISO tolerances are not for every day use, but for
certification of systems--I should have mentioned this. In other
words, it's a goal to shoot for when you're trying to find out what
your system can achieve on, as Don Hutcheson would say, "a good day,
downhill, with the wind at your back and a full tank of gas." I know
we'll now hear from certain people who claim they get an overall
DeltaE of .38 on every proof, and so on, but that's just meant to
scare you.
I completely disagree, 12647-7 is a bare minimum requirement, and
ideally most of the values in 12647-7 should be around half or or even
a third of the tolerances at calibration time. This will give the
system room to maneuver while still being within the defined MAXIMUM
tolerances set forth by ISO. And it doesn't require that much
diligence - in fact it can be maintained without any work at all
(except changing ink and paper). That's the great things about
computers.
snip
Why not ? If it's a reasonable investment as a lone photographer ,
surely it's not beyond a design group to have the same.
Of course it's reasonable. I merely observe that in practice it
rarely happens, mostly because people are too busy. They don't want
to do it. That does not preclude an individual photographer from
actually doing it, and I applaud one who does.
Don't want to doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. They do want good
(predictable) color on press.
You can't have a fireplace heat up the room before you put in the wood
and light it.
Maintaining a standard along the workflow is the only way to achieve
predictability in todays world with open workflow and multiple vendors.
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.
Depends on your hardware and software. Can be done 100% automatically
with extreme repeatability. Timer based.
Rip's like GMG ColorProof in conjunction with a HP Designjet
Z2100/3100/6100 (and it's onbord spectrophotometer) can be
automatically calibrated with no human intervention, set to calibrate,
say, every third day at 06.00. You essentially set it up, make the
queue's/simulations you want, calibrate the printer (which is done by
pressing a single button in the software) and define how often you
want it re-calibrated. And then make sure it has ink and paper. Hardly
too much to ask is it?
This technology has been commercially available for about 18 month
time...
Best Regards
Thomas Holm / Pixl Aps
- Colour Management Consultant
- Seminars speaker and tutor on CM and Digital Imaging etc.
- Ugra Certified Expert/Consultant: Process Standard Offset
- Apple Solutions Expert
- Member, ColorManagementGroup.com
- www.pixl.dk ยท email@hidden
--
_______________________________________________
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