Re: Photographers, printers, and proofs
Re: Photographers, printers, and proofs
- Subject: Re: Photographers, printers, and proofs
- From: Mike Strickler <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:54:43 -0700
As I predicted, and from one of those I predicted it from. I knew you
couldn't resist. Thomas, if we're talking about the recommended
tolerances, e.g., an average Delta E of 1.5, these were meant for
certifying systems. So what you're telling these folks is that they
should run an average DE of about .5 on a day-to-day basis. That's
not true and it's a disservice to the customers to make them think so.
On Apr 21, 2008, at 7:28 AM, Thomas Holm/pixl wrote:
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.
It's a standard for certification. Please find the passage that says
"bare minimum." Please. The computers aren't the problem. Inkjet
printers, inks, and papers do drift, and sometimes outside the range
correctable by a relin or Lab optimization. That means reprofiling,
which does take at least a little time. Don't be so contemptuous of
end users who have actual work to do and feel THEIR time must be
spent elsewhere. It doesn't mean they are indifferent to quality.
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.
I didn't say it shouldn't be done, and I didn't say there should be
no standards. Is this the way you argue with your customers--putting
words in their mouths and setting them up as opponents? You can talk
to them all you want about what they should care about, but what they
really want is for you to fix the problem quickly and go away.
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...
I knew the sales pitch was just around the corner. First, most
printers and designers don't want the Z-Series printer, for a variety
of reasons we could discuss (and already have discussed) separately.
I suppose you would also berate them for that, but there goes your
automation. Oh--they need to get rid of their brand-new Epson 9880?--
oh, OK, I'll tell them. But that IS too much to ask. Yes, regular
calibrations are what we want, of course, but sometimes they aren't
enough. And if we want to get really picky we might insist on a
optimizing with a larger chart than the onboard EyeOne allows. In any
case, some extra human attention and intelligence is periodically
required, no matter the RIP, and it's just a question of who will
provide it. Sometimes that's someone inside the organization and
sometimes not.
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
--
Mike Strickler
MSP Graphic Services
423 Aaron St. Suite E
Cotati, CA 94931
707.664.1628
email@hidden
www.mspgraphics.com
_______________________________________________
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