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 23:17:09 +0200
On 21/04/2008, at 17.44, Mike Strickler wrote:
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.
Both systems and each individual proof, hence the expression
"certified proofs" coined in the 12647-7 standard.
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.
No I'm not saying that, I'm saying "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 trust me it's not only true it works in real life and in
production environments. And even then some customers would prefer
even tighter tolerances.
than 12647-7 since they believe especially the average and maximum
tolerances is way too high.
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.
Yes. Certification of every single proof produced.
Please find the passage that says "bare minimum."
The expression bare minimum for one is not mentioned is 12647-7, so
unless you are quoting me here I don't know what you are aiming at. If
you are quoting me (above), let me specify that bare minimum means
that these tolerances at least should be met (they are the maximum
deviance tolerable), you can go tighter if you want which will be
preferable.
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
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.
My customers are high end publishers, printers, photographers and
retouchers most if not all are working in high production
environments. The one thing they have in common is an expectancy of
predictability and sustainability. There are two solution to the
problem of getting a proofing system to print and keep printing
accurately:
1) You purchase the hardware and software necessary which will make it
easy to maintain.
2). You decide to spend a lot of time maintaining the system yourself.
This means hardwaré and software will (can) be a bit cheaper, but that
you will spend (or purchase) valuable time to maintain it (which
includes relinearization and re-profiling).
The only other solution (if you can call it that) is to stick your
head in the sand and hope the problem will go away.
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.
In many cases you are right and that's exactly what I do. I call that
consulting.
In many cases I oblige their wishes by recommending solutions that
will be high quality, high production and low maintenance. In all
cases I explain to them that if they want to build proofs which
conform to ISO 12647-7, a certain amount of maintenance is necessary.
This can be automated or manual labour but it can't be avoided if you
want to maintain and ensure predictability and repeatability.
WARNING: SALES PITCH AHEAD
In several cases I have exchanged both other Rips, Veris and Epson
printers with GMG and HP, Not because of the quality which were
previously well within tolerances, but because it is cheaper to run
(no maintenance) and highly predictable. Had Epson had the foresight
to embed a spectro they would undoubtedly still be something near a
monopoly in proofing. But they didn't so one can only hope they will
introduce something like that soon (Drupa?).
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'm not trying to sell anyone a Z printer if they don't want it.
Currently there are compelling reasons to get one though.
I suppose you would also berate them for that, but there goes your
automation.
Let's try and keep this civilized shall we?
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. Some extra human attention and intelligence is periodically
required, and it's just a question of who will provide it. Sometimes
that's someone inside the organization and sometimes not.
If a customer has just purchased an Epson x880 and were expecting to
loose/minimize the maintenance time/cost one could argue that they
were given singe sided advice, even if the x880 series are great
printers. But still with a proper rip all they need is an automated
spectro and the receptionist would be able to keep the printer in line
with 30 min of instruction (I one customers where the girl
distributing the mail calibrates their GMG rip/Epson 7600 ever other
day with an ICColor. Takes her about 5-8 minutes of work at $12/hour
(yep, minimum wages in Denmark is pretty high). The only thing she
needs to know is to press next and feed the patches into the reader
and in the end press finish.
And I absolutely know this is not doable on all RIP's and I completely
agree linearization on many Rip's is woefully inadequate. So again
either you find a solution that will do the work for you, or you do it
yourself/hire someone to do it. Not wanting to do it won't get the job
done for a quality oriented customer.
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 · 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