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 17:59:11 -0700
On Apr 21, 2008, at 2:17 PM, Thomas Holm/pixl wrote:
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.
I think that's wrong--the 12647-7 allowed average for all patches is
3.0, which I would agree is pretty loose. Mind you, we're not far
apart. I find our customer' systems fairly close to 1.5 over time
without intervention (and generally well below that at the start, but
if things drift closer toward 2 overall it's still a good proof.
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".
Yes, that sounds about right. But let's also keep the bigger picture
in mind: The standard defines an "average" reference press/paper
combination, and in the area of paper white alone it's quite easy to
be off the standard 95 0 2 #1 sheet when proofing accurately for the
actual press stock. In that case one must either be a little more
tolerant or actually proof to a custom standard to allow for the
different white point.
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.
It's not a question of trusting you: I do this for a living, too.
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.
No argument.
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?).
Much still needs to be done...
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.
That's fine; not everyone agrees--yet.
I suppose you would also berate them for that, but there goes your
automation.
Let's try and keep this civilized shall we?
Of course.
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.
Yes, but sometimes more is required. There is also the fact that for
perfectly good reasons most shops here are using other printers,
e.g., Epsons, Final Proofs, Spectrums, etc., all capable of making
fine proofs but lacking built-in specttros. They don't have the
option to automate this. Later, who can say...
And I absolutely know this is not doable on all RIP's and I
completely agree linearization on many Rip's is woefully inadequate.
True, but I think we can safely set aside those other systems for tis
discussion.
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.
That's something we can agree on!
Thanks,
Mike
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