Re: Photographers, printers, and proofs
Re: Photographers, printers, and proofs
- Subject: Re: Photographers, printers, and proofs
- From: Terence Wyse <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:24:12 -0400
On Apr 21, 2008, at 8:59 PM, Mike Strickler wrote:
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.
I think you meant a standard paper white of 95 0 -2 (ISO Paper Type 1
and 2).
Rather than proof to a *custom* standard to allow for the different
paper white, I think what you'd want to do is set the proofer up using
a standard data set such as GRACoL2006_Coated1 or FOGRA39 for example.
That way, the paper white on the proof will be correct, assuming
you're allowing the proofer to simulate/tint the paper white. Better
yet, find an inkjet media that matches the spec exactly and you won't
have to worry about it. I can't remember the last time I was asked to
profile to a non-standard data set (OK, it was last week on a customer
Fuji FinalProof!). The norm these days seems to be to use standardized
data sets/profiles and I think that's a good thing.
As far as your original post, I may have read it the same way Thomas
did that you were arguing for a LOOSER tolerance than ISO 12647-7
specifies. You seemed to be saying that the tolerances were too tight
and not practical for production proofing. I'd argue the opposite. I
set up production proofers all the time that can EASILY maintain the
specified tolerance. In terms of actual dE numbers (I know, dE isn't
EVERYTHING but it does give us something quantifiable) its becoming
almost routine for me to see systems, both Epson and HP "z", to get
under .30 dE average with no patches greater than about 3 dE compared
to the standard data set they were intended to match. In fact, the
last HP Z2100 I did was a bit under .20 dE with ZERO patches over 2
dE. You can choose not to believe that but it does happen...and I'm
not trying to scare anybody! :-)
As far as calibration tolerances, I'm starting to lean towards .50 dE
avg. and 2 dE max dE for production tolerances and so for that seems
pretty reasonable (that's for HP Z printers, I find Epsons to be a bit
less tolerant needing about .75 dE avg. and 3 dE max for normal
production variation). Point being, with today's printers and GOOD
proofing RIP software with a fundamentally sound calibration and
profiling process, we should expect much TIGHTER tolerance than what
ISO 12747-7 specifies.
Regards,
Terry Wyse
_____________________________
WyseConsul
Color Management Consulting
G7 Certified Expert
email@hidden
704.843.0858
http://www.wyseconsul.com
http://www.colormanagementgroup.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