Re: Photographers, printers, and proofs
Re: Photographers, printers, and proofs
- Subject: Re: Photographers, printers, and proofs
- From: Todd Shirley <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:03:38 -0400
On Apr 21, 2008, at 9:24 PM, Terence Wyse wrote:
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.
Hey Terry
First let me say that in the larger debate of this thread I agree that
remaining within ISO 12647-7 tolerances can be achieved on every proof
and it is a reasonable goal to do so. We run a couple Epson 4800s
through Oris Colortuner and we only have to re-calibrate about once a
week to stay within the tolerances. I also agree that they could be a
lot tighter. Just for everyone's edification, I'll list what I believe
the tolerances are, please correct me if I'm wrong!
delta E paper: 3
delta E average: 3
delta E max: 6
delta E primaries: 5
delta H primaries: 2.5
delta H avg. CMY gray: 1.5
That being said, I think Mike was talking about a situation where the
client wants to see a proof either on the actual press stock or at
least a paper sim done by the proofing device to get the paper to the
same color as the press stock. I face this all the time. My standard
inkjet proofing queue is set to match GRACoL2006_coated1 and my media
is almost exactly 95 0 -2, but sometimes I am asked to match a
different color paper, in which case I can't certify my proof to be
within the above tolerances. What to do? In virtually all cases I can
just explain this to the client and they understand that the delta E
for paper might go over 3.
I get everything else as close as I can to GRACoL, then read a set of
bars through this proofing set-up and create a new custom definition
in my certification program. I still apply the same tolerances, but
now my target is a "modified" GRACoL with a different white point. I
think this might be the kind of thing Mike was talking about when he
said "proof to a custom standard" I don't try to sell these as
"certified" proofs but I can use my certification program to make sure
the proofer isn't moving around too much. Do you see a problem with
this approach? Also, I don't mind using the ISO 12647-7 tolerances,
but do you happen know the "official" GRACoL tolerances and where they
are published?
–––
Todd Shirley
Director of Color Management
Urban Studio
New York, NY
212.691.2521
_______________________________________________
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
| References: | |
| | >Re: Photographers, printers, and proofs (From: Mike Strickler <email@hidden>) |
| | >Re: Photographers, printers, and proofs (From: Thomas Holm/pixl <email@hidden>) |
| | >Re: Photographers, printers, and proofs (From: Thomas Holm/pixl <email@hidden>) |
| | >Re: Photographers, printers, and proofs (From: Mike Strickler <email@hidden>) |
| | >Re: Photographers, printers, and proofs (From: Terence Wyse <email@hidden>) |