RE: Matte Lam Profiles
RE: Matte Lam Profiles
- Subject: RE: Matte Lam Profiles
- From: "Robert Rock" <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 07:14:20 -0400
- Organization: P. Chan & Edward, Inc.
Terence and Hanno,
Back to the matte lam profiles.
The RIP being used by the prepress house in Korea by the way, which Terence
inquired about, is Harlequin RIP Genesis Release 72r1, by Global Graphics
Software.
After digesting all that you both said, I absolutely see how Scenario #2
makes much more sense. Converting to the LAM profile right from the start
keeps us inside that color gamut for the entire process, rather than letting
client adjust colors in a larger gamut and trying to squeeze it down later.
Thanks for pointing that out, I'm clear on that now.
So after final approval on the images, which have the LAM profile, would the
process then be similar to in Photoshop of ASSIGNING the NO LAM profile, and
then converting to the NO LAM profile, and sending THAT image to press proof
(for press room guide), and ultimately to press for printing? I'm assuming
that in their RIP there is a way to output using the NO LAM profile on the
fly, but in my limited Photoshop mind, I'm trying to wrap my head around the
process and how it would work in my smaller universe. When I do that myself,
i.e., take an image that was converted to the LAM profile, and then ASSIGN
the NO LAM profile, the image very noticeably brightens up, which is what it
obviously must do to counteract the dulling and darkening effects of the
matte lam, and yet the color doesn't get TOO strange looking, so I'm
guessing this is the effect that we're describing?
Thanks,
Bob Rock
From: Terence Wyse [mailto:email@hidden]
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 2:11 PM
To: Robert Rock; ColorSync
Subject: Re: PS CMYK Conversions
On Aug 15, 2008, at 1:41 PM, Robert Rock wrote:
I'm a bit confused with the converting/assigning back and forth:
Let's say that after color correcting we convert to the UNLAM profile and
proof one last time. Client says OKAY.
Just to be clear, you DON'T show the client the UNLAM proof, you show them
the LAM proof because that represents the final results. You proof the LAM
image using the UNLAM profile as a guide (only) for your pressroom to hit.
Once this gets lamintated, it should them look like the LAM proof. The UNLAM
proof should not go to the customer since it represents what the image looks
like PRIOR to lamination and may look kind of whacky (oversaturated and
possibly too light, just as a guess).
Now we have the image/file that has
already been converted to the UNLAM profile.
If you went with workflow #2 (LAM image/LAM proof to start with), you DON'T
convert to the UNLAM profile from the LAM profile; you leave the image as
"LAM" and then proof as UNLAM for the pressroom since that will represent
what the LAN image looks like WITHOUT the lamination.
Why would we have to also
ASSIGN the profile prior to converting to the LAM profile? If it's already
been converted to the UNLAM profile, would ASSIGNING be redundant and
unnecessary?
If you EMBEDDED the LAM profile, you wouldn't have to assign the profile
which would be redundent as you say. I said ASSIGN since I never assume the
person I'm talking to knows what embedding a profile means or if they are
doing that by default. Many prepress/print folks don't know anything about
embedding a CMYK profile and, in fact, if they do they view it as a BAD
THING (go figure).
As for "proofing the converted LAM image using the UNLAM profile in the
proofing RIP", how exactly would this be done? Is this the same as what
results when you use absolute colorimetric as your rendering intent? I guess
what I'm asking is how to be crystal clear with the prepress people when I
give them this workflow.
If I knew what your proofing system consisted of, I could give you a more
precise answer. If you have a proofing RIP (ColorBurst, GMG, etc.) driving
and inkjet printer (Epson, HP , etc.), I could get very specific.
I guess I assumed you WERE prepress. If this scenario we're discussing is
going to eventually be handed off to a prepress dept., it could get ugly,
especially if they are unfamiliar with ICC profiles and workflow. If they're
generating the proofs for you, you'll need to get familiar with their system
or at least explain what you're trying to do. They may "get it" or they may
not. If not, the only way may be for you to produce the proofs yourself. If
this sounds overly pessimistic in regards to the prepress folks, it's only
because as a color management consultant I work with prepress and pressrooms
all the time and find there's a general lack knowledge of color management
workflows. It's not always the case but it is more often than not.
And if you're not prepress, how/where are you getting the
laminated/unlaminated press sheets from which to profile and work from? This
needs to be a fairly controlled process and if you're simply sending them a
profile testchart to print and asking them to save laminated and unlaminated
press sheets, I wouldn't be very hopeful about getting good results.
If there's any way I can help, please let me know,
Terry Wyse
_____________________________
WyseConsul
Color Management Consulting
G7 Certified Expert
wyseconsul at mac dot com
704.843.0858
_______________________________________________
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