Re: Matte Lam Profiles
Re: Matte Lam Profiles
- Subject: Re: Matte Lam Profiles
- From: Terence Wyse <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:13:54 -0400
On Aug 18, 2008, at 7:14 AM, Robert Rock wrote:
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.
We'll assume for now that they're running their Harlequin RIP UN-color
managed since that would be typical of a workflow RIP such as this.
The only thing we should be concerned with is how they are proofing
your job (more on that below).
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.
Good. The more I thought about it, I think #2 makes the most sense.
That's what's interesting and sometimes confusing about color
management is there can be more than one day to skin a cat (my
apologies to you cats).
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?
OK, if you've ASSIGNED the NOLAM profile to the LAM image (correct),
it would be redundant to convert since the source and destination
would be the same. No need to convert in this scenario.
As far as proofing, you'll proof using the NOLAM profile as the source
profile since that is what is assigned to the image. The destination
should be a profile of the proofing device, whatever that is. If YOU
have a proofing device (inkjet or whatever) that is properly profiled,
then you could make the proof yourself and send that along with the
job. If they also insist on making a proof, you'll need to tell them
that your UNLAM profile should be used as the source profile in their
proofing system. If their standard press profile is equivalent to your
UNLAM profile, you should be all set. To cover yourself though, I
think it's a good idea to provide them with an UNLAM proof that they
can compare against their proof. They should look very similar.
I’m assuming that in their RIP there is a way to output using the NO
LAM profile on the fly,
Again, in their standard WORKFLOW RIP (the Harlequin RIP), I'm
reasonably sure they are simply going to output your CMYK values as-is
with no in-RIP conversion.
In terms of their (possible) PROOFING RIP, you just need to tell them
to use your UNLAM profile as the source profile. Their destination
profile, since it should be a characterization of their proofing
device and media, should not have to change at all. If their current
press/source profile is an accurate characterization of the way your
job is going to be printed, then you/they shouldn't have to do a
thing. In this particular case, I would probably recommend AGAINST
embedding the UNLAM profile in your image and simply leaving it
untagged. This would protect against any unnecessary profile
conversion in their workflow.
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?
Since the lamination is most likely going to INCREASE (darken) the
optical dot gain throughout the tonal scale but at the same time is
likely to REDUCE the saturation/density of the solid inks, you should
see an overall LIGHTENING of the tonal values while at the same time
an increase in satuaration of solid and near-solid colors when you
strip the LAM profile and assign the UNLAM profile. I think we're
probably in agreement with what you're seeing but I'm trying to use
more precise terms than simply "brighten" since that could mean
different things to difference people.
Terry _______________________________________________
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