Re: PS CMYK Conversions
Re: PS CMYK Conversions
- Subject: Re: PS CMYK Conversions
- From: Mike Strickler <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 22:47:17 -0700
Wow, I pose a little question, go on vacation, come back, and it's
still being debated. This is a first for me.
As I pointed out earlier 90% of the time we do not have any
information
about the press running the job. The file could be printed on a
digital
press, an inkjet, Web offset, sheetfed, we hardly ever know.
Right. So it may be better to leave images (not vector art) in RGB.
But all of this is context-driven. If the same image is being
repurposed to a variety of unknown output devices and just pushed out
the door quickly we're talking about a different standard anyway...
Large multinational corps want their brand images to be reproduced
where
they desire, when they desire and not to be told by the designers
how to do
it.
Not sure I understand the context: Corporations don't design
anything; their designers do. I think the question was about who
performs CMYK conversions.
In that case, why embed profiles in the CMYK files? Are printers
going to
follow the Adobe "safe color workflow", honor the numbers and ignore
embedded profiles before converting to their press space? If we
create and
save files in the SWOP v2 color space why would those numbers not be
honored?
It's precisely because CMYK is device color and generally "honored,"
that is, not reseparated, that the conversion should be correctly
done and appropriate for the type of output, at the very least with
knowledge that the stock will be coated or uncoated. Doesn't matter
whether a profile is embedded...
My sense from all of this is that
what some people want to do is just select Mode: CMYK and be done
with it. Thus the concern over the Photoshop default profiles (which
nonetheless could be updated).
Actually, the concern is over Illustrator and InDesign default color
settings. I would prefer not to convert Photoshop images to CMYK.
Not sure I agree with that. The really critical colors in vector
content will be specified as PMS colors. Photographs are another story.
Without some editing this will not compress nicely into the press
gamut.
Maybe we should also discuss when, where and by whom this work
should be done,
If the files need to be re-purposed further than the Adobe defaults
of SWOP
v2 and Adobe RGB 1998 then the conversions should be done by
someone with
more info about the final output.
Why have designers doing any conversions at all? Do you also have
them sharpen the images for press? If not, don't have them converting
either.
From reading this it seems printers would prefer CMYK files. Make
them as
simple as possible, don't create anything that can't be converted
to the
lowest common denominator (SWOP v2). If that gamut is too small use
spot
colors and pay for the extra ink.
Does this make any sense? Too much trouble to convert to the right
process color but not too much to make an extra bump plate?
When Adobe updates their default pre-sets the lowest common
denominator may
move up a notch or two. I am not counting on this happening in CS4.
The defaults are just that; one shouldn't be relying on them.
Maybe Adobe will update faster now that the Ghent workgroup is
recommending
the use of the updated SWOP and GRACoL profiles in PDF/X-4:
http://www.gwg.org/colormanagement.phtml
But one doesn't need to wait for that to select appropriate profiles
for PDF creation.
Perhaps I could have phrased the question better because everyone is
arguing about which profiles to use. I might have asked, who
"prepares" RGB images for press, because this involves a number of
things (soft-proofing, editing out-of gamut colors for difficult
output conditions, sharpening) besides merely picking the right
destination profile. No one used to have to ask this question, but
since anyone now can make CMYK with a click...
Mike Strickler wrote:
It is far better
to manage expectations through education and certified proofs that
show the customers what they can expect on an IDEAL 4-color press of
the same type as specified (e.g., GRACoL, Fogra, etc.)
It would be even better if the design house had this capability on-
site and
could manage the expectations from conception to implementation and
then
could depend on reproducing those certified proofs in various
locations over
time.
Many of us are working on that...
Mike Strickler
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