Re: Proofing paper for matte film coated prints
Re: Proofing paper for matte film coated prints
- Subject: Re: Proofing paper for matte film coated prints
- From: Hanno Hoffstadt <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:21:04 +0100
Bob,
(thanks a lot for CC'ing me - I'm in digest mode)
you got it right - the printed product receives a lamination.
To rephrase my question, it is about either finding a very
matte proofing paper (which still has the gamut of the matte
laminated print), or a affordable and quick do-it-yourself
way to laminate proofs in a similar way.
If I understand you correctly, you are using the same kind of
lamination on the proof that is later used on prints, as we did.
Please allow me to comment a bit on your solid and helpful
workflow explanations, just to bring in the experience of the
ECI working group...
I see why you would choose to laminate a reference proof with
the profiling target, and not some particular print, because
of printer-to-printer variations and a common standard that
all can match.
As you said, laminating a proof is not perfect. This is because
the effect of the film depends on the screening. It is strongest
for 150 lpi AM screens, and it decreases for coarser and finer
rulings. With FM screens, it is already quite weak, as with
ink-jet proofs (FS-like dithering, less sharp dot contours,
less uncovered paper white). Therefore, best results are only
obtained with laminated prints as a reference.
I absolutely agree with you that one needs to be very careful
with these proofs, if these get passed on in the workflow.
People really need to be aware what they mean.
Surely the one simulating the final (laminated) product is
mainly used between client and agency/designer in order to fix
the look (and to see possibly unwanted color changes due to
lamination).
And the printing house needs the unlaminated simulation to
adjust ink zones accordingly. (In case of inline UV varnish,
however, the final product proof would be acceptable, too.)
It is very important that both proofs are a consistent pair.
You cannot have an "ISOcoated" proof for one, and a random
laminated-print-of-some-presshouse proof for the other:
Because the printer relies on the fact that once he adjusts
his ink zones to the unlaminated proof, subsequent lamination
of this adjusted press sheet will magically produce the final
product as it was foretold by the laminated proof.
In fact, one of our goals is to eventually produce reference
profiles for laminated prints which are compatible with the
widely used ISOcoated v2 profile. (Luckily, it appears that
the effect of lamination is quite predictable and can be
calculated into any profile, provided you know something
about the screening.)
So for glossy lamination, there are glossy proofing papers
which do just fine. There is no need to laminate these proofs.
It is just for matte where we currently need laminated
proofs - a major inconvenience since not only pre-press
agencies would need to ship their proofs around, losing time
and money, but even most (book) printers in Germany do not
have on-site lamination facilities... which leads me back
to my original question.
Best regards,
Hanno
Robert Rock wrote:
Hanno,
I'm not sure I follow your question. Sounds like the final product
will have a matte film lamination. This is not the same thing as
matching matte coated papers.
What I have done is to create profiles for products that will be
matte laminated (dust jackets, etc...). I did this (using X-Rite/
Monaco Profiler) by outputting the CMYK profile targets to file,
and sending them to the prepress house for press proofing.
NOTE: Rather than profiling the actual offset production press,
we opted to profile the press proofs created by the prepress house,
since these can always be accurately matched by the printer. It
made no sense to us to profile the actual production press since
we never know which press will print the book covers/jackets. But
all our printers can usually match the press proofs accurately.
After we receive the press proofs of the targets, we send them to
the printer to get matte lamination (same as will be used on the
final product). Then when I get them back, I read the targets
(X-Rite DTP-70) and create my profiles.
The tricky part is how the profile is used. After all color
corrections are made and finalized to the press proofs, we then
covert the files to this new matte lam profile and press proof
again. This proof will NOT look like the previous proofs because
the profile is accounting for the matte lamination that will come
later (it will usually appear excessively bright). But you need
this proof because THIS is the proof that the pressman will follow.
He should not even see the previously approved proof from the client.
After printing and lamination, the finished product will look MUCH
better than the previous workflow without the profile. It will not
be PERFECT, because of the nature of how light travels through the
matte lamination substrate, but it WILL be an improvement.
Regards,
Bob Rock
-----Original Message-----
From: colorsync-users-bounces+bobrock=email@hidden [mailto:colorsync-users-bounces+bobrock=email@hidden] On Behalf Of Hanno Hoffstadt
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 10:59 AM
To: email@hidden
Subject: Proofing paper for matte film coated prints
Dear list members,
we haven't yet found a proofing paper to approximate the appearance of
matte-coated offset prints (done typically with 15 mu OPP film, and
much used for book covers, dust jackets, etc.)
The only solution we found is to actually laminate the proof, and
with the same thin OPP material as used for the print - this can be
done only by those companies that provide print lamination.
We tried PVC-based lamination pouches (80 um) unsuccessfully (the
"office-type"). We have no experience with LFP laminating systems
and materials.
Of course, it is a bit unrealistic to wish for a really matte paper
which stays that way when printed on.
But does anybody have something to recommend?
The ECI working group on "coating" would be happy to hear from you...
(I apologize for cross-posting from eci-en)
Best regards,
Hanno Hoffstadt
_______________________________________________
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