Re: G7 press calibration, best press conditions or average?
Re: G7 press calibration, best press conditions or average?
- Subject: Re: G7 press calibration, best press conditions or average?
- From: Henry <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 12:33:21 -0500
On Nov 7, 2008, at 4:00 AM, Marco Ugolini wrote:
It can be done, sure, but colorimetry does not make assumptions about
neutrality: it actually *measures* neutrality on the a* and b* axes
-- it
does not base the achievement of neutrality on assumptions of density
numbers for inks and paper color that may not exactly correspond to
the
actual inks and paper on hand.
Anyway, the above-mentioned G7 PDF is far more instructive and
detailed than
I can be on all this. It's not an easy read, and I don't pretend to
understand its suggested procedures completely quite yet. But it
presents a
challenge to established ways that is tested and true, with its
adoption
rapidly expanding in the print industry. (In my print production
work, I'm
pleased to say that I now run into print providers who eagerly
promote their
adoption of G7 procedures as a quality-enhancing and value-added
feature.)
It would be a mistake either to dismiss or underestimate G7 because
we think
that we don't need it since the established ways work just fine: it
certainly deserves a full, open-minded and careful hearing.
Thank you, Marco, for your reply. I am familiar with the G7
documentation and have followed it closely for some time, and I thank
you for referencing the source. In this thread, the methodology
seems to have hit a noteworthy and obvious snag: Is a printing press
a static or dynamic piece of equipment?
If one of G7s goals is to "tame the beast", then a press must be
dynamic. This has always been the case, and no amount or method of
measurement is going to change that. SID, TIV, grey balance and
runability are not a new issues. They are the first order of
business, and they have been successfully addressed many years ago.
Since there are other methods, G7 is to me more about its own
implementation than it is about method.
There are marketing considerations that I have addressed in another
post that I will include in case you missed it:
I have no problem with G7 as an optional methodology. What is
troubling is the marketing of G7 in so much as printers of reputation
must adopt it, or else suffer the marketing consequences. It isn't
that it is bad methodology - it's that there are other methods that
are equally satisfactory. G7 is ok. But, it's marketing and
promotional philosophy for certification is, in my view, yet another
"join the club", exclusionary based approach.
You are correct in so far as it *might* be a mistake to dismiss or
underestimate G7. But, it would be equally incorrect to assume that
there are not already methods that are just as satisfactory. These
equally satisfactory methods don't have the marketing motivations of
the G7 initiative. This is the part of the discussion that flies
underneath the technical distractions of G7's methodology.
The topic of which press conditions are most appropriate for the G7
press "calibration" finds itself backed into a corner that demands an
explanation for the *purpose* of the "calibration". If the purpose
is that of taming the beast, well, that is already possible. It
further begs the "calibration" term for which I am tiring, but still
do not accept.
Arriving at G7 is not that difficult an undertaking - it isn't a
high hurdle. Its necessity is the question.
Henry Davis
_______________________________________________
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