• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: G7 press calibration, best press conditions or average?
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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
  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: G7 press calibration, best press conditions or average?
      • From: Marco Ugolini <email@hidden>
References: 
 >Re: G7 press calibration, best press conditions or average? (From: Marco Ugolini <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: perception and measurement
  • Next by Date: Re: External monitor as default
  • Previous by thread: Re: G7 press calibration, best press conditions or average?
  • Next by thread: Re: G7 press calibration, best press conditions or average?
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread