Re: SWOP Proof Certification, TRxxx Characterization Data
Re: SWOP Proof Certification, TRxxx Characterization Data
- Subject: Re: SWOP Proof Certification, TRxxx Characterization Data
- From: Martin Orpen <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:08:11 +0000
On 27 Oct 2008, at 01:49, Klaus Karcher wrote:
I am writing proof evaluation software at the moment and thought it
would be a good idea to draft it as universal and maintenance-low as
possible.
Klaus, don't waste your time!
Nobody wants "proof evaluation software" because they'll have to buy
proof evaluation hardware and RTFMs to learn how to evaluate proofs.
Proofs are easier to evaluate by "brand" and "logo", not by wasting
time measuring media wedges.
Very few US publications can even tell you what variety of SWOP they
use -- but they are very specific about what brands and logos need to
appear on the contract proofs that are submitted to them.
And it's not just US publications. In the UK you'll also find that
brands and logos are more important than dE and dH values.
Conde Nast publications don't want ISO12647-7 proofs, they want GMG
Epson proofs which state that a specific MX4 curve was used. The
measured values of the patches are meaningless.
Here are their "Technical Specifications" for proofing from May 2008:
Condé Nast will accept:
GMG/EPSON proofs output to FOGRA39L on the Epson 4800/7800/9800
using GMG 250SM paper
Using the GMG MX4 profile -
ISOcoated_v2_ECI_39L_PK1-2_E48_GMGsemimatte250_V2.mx4
Checksum - AADD24B1. Proof Control Data - ISO V2 39L ISO12647-7 - CNP
OR
GMG/EPSON proofs output to FOGRA39L on the Epson 4880/7880/9880
using GMG 250SM paper
Using the GMG MX4 profile -
ISOcoated_v2_ECI_39L_PK1-2_Ex880_GMGsemimatte250_V1.mx4
Checksum - 1972654B. Proof Control Data - ISO V2 39L ISO12647-7 - CNP
All GMG/EPSON proofs must have the FOGRA Media Wedge and measure
within an average Delta E of 2 (for optimum proof control and
standardisation); no single patch can have a Delta E variation
greater than 4.
Which means that those of us who don't use GMG get a call from the
client *every* time a proof is submitted because they've received a
whining email from the publication warning them that the proof isn't
up to standard!
A whining email generated by somebody who has neither the expertise or
the equipment to evaluate the accuracy of *any* proof.
After years of spending massive amounts of cash on DuPont Cromalin
materials I saw FOGRA as a very welcome relief from the "approval via
logo" system. Conde Nast and GMG have turned FOGRA39L into little more
than Cromalin MKII.
French Vogue don't demand brand names, they specify that proofs should
be ISO12647-7 and then quote the Lab values for CMYKRGB and paper white.
Do you happen to know the requirements for German Vogue?
--
Martin Orpen
Idea Digital Imaging Ltd
_______________________________________________
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