RE: SWOP Proof Certification, TRxxx Characterization Data
RE: SWOP Proof Certification, TRxxx Characterization Data
- Subject: RE: SWOP Proof Certification, TRxxx Characterization Data
- From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 22:08:23 -0400
Mike,
Thank's for sharing these interesting comments and notes. Allow me some
further comments of my own.
I wrote:
>> This is why I believe press proofing
>> will make great strides in the coming months, years. At least with press
>> proofing, there is *no* confusion as what the tolerance is.
To which you replied:
> Press proofing....ya think? Not sure clients want to pay for
that...perhaps for
> a digital press.
Please consider that, with current monitors quality like the Eizo's or the
HP or the NEC or the Quatto or the LaCIE or the Samsung (have I left anyone
out?), the technical quality is there. Please consider also the economics of
press proofing. This, in my opnion, is what's going to make this happen.
Consider TimeLife, the largest US publishers. They recently complete the
elimination of all hardcopy proofing from their operations. Personnally, I
see it happening more and more every day. The way I see it, I don't think
it's going to be driven by clients but by printers, who have much to gain in
this process in view of declining margins and overall shrinking sales volume
because of the gradual and unstoppable migration of advertising dollar to
the internet -- what is making google richer is making the printing industry
poorer. And there are logistics as well as time saving advantages. And, like
I said, with monitors, there *can't* be issues of optical brighteners,
right?
You wrote:
> From my experience with a company that provides proofs, printers often
have there own
> targets and tolerances...some intelligently based, using dE94, others
requesting legacy
> density/dotgain, and others making up there own. Its not uncommon for me
to have a
> conversation(or three) with the printer to agree on required metrics and
discuss
> instrument agreement.
I think print buyers will be catching up to those renegade printers. Soon,
as in Europe and the rest of the world, we'll see less and less "variation"
among individual printer's practices and more and more convergence towards
adoption of printing 'standards' : how many sheetfed printers in the US are
still thriving on dot gain? Seems like an endangered species to me. Just
think of Martin's post yesterday. Buyers are getting smarter and they are
demanding more and more assurance before giving out business to the next
salesperson that comes knocking on their door. Large pharmaceutical
companies are requiring GRACoL conformance now. Same with large toy
manufacturers, large hair coloring manufacturers. The movement is really
picking up steam. You must be seeing that too?
You wrote:
> A similar test was done at the 2007 IPA Proofing roundup with the IT874
and Fogra media
> wedge (46 patch). There was a close correlation between the results of the
Fogra Media > wedge and the IT874 measurements with 2% of submissions having
a failure of the IT874
> with a pass of the Fogra wedge. In this test, the same tolerances were
used for the
> Fogra Media wedge as the IT874, both based on Proofing System
Certification tolerances
> (1.5 dE).
Interesting you mention proofing roundup since the talk at the last G7
Summit revolved around the notion that proofing has become so good, in fact,
that those proofing shootouts have been relegated to the past -- thank's to
the success of the G7 method.
You continue:
> Perhaps that's true. I know that for the 2007 proofing roundup a DTP-70
was used for
> the judging, and of course, all the venders then used DTP-70s to generate
their
> profiles. The user submissions used any and all instruments, and of
course, their
> results varied that much more (for that and other factors).
No wonder I'm holding dearly to my DTP70. But you know, the Techkon
SpectroDens agrees very well with the DTP70. And so is the EyeOnePro. The
iSis, seems like a class apart. Have you had the chance to try the new
spectral correction with the iSis? I gather that the visual is improved but
at the expense of pure colorimetry. So which is more important?
Your last comment was:
> ... Moreover, instrument agreement on BCRA tiles doesn't necessarily
correlate to
> agreement on real world substrates
I recognize this is an ongoing argument. Still, BCRA tiles remains the only
standard reference material for color metrology that all instrument's
manufacturer based their quality assurance program on. Just look at the
Certificate of Performance that you get when your friendly 528 comes back
from its annual trip to Grand Rapids, the inter-instrument agreement
statement invariably reports the expected measurements in terms the standard
set of BCRA tiles. I know I have my own set here and it is interesting to
compare readings on my set to those from X-Rite or Techkon.
The way I see it, the next hurdle in color managing proofing system is how
we're going to get from numbers to visual agreement. If the tolerances are
widened, to make up for various generations and qualities of instruments,
the tolerance is going to become meaningless. I like Fogra's approach of
demanding, as part of their proofing certification program, not only an
IT8.7/4r chart printed to the numbers, but also some standard visual
imagery. That way, they can better put in context the meaning of the
colorimetry.
Best / Roger
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 3564 (20081028) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.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