RE: Laminate profile - Abstract profile?
RE: Laminate profile - Abstract profile?
- Subject: RE: Laminate profile - Abstract profile?
- From: Roger <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2009 12:13:44 -0400
Hanno,
Thank's for your prompt and opened reply. How about adding this new laminate
compensation module into ProfileEditor, then? Perhaps, this could be done
along the line of X-Rite's OBC module? You know, where they have a special
CMYK characterization chart, and all that. I was wondering, perhaps, your
software would ask the user to print and measure a pre-LAM and a post-LAM
chart. That way, you'd have all the necessary empirical data to apply your
custom correction algorithms? Seems feasible to me. But, the user would be
well-aware of the match limitations between the proofing substrate finish
(gloss, matte) and the actual press printing substrate finish. I think most
clients would be very happy just to have some kind of "generic" solution.
For better prediction, maybe it would be possible for the printer to iterate
the correction? By going back to press, to print a second test chart and so
on. For those printers that are really into heavy lamination, and don't want
to have a small laminator at the press, like John Crook, or don't want to
get too involved with empirical side of adjusting at the press. I think
there is a demand for that kind of feature. May not be huge, in terms of
volume, but it would certainly add value to Colorproof...
MfG / Roger
> Hallo Roger,
>
> thanks for the suggestions, you probably guessed that we discussed
> this already internally... I'd also like to see an "add lamination
> effect" checkbox, with a choice of matte and glossy, plus a slider for
> the lpi or FM dot size... but that's up to product management.
> (Opinions stated are my own, of course - the usual disclaimer)
>
> Technically, this could be done provided that we have access to the
> unlaminated characterization data, or "aim values" in GMG lingo; this
> is not always the case depending on how an MX4 or spot color has been
> created.
>
> Compared to just using suitable (predicted or measured)
> characterization data, as you can do today, this would also affect
> spot colors - a major advantage. On the other hand, it is not exactly
> straightforward how to deal with manual corrections. And the inkjet
> CMYK values (as displayed in the profile editor or in the spot editor)
> wouldn't be valid anymore, since the laminate correction would come on
> top of that. (Now ask the friendly support guys what they'd think
> about explaining all that.)
>
> Generally, when proofing for the final product (post-lam), it is also
> very important to choose a substrate with a similar surface. In the
> ECI working group, we found that the GMG glossy paper 250 is
> convincing for glossy varnish or lamination. GMG semimatte 250 is
> acceptable for matte lamination, but not optimal. In fact, we haven't
> found any proofing paper or cheap lamination method (PE, PVC, 80
> microns or thicker) or varnish spray that comes anywhere close to the
> "premium" look of a thin (~12 microns) OPP matte lamination.
>
> Therefore, for best results you'd need to laminate your proof (and
> create an appropriate gamut or ICC proofer profile for the laminated
> proof). This was also found to be very convincing, but too cumbersome
> for daily production.
>
> Hanno
_______________________________________________
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