Re: Soft-Proofing Workflow
Re: Soft-Proofing Workflow
- Subject: Re: Soft-Proofing Workflow
- From: Steve Upton <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 13:53:31 -0700
At 4:12 PM -0400 4/28/10, Ken Fleisher wrote:
>Thank you for the suggestion, but I don't think that will solve my problem.
>Perhaps my description of the workflow was a little too sparse.
>
>We are fully color-managed and produce color-correct files with embedded ICC
>profiles. When these are sent to color-managed printers, often the first
>proof is accepted and the rest of the time, a second proof is usually all
>that is needed. But when the printer is not color-managed, color on the
>first proof can be all over the place. We need to communicate to the printer
>what the image "should" look like.
>
>If they had a color calibrated monitor, all they would need to do is open
>the file in Photoshop and they could see the correct color. But clearly they
>are not color managed and this is not going to happen. Remote Director is a
>great idea, but won't help us if the client (i.e. the printer) does not even
>have a calibrated monitor. In other words, it's not the live corrections to
>the file that need to be approved by the client (printer), it's the
>hard-copy printer's proof that needs to match the file, which "we" are
>approving. So I don't think Remote Director is our solution.
Hi Ken,
I think the simplest answer is to aim towards color standards.
If they don't have a color managed monitor and you are not sending a "guide print" to them then you are totally at the mercy of their color rendering, which is obviously old fashioned and you are feeling the chafing.
If you choose to create color that is aimed at a certain color reference, like GRACoL for higher-gamut sheet fed or a SWOP for smaller gamut stuff or some other color reference, then you can speak relative to the reference.
Without a reference you have nothing to make your "edits" relative to. (and by edits, I mean corrections to their printing deficiencies)
The difficulty of your situation is likely due to the absurdity of it. To illustrate:
Consider: You want someone to build you some tables.
Method 1: You send plans and a drawing (your older method) to a manufacturer and they build a prototype to sanity check with you. It's a bit clumsy but it works. Let's say that the drawing supplies some sort of units to the plans so they have an idea of how big you want it.
Method 2: Now, in the "modern" world, you send just the plans to the manufacturer. You have the exact units available but the manufacturer isn't likely to own a ruler (and you don't know up front). Their prototype, still as unnecessary as it was in the first method (because you had exact units then too), is now a total shot in the dark. Your edits are more difficult to communicate and still a huge time sink.
Simply put, it's a mess.
When working in larger & government institutions I strongly recommend moving the print procurement programs over to standards-based reproduction. You then have the ability to set the standards, hold vendor's feet to the fire, and streamline the production process. I realize that from your perspective that might be like pushing a rope but if the higher-ups can see the irony and waste in a well color-managed groups efforts being stripped off as work leaves your office, perhaps they'll see the light.
Either way, we're pulling for you.
Regards,
Steve
________________________________________________________________________
o Steve Upton CHROMiX www.chromix.com
o (hueman) 866.CHROMiX
o email@hidden 206.985.6837
________________________________________________________________________
--
_______________________________________________
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