Re: Soft-Proofing Workflow
Re: Soft-Proofing Workflow
- Subject: Re: Soft-Proofing Workflow
- From: Marco Ugolini <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 14:07:39 -0700
- Thread-topic: Soft-Proofing Workflow
In a message dated 4/28/10 12:16 PM, Ken Fleisher wrote:
> Workflow 1:
>
> Make a guide print from a color managed file.
> Send file to printer to make a proof.
> Compare guide print to proof and mark up proof with changes.
> Send guide print and proof back to printer for new proof.
>
> Workflow 2:
>
> Send a color managed file to printer to make a proof.
> Compare soft-proof of file to printer¹s proof.
> ?
>
> My question is in workflow 2, what would be recommended as the next steps?
> You could mark up the proof and return it to the printer, but there is no
> physical reference for what the image ³should² look like.
If I may suggest this, write your notes and instructions on a clear overlay
that is taped over the proof (along its upper edge, for example), so that
one can lift the overlay and still see the proof as it appears unmarked.
NEVER mark your notes directly on the proof, as that obscures and confuses
the details in the image, and one can no longer clearly see what needs to be
altered.
> I can¹t rely on the printer having a color managed, calibrated monitor
I agree. One cannot, and shouldn't assume that, unless you know for a fact
from past experience that they are using a reliable color-managed workflow.
> on which to view a color-correct soft-proof.
Yes, meaning a soft proof that closely resembles the appearance of the
intended output.
> Is there anything that can be suggested to communicate the necessary color
> edits to the printer without supplying a hard-copy guide print?
Comments and requests marked up on a clear overlay seem to me a good way to
express those concerns.
Also, make a laser copy (or a scan -- it's not necessary that either be
color-accurate) of the proof, clearly and legibly showing the notes written
on the overlay. Keep that in your records, so that you can retrieve it later
for reference, if needed.
> In other words, if you need to mark ³less yellow², how do you indicate
> how much less yellow if there is no hard-copy reference? (We are trying
> to move to a soft-proof workflow, but our publishing department is resistant.)
If your color request is specific and precise, then it's best to send along
to the printers your own in-house HARD inkjet proof (i.e., on paper),
showing exactly the kind of results you intend to have as approved by your
supervisor, designer or art director.
Of course, the color proof you send must itself be cross-rendered using an
accurate CM workflow -- which involves using: (a) an output profile that
corresponds to the intended press conditions (which must be KNOWN, or at
least a very good guess), (b) an accurate profile of your inkjet printer
(with or without a RIP), and (c) the Absolute Colorimetric rendering intent,
to match both paper white and black point of the final press output.
If these latter precautions are not respected, your own proof itself ends up
being produced inaccurately, which asks the printers to match something that
cannot be matched without the help of some possibly heavy editing.
> I¹m just fishing for suggestions. I know the real answer is to use a printer
> who is color-managed and has calibrated monitors, but as I said, that is out
> of my control.
A printer who is itself color-managed, though ideal, is not NECESSARY.
As long as they commit closely to adhere to a set of known output
specifications, all that you need to do is provide them with files that have
been properly color-managed and separated ON YOUR END.
When both sides do what they commit to doing, however limited, things
usually work well.
Marco Ugolini
_______________________________________________
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