Re: Soft-Proofing Workflow
Re: Soft-Proofing Workflow
- Subject: Re: Soft-Proofing Workflow
- From: Simon ONeill <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:29:41 +0100
Hi Ken,
One small (probably obvious) point - any comparison print/proof may be at the mercy of the printer's viewing conditions so (you) knowing what conditions (and maybe even equipment) they use to view the comparison is probably a non-negotiable requirement.
If you wanted to avoid shipping a marked-up print to them, would it be possible to work with a Pantone (or similar) colour reference set at each end?
Simon
On 28 Apr 2010, at 21:53, Steve Upton wrote:
> 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
_______________________________________________
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