Re: Proofing Husky Opaque (Uncoated sheet)
Re: Proofing Husky Opaque (Uncoated sheet)
- Subject: Re: Proofing Husky Opaque (Uncoated sheet)
- From: Claas Bickeböller <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2016 14:56:27 +0100
Hi Roger,
in the end what you need is a printer/paper combination that allows you to simulate the colorimetry of your reference.
That means that the gamut of your proofing system needs to enclose the gamut of your intended reference printing condition to be simulated.
This simple gamut problem gets fairly interesting with papers having a very bluish white point.
Lets assume you are using a typical todays proofing paper with a white point of 96/0/0
When you now try to match the white point of 93.5/2.3/-11 your proofing system has to print some ink.
But by printing ink onto your proofing paper it gets darker.
For an Epson you roughly loose 0.7 L* for -1 b* you try to simulate.
In our example this means that on our proofing paper with 96/0/0 we will loose 11 x 0.7 L* = 7.7 L*.
Result of white point simulation will be somewhere around 89/2/-11 -> much too dark.
It’s a simple gamut problem.
To solve this problem we need a paper that allows us to match the b*=11 without losing too much lightness.
The easiest way to achieve this is to use a paper with a white point closer to our reference.
So, the answer to your question
> Does it mean that I need to find a proofing substrate close to a b* =-10.97?
is: It must be close enough. What is "enough“ depends on your inkjet printer-> how much lightness you loose by adding ink.
As a side effect (as the bluish coloration of an inkjet paper is mostly achieved by adding OBAs) you’ll also reduce metamerism caused by different UV levels.
The more similar the fluorescence level of your proofing and production paper the less difference between them is visible in non 3664:2009 viewing conditions.
Best regards
Claas
> Am 04.03.2016 um 19:03 schrieb Roger Breton <email@hidden>:
>
> Been increasingly getting my feet wet into M0 vs M1 characterization.
>
>
>
> Harvesting the data from the press sheets is a cinch, using the current crop
> of M1 instruments such as with the Minolta FD-9.
>
>
>
> But what about proofing? Does one really need a proofing substrate with a
> "matching" white point?
>
>
>
> Here, inspecting the measurements with PatchTool, Husky Opaque unprinted
> paper yields 93.21 2.10 -8.53 using M0 and 93.53 2.30 -10.97 using M1.
>
>
>
> Does it mean that I need to find a proofing substrate close to a b* =
> -10.97? To have a fighting chance at an acceptable visual match?
>
>
>
> Best / Roger
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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