Re: Proofing Husky Opaque (Uncoated sheet)
Re: Proofing Husky Opaque (Uncoated sheet)
- Subject: Re: Proofing Husky Opaque (Uncoated sheet)
- From: Ernst Dinkla <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2016 15:12:23 +0100
There is a small range of offset papers and inkjet proof papers in
SpectrumViz next to a much wider range of inkjet papers. With Lab numbers +
spectral plots, so it should not be that difficult to find the best
equivalent, which may not be a proof paper as the ones I measured are not
that stuffed with OBAs.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
January 2016 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Claas Bickeböller <email@hidden>
wrote:
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
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