Re: "Pantone Process" Inks
Re: "Pantone Process" Inks
- Subject: Re: "Pantone Process" Inks
- From: Mark Stegman <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2016 21:48:30 +0000
Todd,
It was pointed out in an earlier email that these colours have been
officially 'abandoned' by Pantone since they updated their Libraries in
2010...
http://www.pantone.com/help/?t=CMYK-Primaries-not-found-in-PANTONE-FORMULA-GUIDE-and-PANTONE-SOLID-CHIPS
Pantone Color Bridge defines CMYK values referencing ISO 12647-2 (Offset
processes) and ISO 2846-1 (inks). The fact that they are colorimetrically
different to those standardised reference colours is probably one of the
reasons they were 'dumped'. Unfortunately, many 'creatives' persist with
legacy applications (just look at the resistance to Creative Cloud) and
'old habits' as well as legacy files.
If you want consistent predictable colour use inks that conform to the
standard in combination with the specified substrates and tell your
customers to convert these colours to the standard process equivalent or
you will. Otherwise, as you say, they are not a "real thing" and you are
effectively using a 'spot' colour as part of your process set.
Mark
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 at 07:48 Todd Shirley <email@hidden> wrote:
> Thanks for all the feedback so far.
>
> After doing some testing with our RIP, we think we know where this
> misconception may have started. If you take a GRACol CMYK image and relabel
> each channel in Photoshop as PANTONE Cyan, Pantone Magenta, etc., the
> colors proof richer and more saturated because the RIP doesn't know
> anything about how the colors should overprint, it's just doing it's best
> guess based on the solid inks and and dot gain curve that may (or may not)
> be applied. I used the Pantone Process colors and got a richer more
> saturated proof. This is of course not color-managed in any way, but it
> looks richer.
>
> This channel substitution is surprisingly easy to do in Photoshop by just
> selecting the “PANTONE solid coated” library. The first four choices are
> PANTONE Process Yellow C, PANTONE Process Magenta C, PANTONE Process Cyan C
> & PANTONE Process Black C. To a novice, this looks like legitimate inks
> that could be chosen to be used in an image. And it seems that this is what
> the other vendor may be doing - when they sub in “pantone Process” inks,
> they get a richer proof, ergo, these are “richer inks”.
>
> This has been going on with this client, vendor & printers for years now.
> We are in fact required to label all our proofs with swatches that say
> PANTONE Process Yellow C, PANTONE Process Magenta C, etc. so that the
> printers know to use the “pantone process” inks. It is happening with a job
> that we are working on right now. It appears to be an emperor has no
> clothes situation, but there doesn’t seem to be any great advantage to us
> pointing this out to any of the parties. It is unclear if this is active
> deception or if everyone truly believes these are actually different inks.
>
> The reason I’m writing all this is that I need to be 100% clear that
> “pantone process” inks are not a real thing. As has been pointed out,
> Pantone doesn’t actually make ink, and this is what they said when I
> inquired about this 2 years ago. There is no formulation of process inks
> that is different, correct? Does anyone have a similar story or have any
> further insight on this situation?
>
> Thanks again!
> _______________________________________________
> 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