Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 13, Issue 72
Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 13, Issue 72
- Subject: Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 13, Issue 72
- From: Mike Strickler <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2016 19:19:14 -0800
It sounds as if this client has wandered quite far into strange woods. Are they really converting process CMYK into 4 spot channels? Do they not know the difference? Of course it is possible to design with CMYK as though they are spot colors, though as you point out, tints and overprints, which are well characterized in process color via the active CMYK profile, suddenly loose their standardized interpretation and reproduce ability. We have trouble enough predicting and proofing real spot color tints and overprints; no need to induce this problem with process CMYK. So this would seem to be part of the problem here. Perhaps in addition to telling your client that what they are asking for (special "Pantone" process inks) doesn't exist, you might say that their insistence in renaming their process colors is actually making it likely that they will have inaccurate proofs and on-screen images.
Mike
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2016 15:47:55 -0500
> From: Todd Shirley <email@hidden>
> To: "'colorsync-users?lists.apple.com' List"
> <email@hidden>
> Subject: Re: "Pantone Process" Inks
> Message-ID: <email@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> 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