Issues related with the switch from FOGRA39/47 to FOGRA51/52
Issues related with the switch from FOGRA39/47 to FOGRA51/52
- Subject: Issues related with the switch from FOGRA39/47 to FOGRA51/52
- From: Refik Telhan <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 11:38:14 +0300
- Thread-topic: Issues related with the switch from FOGRA39/47 to FOGRA51/52
Dear Colleagues,
It all started with a question raised by Mr. Martin Orpen in his mail dated
22.08.2018 on the colorsync-users list. There was then almost a week long
discussion with an open end.
From that point on, I have made several conversions using FOGRA39, FOGRA47,
FOGRA51 and FOGRA52 based profiles. At some point I have started generating
profiles with the FOGRA51 and FOGRA52 datasets in multiple profiling software
applications with different settings to have a better understanding on what is
going on.
Mr. Orpen’s original complaint was the lack of yellow in skin tones with
conversions made with PSO Coated v3. But when I started doing conversions using
this profile, I have ended seeing that that deficiency ih yellow is widespread.
Furthermore, what was true for FOGRA51 was also true for FOGRA52-based profiles.
To simplify the matter, I have created a Photoshop file in L*a*b* color mode
that contained a linear gradient from L*=0 – a*=0 – b*=0 to L*=100 – a*=0 –
b*=0. I have placed 10 color sampler points to L*= 5, 15, 25, 35, 45, 55, 65,
75, 85 and 95, to keep track of their changes. I then converted this file into
“eciRGB v2” color space. The RGB values at these points came out to be
R=G=B=13, 37, 64, 90, 114, 140, 165, 190, 216 and 242, respectively.
Starting with this neutral gray RGB gradient, I have done (relative
colorimetric with black point compensation) conversions into FOGRA39 using ISO
Coated v2 (ECI), into FOGRA51 using PSO Coated v3, into FOGRA47 using PSO
Uncoated 12647 (ECI) and into FOGRA52 using PSO Uncoated v3. Below are the CMYK
percentages for each of the 10 spots.
FOGRA39 conversion:
#01 / L*=05 a*=0 b*=0 / C=81 M=72 Y=65 K=85
#02 / L*=15 a*=0 b*=0 / C=75 M=65 Y=61 K=73
#03 / L*=25 a*=0 b*=0 / C=67 M=57 Y=55 K=58
#04 / L*=35 a*=0 b*=0 / C=60 M=50 Y=49 K=44
#05 / L*=45 a*=0 b*=0 / C=53 M=44 Y=43 K=33
#06 / L*=55 a*=0 b*=0 / C=46 M=37 Y=36 K=22
#07 / L*=65 a*=0 b*=0 / C=38 M=29 Y=30 K=13
#08 / L*=75 a*=0 b*=0 / C=29 M=22 Y=23 K=06
#09 / L*=85 a*=0 b*=0 / C=19 M=13 Y=13 K=02
#10 / L*=95 a*=0 b*=0 / C=07 M=05 Y=05 K=00
FOGRA51 conversion:
#01 / L*=05 a*=0 b*=0 / C=75 M=63 Y=50 K=89
#02 / L*=15 a*=0 b*=0 / C=67 M=57 Y=47 K=77
#03 / L*=25 a*=0 b*=0 / C=61 M=51 Y=44 K=62
#04 / L*=35 a*=0 b*=0 / C=55 M=46 Y=40 K=48
#05 / L*=45 a*=0 b*=0 / C=50 M=42 Y=37 K=35
#06 / L*=55 a*=0 b*=0 / C=43 M=35 Y=32 K=22
#07 / L*=65 a*=0 b*=0 / C=36 M=28 Y=26 K=12
#08 / L*=75 a*=0 b*=0 / C=27 M=21 Y=20 K=05
#09 / L*=85 a*=0 b*=0 / C=18 M=13 Y=13 K=01
#10 / L*=95 a*=0 b*=0 / C=06 M=05 Y=04 K=00
As you can see, the same color is converted into a different C-M-Y balance as
the L* value goes lower with the FOGRA51 conversion. On the other hand, the
C-M-Y balance is kept steady till the very dark shadows in FOGRA39. As the CMYK
primaries are pretty much the same on both sides and the TVI curves, though
different by about 1.7%, have the same C-M-Y balance, I cannot see any reason
for the drop in Y as we go down the L* axis.
The situation is almost the same with FOGRA47 and FOGRA52.
FOGRA47 conversion:
#01 / L*=05 a*=0 b*=0 / C=81 M=62 Y=54 K=90
#02 / L*=15 a*=0 b*=0 / C=75 M=59 Y=52 K=80
#03 / L*=25 a*=0 b*=0 / C=65 M=53 Y=47 K=64
#04 / L*=35 a*=0 b*=0 / C=58 M=48 Y=44 K=46
#05 / L*=45 a*=0 b*=0 / C=49 M=40 Y=36 K=36
#06 / L*=55 a*=0 b*=0 / C=38 M=30 Y=28 K=27
#07 / L*=65 a*=0 b*=0 / C=29 M=21 Y=20 K=20
#08 / L*=75 a*=0 b*=0 / C=20 M=15 Y=14 K=14
#09 / L*=85 a*=0 b*=0 / C=12 M=08 Y=08 K=08
#10 / L*=95 a*=0 b*=0 / C=04 M=03 Y=03 K=02
FOGRA52 conversion:
#01 / L*=05 a*=0 b*=0 / C=85 M=62 Y=42 K=88
#02 / L*=15 a*=0 b*=0 / C=76 M=58 Y=43 K=78
#03 / L*=25 a*=0 b*=0 / C=66 M=54 Y=39 K=61
#04 / L*=35 a*=0 b*=0 / C=58 M=47 Y=36 K=43
#05 / L*=45 a*=0 b*=0 / C=49 M=40 Y=33 K=28
#06 / L*=55 a*=0 b*=0 / C=40 M=32 Y=28 K=16
#07 / L*=65 a*=0 b*=0 / C=33 M=25 Y=22 K=08
#08 / L*=75 a*=0 b*=0 / C=24 M=17 Y=16 K=03
#09 / L*=85 a*=0 b*=0 / C=15 M=10 Y=10 K=01
#10 / L*=95 a*=0 b*=0 / C=05 M=03 Y=03 K=00
To approach the situation from another angle, I have also converted the same
neutral gray RGB file into GRACoL2006 and GRACoL 2013 to see have how they
perform under the same conditions. Here are the results:
GRACoL2006_Coated1v2 conversion:
#01 / L*=05 a*=0 b*=0 / C=83 M=75 Y=71 K=87
#02 / L*=15 a*=0 b*=0 / C=80 M=73 Y=70 K=69
#03 / L*=25 a*=0 b*=0 / C=73 M=65 Y=64 K=49
#04 / L*=35 a*=0 b*=0 / C=64 M=55 Y=55 K=34
#05 / L*=45 a*=0 b*=0 / C=56 M=47 Y=47 K=23
#06 / L*=55 a*=0 b*=0 / C=49 M=40 Y=40 K=12
#07 / L*=65 a*=0 b*=0 / C=41 M=32 Y=33 K=04
#08 / L*=75 a*=0 b*=0 / C=31 M=24 Y=24 K=00
#09 / L*=85 a*=0 b*=0 / C=19 M=13 Y=14 K=00
#10 / L*=95 a*=0 b*=0 / C=06 M=04 Y=05 K=00
GRACoL20013_CRPC6 conversion:
#01 / L*=05 a*=0 b*=0 / C=80 M=71 Y=62 K=90
#02 / L*=15 a*=0 b*=0 / C=75 M=67 Y=62 K=75
#03 / L*=25 a*=0 b*=0 / C=69 M=60 Y=57 K=55
#04 / L*=35 a*=0 b*=0 / C=62 M=53 Y=51 K=38
#05 / L*=45 a*=0 b*=0 / C=55 M=46 Y=44 K=25
#06 / L*=55 a*=0 b*=0 / C=46 M=38 Y=37 K=16
#07 / L*=65 a*=0 b*=0 / C=39 M=30 Y=29 K=07
#08 / L*=75 a*=0 b*=0 / C=30 M=23 Y=22 K=02
#09 / L*=85 a*=0 b*=0 / C=18 M=13 Y=13 K=00
#10 / L*=95 a*=0 b*=0 / C=06 M=04 Y=04 K=00
Although the paper white of GRACoL2013 is now in line with 12647-2:2013, it
does separate RGB into a C-M-Y balance very similar to GRACoL2006.
Extreme loss of yellow ink in areas mid-tone and upwards has many negative side
effects. Rich blacks are bluish/purplish and many clients do not like that.
Yellow ink typically prints last for a good reason. It contains varnishes that
give the image extra gloss and rub resistance. It is also the least tacky of
the inks. Hence, by reducing its amount in the separation causes even less
yellow ink being transferred to paper. Wet on wet printing sometimes requires
more of the final ink to be properly transferred not less.
To get round this problem I have tried recalculating the profiles to get some
gray axis correction when converting with perceptual rendering intent. The old
ProfileMaker v5, CoPrA v4 and Color Toolbox v18 (with incremental control) all
have the tools to compensate for the color of paper. Interestingly this feature
does help in the highlight to mid-tone range but not in the mid-tone to shadow
range.
On a recent occasion, I have also witnessed the fact that inkjet contract
proofs are not good in simulating the inherent shift towards blue/purple in the
shadows. What may appear as a neutral shadow on a certified proof is printed
with a blue/purple cast, which may not be visually acceptable the client.
This problem needs to be addressed. Doing a conversion in Photoshop using a
relative colorimetric or a perceptual rendering intent is quite misleading
without switching on the Proof Color View with paper white simulation. You can
only see the overall loss of yellow when you activate soft proofing. Given that
Photoshop still leaves much to be desired in terms of soft proofing, especially
with uncoated papers, you can only use verified/certified inkjet proofs to see
the actual result of your RGB to CMYK conversion.
While FOGRA39 and FOGRA47 do share an imaginary paper white (95,0,2), being
close to a*=0 + b*=0, the conversions made by both profiles maintain some kind
of paper relative neutrality. Even if the paper white simulated absolute
colorimetric proofs are not precisely matching any real print substrate, we had
over the years developed chromatic adaptation skills that would bridge the gap.
While the prepress process is rather smooth with FOGRA39, bridging the gap
between the contract proof and the real substrate has always been the
problematic side.
But with FOGRA51 (and as a matter of fact, for the same reason, with FOGRA52)
prepress and proofing needs heavy tweaking after RGB to CMYK conversion to
introduce some of the lost yellow back to the scene. If not done properly, a
proof to print match is tricky especially if you have heavy areas in the image.
Hence, the process as a whole became problematic.
Dear colleagues, I invite you to shed some light on this in mystery.
Best regards,
Refik Telhan, EE B.Sc.
Light and Color Management Consultancy
Aydogdu Sokak 12A, Tarabya Mahallesi
Sariyer, 34457, Istanbul, Turkey
e-Mail: email@hidden
Mobile: + (90) (532) 426 21 87
P.S. The following link will let you download a PDF that contains screen shots
of the above conversions. There are also four screen shots from the interface
of CoPra 5, showing that the problem is related with the measurement data sets
and not with the profiles calculated by Color Toolbox.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vqdjezncf8l60cq/FOGRA_Conversions.pdf?dl=0
_______________________________________________
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