October 2012 - colorsync-users

Update: Are Canon IPF printers any reliable?
by Roger Breton 10 Jan '13

10 Jan '13

Warm thanks' to everyone that responded on and off-list. I got some wonderful insights. I still have not made my mind yet but, as I am checking prices today -- I hate to acknowledge that money plays an important part of my decision --, but I see 24" Epson printers that are selling at bargain prices, way below Canon's and HP's :( See here: http://www.vistek.ca/results/ProPhotoPrinters/printers-inkjet-wide%20carr/Wi de-Carriage.aspx According to this page (those of you in the US can probably find even better deals than this), I can have a 7900 for $2600 cdn while the 4900 is selling for almost $100 cdn more? Something's fishy because similar carriage width Canon's and HP's will run me $1000 to $1500 more? Economics.... / Roger

17 37

Re: ColorBurst users switching to Overdrive
by Dick Busher 27 Oct '12

27 Oct '12

OK, so here is my problem. I'm creating color seps for a book to be printed by offset at XYZ Printing. I have a cmyk color profile for their press room conditions, paper, ink, screening, etc. I'm starting with several RGB images that are out-of-gamut for their cmyk profile. I then apply my " secret sauce" to edit the file in RGB, convert to cmyk, edit again in cmyk in an effort to get as close as possible on press to the RGB original. How do I then proof that cmyk file? Dick Busher Cosgrove Editions 7042 20th Place NE Seattle, WA 98115 206-524-6726 888-507-7375 dick(a)cosgroveweb.com > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:37:26 -0400 > From: Louis Servedio-Morales <louis(a)blueseaeditions.com> > To: John Lund <john(a)jwlimages.com> > Cc: colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com > Subject: Re: ColorBurst users switching to Overdrive > Message-ID: <676A8518-6998-4C58-BE7B-84BDADDBE5B4(a)blueseaeditions.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > On Oct 25, 2012, at 12:35 AM, John Lund <john(a)jwlimages.com> wrote: > >> A few questions that come to mind: >> Is (RGB) Overdrive as capable for proofing (for offset repro) as >> (CMYK) XProof? > > Yes. It allows you to have your printer simulate a specified > device profile and include media tint via Absolute Colormetic > rendering. Also, allows adding a proofing color bar of your choice > with the the IDEAlliance color control wedge a built in option. > >> I assume Overdrive does not provide linearization capabilities >> like XProof - if RGB profiling must include ink limits & >> linearization, does this limit the quality of output achievable? > > That's right, no linearization capabilities. Only RGB profile > building option. Proofs pass Ugra';s proof and print certification > when wedge is scanned. > >> I assume Overdrive uses the same Postscript interpreter (Jaws?) as >> XProof - pretty good for RIPing PS output, but for raster output, >> does Overdrive offer any advantage over simply using the Epson RGB >> driver for my SP7880? > > Latest version of Overdrive now includes layout nesting > capabilities. My guess is you can probably achieve the same > proofing capabilities via Photoshop. > >> I also found much better success soft proofing with my custom CMYK >> profiles for XProof than with custom RGB profiles - not exactly >> sure why, I speculated that it might be related to the behind-the- >> scenes "extra" conversion supplied by the Epson RGB driver (to the >> CcMmYKk inkset), as compared to the XProof "drive the printer as a >> CMYK device" approach -- sorry, that's a long preamble to asking >> how well Overdrive RGB profiles soft proof. > > No problems here softprooofing. > >> >> Feel free to respond off-list if this is too narrow a topic. I >> just thought this group might have some folks who can speak to my >> questions. >> >> Thanks, >> >> John Lund >> >> JWL Images >> Emeryville, CA >> _______________________________________________ > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Colorsync-users mailing list > Colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com > https://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users > > End of Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 9, Issue 167 > ***********************************************

2 1

Re: ColorBurst users switching to Overdrive
by John Lund 27 Oct '12

27 Oct '12

Hello Dick, Hmm, not sure I'm understanding the problem - but why not proof exactly like any other file destined for that press? 1. fire up XProof ;-) 2. set it to assume source = the CMYK profile for XYZ Printing; output = CMYK profile for your proofing media, with ABSCOL rendering 3. drop your edited CMYK file (saved with profile NOT embedded, so no conversion) into XProof's Hot Folder 4. admire (or curse?) the resulting output To streamline step #3, I create a template CMYK file - untagged - containing proofing badges, wedges, etc., so the file to be proofed can be just dropped into it. The only thing I can think to worry about your editing process as described is to make sure you don't take your post-conversion CMYK edits so far that the file busts the press ink limits or max K values. Does this help answer your question? John JWL Images Emeryville, CA On Oct 27, 2012, at 12:00 PM, colorsync-users-request(a)lists.apple.com wrote (in part): > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:35:19 -0700 > From: Dick Busher <dick(a)cosgroveweb.com> > To: colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com > Subject: Re: ColorBurst users switching to Overdrive > Message-ID: <3F0BF732-3EB7-45E9-BC03-426545854843(a)cosgroveweb.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed > > OK, so here is my problem. > > I'm creating color seps for a book to be printed by offset at XYZ > Printing. I have a cmyk color profile for their press room > conditions, paper, ink, screening, etc. > > I'm starting with several RGB images that are out-of-gamut for their > cmyk profile. I then apply my " secret sauce" to edit the file in > RGB, convert to cmyk, edit again in cmyk in an effort to get as close > as possible on press to the RGB original. How do I then proof that > cmyk file? > > > Dick Busher > Cosgrove Editions > 7042 20th Place NE > Seattle, WA 98115 > 206-524-6726 > 888-507-7375 > dick(a)cosgroveweb.com

1 0

Re: ColorBurst users switching to Overdrive (John Lund)
by Mike Strickler 27 Oct '12

27 Oct '12

Perhaps you are overlooking the obvious: The world's largest-selling Postscript RIP, EFI XF, runs natively on the Mac OS, both the client and server software. Perhaps more comparable to XProof would be EFI eXpress. It has te same color management engine, Patone libraries and spot color editor, and can use third-party profiles. For those who print in RGB mode there is a "Photo" version; you can use the same RGB profiles you use in Photoshop, but of course with nesting and other productivity features of a RIP. It's quite inexpensive. Mike Strickler MSP Graphic Services 423 Aaron St. Suite E Cotati, CA 94931 O: (1) 707.664.1628 C: (1) 707.321.7855 F: (1) 707.939.4542 info(a)mspgraphics.com www.mspgraphics.com On Oct 27, 2012, at 12:00 PM, colorsync-users-request(a)lists.apple.com wrote: > Send Colorsync-users mailing list submissions to > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 12:59:22 -0700 > From: John Lund <john(a)jwlimages.com> > To: colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com > Subject: Re: ColorBurst users switching to Overdrive > Message-ID: <D2C05297-004E-4DE6-8094-B4DD8316714A(a)jwlimages.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Thanks to all who have responded, both on- and off-list. Sorry if this is tardy - I only get the digest right now. > > It seems like there are some XProof users like me out there, not looking forward to losing a Mac-bassed CMYK RIP. > > I did hear from ColorBurst, with a very detailed & helpful explanation of their rationale & plans for the transition to Overdrive (actually, I guess it's already complete). They maintain that Overdrive gets better accuracy for hitting Pantone colors + proofing than XProof, and that XProof's approach of setting ink limits & linearizing limits the printers' color gamut compared to using the manufacturers' drivers for current printers. > > Louis - thanks, it sounds like you're pleased with the new RIP. > > Dick - yes, I too have been successfully proofing for offset. And as I replied to Louis: > >> One thing I wonder about proofing - since Overdrive is RGB, those proofing bars or wedges, being CMYK to start with, must get converted to RGB in the print stream. Seems like that "extra" conversion might be problematic, or at least it's not as clean & simple as building a CMYK file & sending it unmodified thru the RIP (especially if this same file is the one supplied for offset printing) > > > - I would really miss the confidence gained when I can pair up a hard proof with the file used to produce it, with that same file used for final output on the press. > > > Again, thanks for any further thoughts and/or experiences to be shared. > > John > > JWL Images > Emeryville, CA > >

1 0

Re: ColorBurst users switching to Overdrive
by John Lund 26 Oct '12

26 Oct '12

Thanks to all who have responded, both on- and off-list. Sorry if this is tardy - I only get the digest right now. It seems like there are some XProof users like me out there, not looking forward to losing a Mac-bassed CMYK RIP. I did hear from ColorBurst, with a very detailed & helpful explanation of their rationale & plans for the transition to Overdrive (actually, I guess it's already complete). They maintain that Overdrive gets better accuracy for hitting Pantone colors + proofing than XProof, and that XProof's approach of setting ink limits & linearizing limits the printers' color gamut compared to using the manufacturers' drivers for current printers. Louis - thanks, it sounds like you're pleased with the new RIP. Dick - yes, I too have been successfully proofing for offset. And as I replied to Louis: > One thing I wonder about proofing - since Overdrive is RGB, those proofing bars or wedges, being CMYK to start with, must get converted to RGB in the print stream. Seems like that "extra" conversion might be problematic, or at least it's not as clean & simple as building a CMYK file & sending it unmodified thru the RIP (especially if this same file is the one supplied for offset printing) - I would really miss the confidence gained when I can pair up a hard proof with the file used to produce it, with that same file used for final output on the press. Again, thanks for any further thoughts and/or experiences to be shared. John JWL Images Emeryville, CA On Oct 26, 2012, at 12:00 PM, colorsync-users-request(a)lists.apple.com wrote: ...<snip>... > > Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 17:21:01 -0700 > From: Dick Busher <dick(a)cosgroveweb.com> > To: colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com > Subject: Re: ColorBurst users switching to Overdrive > Message-ID: <D317E1FF-B202-49B5-96CF-0948F258B416(a)cosgroveweb.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed > > Hi John, > > This is not good news. Are there any cmyk RIP's out there besides > XProof that work on a MAC? > > I have been extremely happy with my ability to print proofs on my > Epson for offset jobs with a cmyk (press) to cmyk (Epson proof) > workflow. Will that no longer be possible via future iterations of > ColorBurst? > > And like you, I have also been extremely happy with my RGB>Epson CMYK > (in PS), then print via ColorBurst for fine art prints. > > Tears, > > Dick Busher > Cosgrove Editions > 7042 20th Place NE > Seattle, WA 98115 > 206-524-6726 > 888-507-7375 > dick(a)cosgroveweb.com ...<snip>... > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:37:26 -0400 > From: Louis Servedio-Morales <louis(a)blueseaeditions.com> > To: John Lund <john(a)jwlimages.com> > Cc: colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com > Subject: Re: ColorBurst users switching to Overdrive > Message-ID: <676A8518-6998-4C58-BE7B-84BDADDBE5B4(a)blueseaeditions.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > On Oct 25, 2012, at 12:35 AM, John Lund <john(a)jwlimages.com> wrote: > >> A few questions that come to mind: >> Is (RGB) Overdrive as capable for proofing (for offset repro) as (CMYK) XProof? > > Yes. It allows you to have your printer simulate a specified device profile and include media tint via Absolute Colormetic rendering. Also, allows adding a proofing color bar of your choice with the the IDEAlliance color control wedge a built in option. > >> I assume Overdrive does not provide linearization capabilities like XProof - if RGB profiling must include ink limits & linearization, does this limit the quality of output achievable? > > That's right, no linearization capabilities. Only RGB profile building option. Proofs pass Ugra';s proof and print certification when wedge is scanned. > >> I assume Overdrive uses the same Postscript interpreter (Jaws?) as XProof - pretty good for RIPing PS output, but for raster output, does Overdrive offer any advantage over simply using the Epson RGB driver for my SP7880? > > Latest version of Overdrive now includes layout nesting capabilities. My guess is you can probably achieve the same proofing capabilities via Photoshop. > >> I also found much better success soft proofing with my custom CMYK profiles for XProof than with custom RGB profiles - not exactly sure why, I speculated that it might be related to the behind-the-scenes "extra" conversion supplied by the Epson RGB driver (to the CcMmYKk inkset), as compared to the XProof "drive the printer as a CMYK device" approach -- sorry, that's a long preamble to asking how well Overdrive RGB profiles soft proof. > > No problems here softprooofing.

1 0

ColorBurst users switching to Overdrive
by John Lund 26 Oct '12

26 Oct '12

Hello All, The CMYK RIP product from ColorBurst seems to be at the end of its life, at least the Mac version of XProof anyway. All the signs seem to indicate this: The company says it will not be updated to a 64-bit version, will never support new hardware like the i1Pro 2. They have removed the user-to-user support postings from their website, and have sent out emails offering existing users an incentive to crossgrade to their RGB RIP, Overdrive. I have been a satisfied user of XProof for years, both for proofing and for my own art, "presentation prints" if you will, and have installed & supported XProof at other companies as well. Maybe I will move to Overdrive, but I wanted to ask here on this list first. Especially if anyone has made the jump from XProof, I would love to hear about your experience. A few questions that come to mind: Is (RGB) Overdrive as capable for proofing (for offset repro) as (CMYK) XProof? I assume Overdrive does not provide linearization capabilities like XProof - if RGB profiling must include ink limits & linearization, does this limit the quality of output achievable? I assume Overdrive uses the same Postscript interpreter (Jaws?) as XProof - pretty good for RIPing PS output, but for raster output, does Overdrive offer any advantage over simply using the Epson RGB driver for my SP7880? I also found much better success soft proofing with my custom CMYK profiles for XProof than with custom RGB profiles - not exactly sure why, I speculated that it might be related to the behind-the-scenes "extra" conversion supplied by the Epson RGB driver (to the CcMmYKk inkset), as compared to the XProof "drive the printer as a CMYK device" approach -- sorry, that's a long preamble to asking how well Overdrive RGB profiles soft proof. Feel free to respond off-list if this is too narrow a topic. I just thought this group might have some folks who can speak to my questions. Thanks, John Lund JWL Images Emeryville, CA

3 2

Re: ColorBurst users switching to Overdrive
by Dick Busher 26 Oct '12

26 Oct '12

Hi John, This is not good news. Are there any cmyk RIP's out there besides XProof that work on a MAC? I have been extremely happy with my ability to print proofs on my Epson for offset jobs with a cmyk (press) to cmyk (Epson proof) workflow. Will that no longer be possible via future iterations of ColorBurst? And like you, I have also been extremely happy with my RGB>Epson CMYK (in PS), then print via ColorBurst for fine art prints. Tears, Dick Busher Cosgrove Editions 7042 20th Place NE Seattle, WA 98115 206-524-6726 888-507-7375 dick(a)cosgroveweb.com > > Hello All, > > The CMYK RIP product from ColorBurst seems to be at the end of its > life, at least the Mac version of XProof anyway. All the signs seem > to indicate this: > The company says it will not be updated to a 64-bit version, will > never support new hardware like the i1Pro 2. They have removed the > user-to-user support postings from their website, and have sent out > emails offering existing users an incentive to crossgrade to their > RGB RIP, Overdrive. > > I have been a satisfied user of XProof for years, both for proofing > and for my own art, "presentation prints" if you will, and have > installed & supported XProof at other companies as well. Maybe I > will move to Overdrive, but I wanted to ask here on this list > first. Especially if anyone has made the jump from XProof, I would > love to hear about your experience. > > A few questions that come to mind: > Is (RGB) Overdrive as capable for proofing (for offset repro) as > (CMYK) XProof? > I assume Overdrive does not provide linearization capabilities like > XProof - if RGB profiling must include ink limits & linearization, > does this limit the quality of output achievable? > I assume Overdrive uses the same Postscript interpreter (Jaws?) as > XProof - pretty good for RIPing PS output, but for raster output, > does Overdrive offer any advantage over simply using the Epson RGB > driver for my SP7880? > I also found much better success soft proofing with my custom CMYK > profiles for XProof than with custom RGB profiles - not exactly > sure why, I speculated that it might be related to the behind-the- > scenes "extra" conversion supplied by the Epson RGB driver (to the > CcMmYKk inkset), as compared to the XProof "drive the printer as a > CMYK device" approach -- sorry, that's a long preamble to asking > how well Overdrive RGB profiles soft proof. > > Feel free to respond off-list if this is too narrow a topic. I just > thought this group might have some folks who can speak to my > questions. > > Thanks, > > John Lund > > JWL Images > Emeryville, CA

1 0

Re: Substrate Relativity Calculator
by Michael Eddington 19 Oct '12

19 Oct '12

Class brings up some good points, particularly points #2 & 3. With regards to point #1, I think real world testing and application have shown this method to have legitimacy. > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Claas Bickeböller > <lists(a)bickeboeller.name> wrote: >> Dear Mike, >> >> the underlying calculation method was originally developed and tested to predict the colour-deviation of a solid ink when the measurement backing is changed. BTW: For this purpose (solid inks and change of backing) it works very well. >> Knowing this it is quite easy to understand what you will get from the calculation. >> >> If you have a colorimetric description of a print on paper 1, you feed this along with a whitepoint of paper 2 (or the same paper on a different backing, see above) to the calculation method >> the model will predict the outcome of a print with constant density (remember, originally it predicts backing differences for the same print) on the new paper. >> >> So if you used this new dataset for imageseparation and proofing and if the printer printed with the same densities that he would have used for paper 1 >> you will have a match……… if the method worked. >> >> Things to consider: >> >> 1) The underlying model makes the assumption that the influence of the paperwhite on the resulting colour is linear from paperwhite to the blackpoint. >> This assumption is simply wrong. So the predicted colours for everything but the solids is at least inaccurate if not completely off (depending on the inks, the screening…) >> >> 2) Is it a good practice to keep the densities that were found to fit perfect for one paper for another paper? >> >> 3) With increasing deviation between reference data-set and real-world paperwhite the prediction get's worse. >> >> >> Regarding your question "acc. GraCol": >> If you ask, if it was according to ISO 12647-7 (this is the international standard for digital proofing), the answer is yes, if the proof is in tolerance >> when you compare reference printing condition (in this case the result of your calculation) and simulated colour on the proof. >> >> But what do you win, if you simulate something in tolerance that does not reflect reality…..? >> >> Best regards >> >> Claas >> >> >> >> >> >> Am 17.10.2012 um 19:39 schrieb Mike Stewart: >> >>> With papers changing the way they are; most do not fall within the >>> tolerances specified in 12647-2. I like this idea of the Substrate >>> Calculator. My question is this. Let's say we proof to GRACoL tolerances >>> on a paper that is within the specification. We now get a #1 or #2 paper >>> that is out of spec. I use the calculator, create a new CGATS file and >>> create a new ICC Profile. I use CGS ORIS Color Tuner and hone in my >>> proofing device (Indigo press) to within tolerance and proof my >>> files/images on the "new" paper. What have I achieved. I have created a >>> proof that the printer may have an easier time "matching"; but can I say >>> that this proof adheres to GRACoL specifications? If you were to read the >>> 12647 color bar it would pass only if I have the proper dataset loaded to >>> compare to using software such as ORIS Certified Proof. Someone else >>> checking my proof to GRACoL would say it "fails" because they would be >>> comparing to the "original GRACoL". What exactly have I accomplished and >>> how can it be classified as a specification. >>> >>> Mike Stewart >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. >>> Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com) >>> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: >>> https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/lists%40bickeboelle… >>> >>> This email sent to lists(a)bickeboeller.name >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. >> Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com) >> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: >> https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/meddington38%40gmai… >> >> This email sent to meddington38(a)gmail.com

3 2

Substrate Relativity Calculator
by Mike Stewart 19 Oct '12

19 Oct '12

With papers changing the way they are; most do not fall within the tolerances specified in 12647-2. I like this idea of the Substrate Calculator. My question is this. Let's say we proof to GRACoL tolerances on a paper that is within the specification. We now get a #1 or #2 paper that is out of spec. I use the calculator, create a new CGATS file and create a new ICC Profile. I use CGS ORIS Color Tuner and hone in my proofing device (Indigo press) to within tolerance and proof my files/images on the "new" paper. What have I achieved. I have created a proof that the printer may have an easier time "matching"; but can I say that this proof adheres to GRACoL specifications? If you were to read the 12647 color bar it would pass only if I have the proper dataset loaded to compare to using software such as ORIS Certified Proof. Someone else checking my proof to GRACoL would say it "fails" because they would be comparing to the "original GRACoL". What exactly have I accomplished and how can it be classified as a specification. Mike Stewart

6 6

OT: Diff between brightness and exposure sliders in ACR
by Barry Rudick 17 Oct '12

17 Oct '12

Today someone asked me the difference between the brightness and exposure sliders in Adobe Camera Raw interface. I could not come up with the proper answer. I know that the brightness slider would be same as moving the center slider in the histogram dialog to a higher number. The exposure slider I am not sure about. Cheers, Barry Rudick Aker Imaging

3 2