February 2015 - colorsync-users

Profile 2nd screen on MBP Retina
by Martin Coker 05 Mar '15

05 Mar '15

Hi Everyone, After years of useful service I decided to upgrade my 2008 Macbook pro running Snow leopard to a latest MBP retina I am mostly happy apart from half of my Gretag / monaco / xrite apps no longer working but my maim gripe is when I try to calibrate my Panasonic 37" screen as 2nd screen! I have tried all the usual apps ( i1 proccess control -i1 match -efi colour profiler i1 profiler display ) all sulk on Yosemite. OK I thought lets go back to something simpler… so I ran up Argyll with the Display cal gui front and after updating to the latest version I got it to run . 20 minutes later when it went to save I got the message "unable to open Video LUT " So my question is where has the software put the scratch files and can I manually save the profile?? Thanks in advance Martin Coker Colour Technical Analyst Annodata colour management team -- *Martin J Coker* Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur * ( that looks better when written in latin)*

2 2

SWOPv2 is dead
by Roger Breton 03 Mar '15

03 Mar '15

(Had to change the subject heading....) I remain convinced that Adobe would do everyone a service by adopting GRACoL as the new default CMYK color space in the next iteration of Photoshop. What would everyone say if the default RGB space was ColormatchRGB? Everyone would be up in arms, right? Well, it's the same thing with SWOPv2. As a straightjacket, you can't find tighter. We're 2015, people. The world has changed. Printers and service providers have become a whole lot more sophisticated with color management. More than ever, in fact. It's not about building the past, the past *is* behind us all. Let's stop living in the past and let's concentrate our efforts on building the future. Print is not dead. Users should not be constrained to convert ProPhoto into SWOPv2, right? Best / Roger

11 42

Re: Silly question department, Display Media White Point
by John Lund 03 Mar '15

03 Mar '15

Mike wrote (in part): > my standard response to the Gracol business is, "When Adobe changes their defaults, so will I. …<snip>... -- That is exactly my point! Thanks, Mike. (Andrew, please note - it's not about getting rid of or changing SWOPv2 or any other profile, rather the fact that whatever Adobe sets as its default becomes 'de facto CMYK' for the rest of the world. Of course this doesn't have to impair people who know better how to manage color, but as print repro & the associated skill sets become increasingly devalued & scarce, too many folks think CMYK *is* SWOP - whether or not they have any idea what SWOP represents.) > Until then, if you have a client who sent you a file in CMYK, you can bet they had no idea what color space they were in, so it was SWOP, and SWOP is how you should set the RIP to expect CMYK." -- I agree completely. Seems like the only common-sense response to the current situation. > "Convert to SWOP"? > > That I'm just going to have to take your word for, because all I can say is that I work exclusively with large and grand format printers, have for some 9 years now, and have never walked into a client's shop that was doing that. -- Great, again sensible. I was referring more to the client who supplies files for output, asks the print vendor what color space is recommended and is answered with "well, our RIP expects SWOP" - so the client sends files converted accordingly. I'll refrain from describing RIP operators who don't seem aware that both an input source profile and actual print output profile are part of the system, much less what the difference between them might be, or when & where color space conversions occur… Thanks for your input. John

8 28

RE: Silly question department, Display Media White Point
by John Lund 01 Mar '15

01 Mar '15

So why should it be acceptable that this is still the *default* CMYK space for Photoshop (North America installs)? Since it continues in Adobe products, it is also the default for RIP vendors, printing houses that run inkjet/solvent printers, and all sorts of places that output on devices that bear almost no relation to "SWOP". OK, I'll drop it now... ;-) John On Feb 25, 2015, at 12:00 PM, colorsync-users-request(a)lists.apple.com wrote: > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 14:49:00 -0500 > From: Roger Breton <graxx(a)videotron.ca> > To: "'ColorSync'" <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> > Subject: RE: Silly question department, Display Media White Point > Message-ID: <02f101d05134$1a035680$4e0a0380$(a)videotron.ca> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Well, if they are running a "SWOP" press these days, under the G7 method, with SWOP2013-compliant inks colorimetry, the SWOPV2 "specification" isn't worth much anymore, Andrew?

6 17

CxF3 to CGATS
by Atelje Antolin OFFICE (Der) 01 Mar '15

01 Mar '15

Hello list, In what way could be Pantone+ Solid Coated-V2 imported into i1Share and PMColorPicker, Mac OS 10.6.8 ? Many thanks for any suggestion! P.S. I can save CxFv3 with Pantone Color Manager (Mac OS 10.6.8). Tried conversion from CxFv3 to CxFv1 on Windows XP with free utility CxF3_to_CGATS_Spectral_Data_v1.5, but but the expected conversion fails. Dusan Antolin www.atelje.si

2 1

RE: Silly question department, Display Media White Point
by Don Hutcheson 01 Mar '15

01 Mar '15

Roger, The main reasons CGATS.21 (ISO15339) does not include a new version of TR005 between CRPC4 and CRPC5, are (1.) most North American magazine stocks have moved to a lower b* and (2.) substrate-correction (SCCA) lets you adapt the nearest CRPC to your particular stock. The real problem is that paper changes faster than standards can. It’s impractical for industry associations like IDEAlliance or FOGRA to invest in the expensive, laborious, time-consuming business of multiple press runs, data smoothing, peer review, etc., just to make a new "standardized data set" for every new paper type. Thats why the concept of substrate-corrected colorimetric aims (SCCA) is so valuable. If you are still using the original TR005 paper, you can still use TR005 as your target space. If your paper is not exactly the same color as TR005, you can tweak either TR005 or CRPC5 to your actual stock color with the SCCA method. Obviously, the fact that every press prints slightly differently on any particular stock makes the idea of a “perfect” CRPC a little unrealistic, and the same is true of SCCA. The potential difference between a CRPC (with or without SCCA) and individual press characterization data depends (amongst other things) on paper absorbency, ink color, ink hold-out, etc. Obviously, no industry-standard characterized reference print condition is ever going to “exactly match” the performance of every press, and vice-versa. But remember that even if you make your own press profile, the resulting proofs will still seem to vary in “accuracy" from run to run. It’s the nature of offset. A major problem today is that the accuracy and consistency of ink jet proofing has led many people (both print buyers and printers) to expect more accuracy and consistency from high-volume commercial printing than the limitations of offset can deliver. Ink jet proofing can be incredibly accurate and consistent, but no matter how accurately a proof matches a particular CRPC, or even a custom press profile, nothing guarantees you’ll get the same exact color on any particular press run. A proof is, at best, just a close approximation of a final printed sheet. Anyone who doesn’t realize that has lost touch with the reality of printing as a manufacturing process. Having said that, if you feel strongly enough that a new version of TR005 is required in CGATS.21, please say so at the next IDEAlliance Print Properties and Colorimetric Council meeting. Feedback like that is exactly why the committee exists. As for GRACoL being "my baby”, thanks for the credit but I only cracked the whip. Others much smarter than I did the real work. I presume you’re being sarcastic about Adobe! :-) ........................................................ Don Hutcheson, President HutchColor, LLC Washington, NJ USA don(a)hutchcolor.com M: 908-500-0341 ........................................................ Roger wrote: > Don wote: > >> I doubt anyone is really printing to the old SWOP specs > > You would be surprised... > >> partly because the yellowish paper hasn’t been available for years. > > I can show you plenty of #5 Groundwood stock with b* of 4, 89-90 Lightness, on which the bulk of magazine printing is done today. It's far from being a #3 world, Don. More than ever, the price differential between #5 and #3 grades creates a larger demand for #5 than for #3. If anything, the market is moving toward Supercal, which is seriously encroaching into #5 territory. > >> Today’s publication printing is done on whatever paper the mill supplies, which is typically about 93,0,0 Lab, (give or take whatever), > > Your clients have deep pockets, Don. The bulk of publishers I see are ever more concerned about profit squeezing, on the one hand, advertisers are flocking to the web, and on the other hand, they are stuck with ever increasing paper prices. The magazines with the largest print runs are not printed on #3 grades, not in today adverse printing environment :( > >> So the good news is that, even though the default Photoshop CMYK profile SHOULD be up-dated to GRACoL or SWOP (2006 or 2013), > > Yes, you should be particularly proud about this, Don. GRACoL is your baby after all. > >> the fact that Adobe’s default CMYK working space seems stuck in the dark ages isn’t quite as bad as it seems. > > Adobe has always listened carefully to the needs of the graphic arts market. > > As I stated, Adobe is doing the print industry a disservice by not upgrading to current's IDEAlliance "best of the best", at a time that the print industry needs all the love it can get ;-) > > Best / Roger

5 8

Re: SWOPv2 is dead
by Don Hutcheson 28 Feb '15

28 Feb '15

Martin, With respect, your blanket claim that it is " *impossible* to separate images with saturated shadows using Photoshop and GRACoL” sounds a little exaggerated. Can you elaborate on this Earth-shattering discovery? Your one example is insufficient without more facts. For example… • What GRACoL profile was used for that job - Adobe’s "Coated GRACoL 2006 (ISO 12647-2:2004)” or the one from IDEAlliance; “GRACoL2006 Coated1v2”? • What rendering intent was used? • How much editing had been applied after CMYK conversion? If you had to “rescue” bad separations, my bet is they were simply destroyed by the archaic process of retouching in CMYK, after conversion, rather than the infinitely better, faster and safer process of retouching in RGB prior to conversion. However to be sure of my facts, at your suggestion I just made some comparison tests of the above-mentioned GRACoL profiles from IDEAlliance and Adobe, compared to two “ISO Coated" profiles (one in LinoColor (ECI 2007, 340 TAC) and one in basICColor (2007, 300%). Incidentally, I’m told that beginning these profile names with “ISO” (an obvious attempt to suggest they are “ISO-standard”) was a breach of ISO’s copyright rules. Anyway, I converted my RGBXPLORER target (www.hutchcolor.com/Images_and_targets.html) from Adobe RGB (1998), Adobe ACE, Relative Intent, BPC. I then viewed the resulting CMYK images via their own embedded profiles in Adobe’s relative colorimetric soft proofing mode (View > Proof Setup > Custom… > Preserve CMYK Numbers, Simulate Black Ink). I also converted each CMYK file to Lab (Absolute) and measured very dark colored areas, near the black point. My tests showed that both visually and numerically, the IDEAlliance profile (GRACoL2006 Coated1v2) performed equally well, if not better, than the other three profiles. Apart from the inevitable loss of RGB saturation due to press gamut limitations, nothing “faded to grey” with the IDEAlliance profile that didn’t suffer equally with the other profiles. On the contrary, the IDEAlliance profile produced stronger shadow detail near the black point than the Adobe profile or either of the so-called “ISO Coated ...” profiles. Apparently this is because IDEAlliance profiles are made with a maximum black setting of 100%, while all the European profiles I’ve seen (and Adobe’s profiles) stop at about 90-93% K. FYI, in the days of enlarger separations, limiting the black separation to 90-95% was essential in order to keep black dot gain from killing shadow detail. It was also necessary on most scanners (especially Crosfield) due to their limited color computer algorithms. But in a modern ICC profile created from real press characterization data in good software, limiting K to anything less than 100% just limits maximum shadow density and detail. Anyway, if you’d like to defend your (somewhat incredible) claims about Photoshop and GRACoL, I’d be happy to participate with you in some clearly-defined off-line testing. After 47 years in color separation, I’m always anxious to learn new tricks. ........................................................ Don Hutcheson, President HutchColor, LLC Washington, NJ USA don(a)hutchcolor.com M: 908-500-0341 ........................................................ On Feb 28, 2015, at 13:03 , Martin Orpen wrote: > Europeans already have a default — ISO Coated v2 (300) — which is well established as being safe and reliable when you’re uncertain about the destination device. > > I had to rescue a US ad campaign recently that was totally destroyed by your suggested Photoshop default because It is *impossible* to separate images with saturated shadows using Photoshop and GRACoL. > > Give it a try. Make some rich dark blue, purple and red swatches in RGB and see them fade to grey in GRACoL. > > When the clients complain, send them to my shop where Photoshop is never used for CMYK ;-) > > -- > Martin Orpen > Idea Digital Imaging Ltd

2 1

Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 12, Issue 21
by Remington, David 27 Feb '15

27 Feb '15

Hi David, Do you have a source for these bulbs? Did you measure them with a spectrophotometer? Thanks, David David Remington Manager, Digital Imaging and Photography Services Harvard Library Preservation D-70A Widener Library Cambridge, MA 02138 p 617-495-4701 f 617-495-0403 w http://imaging.harvard.edu/ On Feb 24, 2015, at 11:48 AM, colorsync-users-request(a)lists.apple.com wrote: > Message: 9 > Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 01:41:54 -0800 > From: David Scharf <dscharf2(a)roadrunner.com> > To: Roger Breton <graxx(a)videotron.ca>, "'ColorSync User List List'" > <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> > Subject: Re: Store lighting suggestion? > Message-ID: <54EC4762.90107(a)roadrunner.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > Hi Roger, > > Yes, the "Vivid" series of lamps. > > I have been trying out various LED MR-16 halogen replacement lamps for > my home and these are spectrally the best I have tried. My problem is > that I need to find a lamp that will work with dimmers and work with the > fixtures I already have. The Soraa Vivid lamp I tried looked great but > flickered when I dimmed it way down. Of course I really didn't have a > proper dimmer that would work with LED lights--just tried it out with > the old dimmer I had. Not really sure how they would perform in a > color-critical lighting situation. I still use 5000°K flourescents in my > studio. Still, they are the best looking LED light I have come across. > Regards, > > David > -- > DAVID SCHARF PHOTOGRAPHY > > *DAVID SCHARF PHOTOGRAPHY* > > Scanning Electron Microscopy > > http://www.scharfphoto.com

1 0

RE: Silly question department, Display Media White Point
by Don Hutcheson 27 Feb '15

27 Feb '15

This is a repeat of an earlier post I made under the wrong subject. ******************************************************** I doubt anyone is really printing to the old SWOP specs, partly because the yellowish paper hasn’t been available for years. Today’s publication printing is done on whatever paper the mill supplies, which is typically about 93,0,0 Lab, (give or take whatever), compared to the original SWOP spec of 89,0,4 (ISO Type 3). If a TR001 file is printed on a TR003-calibrated press or proofer, the total “error" (caused by the brighter, more neutral paper and G7 calibration) amounts to an average delta-E(ab) of 1.78 (peak 4.23) on ALL 1617 patches of the IT8.7/4! This is far better than most proof-to-press matches. If you're fussy enough to care about these microscopic differences, you can either apply G7 correction to the original file using CMYK curves (in Photoshop or a RIP) or do a profile-to-profile conversion. Using curves alone reduces the average delta-E to 1.3 (peak 3.56) but preserves the original channel relationships, for example black-only drop shadows, and eliminates unwanted scum dots in solids. Using ICC profiles, you’ll probably get about the same delta-E errors, depending on rendering intent, CMM accuracy, etc., but you’ll also inherit channel anomalies like converting black-only to CMYK, improper solid builds, etc. So the good news is that, even though the default Photoshop CMYK profile SHOULD be up-dated to GRACoL or SWOP (2006 or 2013), the fact that Adobe’s default CMYK working space seems stuck in the dark ages isn’t quite as bad as it seems. ........................................................ Don Hutcheson, President HutchColor, LLC Washington, NJ USA don(a)hutchcolor.com M: 908-500-0341 ........................................................

2 1

SWOPv2 vs. G7
by Don Hutcheson 27 Feb '15

27 Feb '15

I doubt anyone is really printing to the old SWOP specs, partly because the yellowish paper hasn’t been available for years. Today’s publication printing is done on whatever paper the mill supplies, which is typically about 93,0,0 Lab, (give or take whatever), compared to the original SWOP spec of 89,0,4 (ISO Type 3). If a TR001 file is printed on a TR003-calibrated press or proofer, the total “error" (caused by the brighter, more neutral paper and G7 calibration) amounts to an average delta-E(ab) of 1.78 (peak 4.23) on ALL 1617 patches of the IT8.7/4! This is far better than most proof-to-press matches. If you're fussy enough to care about these microscopic differences, you can either apply G7 correction to the original file using CMYK curves (in Photoshop or a RIP) or do a profile-to-profile conversion. Using curves alone reduces the average delta-E to 1.3 (peak 3.56) but preserves the original channel relationships, for example black-only drop shadows, and eliminates unwanted scum dots in solids. Using ICC profiles, you’ll probably get about the same delta-E errors, depending on rendering intent, CMM accuracy, etc., but you’ll also inherit channel anomalies like converting black-only to CMYK, improper solid builds, etc. So the good news is that, even though the default Photoshop CMYK profile SHOULD be up-dated to GRACoL or SWOP (2006 or 2013), the fact that Adobe’s default CMYK working space seems stuck in the dark ages isn’t quite as bad as it seems. ........................................................ Don Hutcheson, President HutchColor, LLC Washington, NJ USA don(a)hutchcolor.com M: 908-500-0341 ........................................................

2 2