February 2015 - colorsync-users

Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 12, Issue 28
by John Lund 27 Feb '15

27 Feb '15

Roger wrote: > John, > >> As an aside - how many designers & production people are even aware an AI file can be built in >> RGB? And it's not just clients, I've seen production files from large print houses - RGB images placed in AI, which will output SWOP, of >> course. > > Again, more proof that most users have no clue about color and that "SWOP" is meaningless to them -- they don't mean "SWOP", they mean "CMYK"? Photoshop > Image > Mode > CMYK, that's the end of their world. > Why does anyone ever bother calibrating anything? > What's the big fuss with ISO-15339, CGATS21, ISO-12647:20XX? Fogra39? 51? Certified proofing? > > / Roger Hi Roger, I feel your pain. In fact I share it! 1. the idea you describe of a synthetic, more inclusive (meaning color gamut & brightness range) CMYK profile sure sounds more appropriate for this millennium. 2. as for Andrew's concern about legacy CMYK files - that doesn't have to be a problem at all. If the PS default CMYK changed, SWOP can just stay SWOP. Think "safe CMYK" policy: if you really created/wanted SWOP, simply embed the profile, PS won't convert unless you want it to. But if you're creating a new CMYK file, a better CMYK default won't crunch your color so much - net result is better color from people who otherwise wouldn't know how to get there, for people who do know, no impact at all. (hmm, this sounds familiar - maybe a bit like RGB is handled currently?) 3. as for this exchange: >>> And as for all those people, I just don't spend any time worrying about them, because they're not my clients. And for all these people, as far as I'm concerned, >>> SWOPv2 is and ever will be a perfectly fine CMYK color space, if they feel they have to convert something to CMYK. >> >> No, SWOPv2 is *not* a perfectly correct CMYK color space. SWOPv2 is inherently yellow, whatever intent you throw at it, as it bears the mark of 89,0,4 substrate. I don't like my skin tones, my skys and foliage to be reproduced with more yellow than it needs. > > I didn't say it was "correct." I said it was "fine." And I didn't say it was fine for you. I said it was fine for them. -- yes, I agree with how Mike describes the current situation. I'm asking why does it have to stay this way? "fine for them" might result in much better color if they weren't producing SWOP color just because it's the default CMYK. Finally, here's a question/speculation from way out in left field: I remember well all the angst at Photoshop 5's debut, with that mysterious "converting colors" message as it opened your existing RGB files. With all the flak that Adobe got for trying to introduce color management that way (even after v.5.5 smoothed out the convert-or-not scenario), I wonder - was that sufficiently traumatizing that they're simply unwilling to risk another such tempest by changing defaults again? ;-) John

1 0

Re: Silly question department, Display Media White Point
by John Lund 26 Feb '15

26 Feb '15

Mike wrote: > However, the point here is that if the client sends SWOP, then SWOP is what they reasonably ought to expect to get back. And with large format printing, the issue isn't that they ought to use some marginally larger CMYK space, such as Gracol -- which while, granted, has a somewhat larger gamut than SWOP, is still dwarfed by most large format printers printing on most large format media -- the issue is that they shouldn't be using CMYK at all. > > And my experience over many years doing this is that is just never happens. If large format printers get CMYK files, they're invariably SWOP. The client just started working in CMYK in Illustrator, or Corel Draw, or Photoshop, and more than likely doesn't even know where the color settings dialogue is, or what it does. > > In that case, there isn't anything that can be done to get whatever color information was stripped out of the file when it was converted to CMYK. All that can be done is to have a well-profiled machine reproduce the file accurately. -- again, spot on. What I'm thinking about is "upstream" from the print vendor - what if the files created by those clients were not limited to such a small CMYK space? As an aside - how many designers & production people are even aware an AI file can be built in RGB? And it's not just clients, I've seen production files from large print houses - RGB images placed in AI, which will output SWOP, of course. John

2 1

RE: Silly question department, Display Media White Point
by Roger Breton 26 Feb '15

26 Feb '15

Mike, > A default has to be something. Why on earth would it be "unscrupulous" to set the expected incoming CMYK space in your RIP to be the > default working CMYK space in virtually every brand and type of image creation software out there? > I just do not get that. > What would possibly be gained by making it something else? Start "small" and you end up "small". Start "big" and you end up "big". SWOPv2 is "small" compared to GRACoL. Mike

2 1

RE: Silly question department, Display Media White Point
by Roger Breton 26 Feb '15

26 Feb '15

Mike, > As far as destination spaces go, I'm not aware of a single RIP manufacturer that does that -- uses SWOP as a destination color space, > that is, and I can tell you such a RIP does not exist in large or grand format, and can't almost by definition. > Absolutely no one does this. You are right. No one uses SWOPv2 as a destination space in any output RIP. Please forgive my poor sentence construction. My fault entirely. Didn't me to suggest that at all, at all. I had a client, recently, who asked me to "calibrate" his new large format inkjet printer. What was I going to put in as the Source "default" in his Onyx RIP, SWOPv2? You think clients who send their jobs to this service bureau are going to be happy to get the crummy gamut of SWOPv2 on their output? You think my client would have had praise for my services if that's what I did for him? You tell me. Best / Roger

2 1

Re: Silly question department, Display Media White Point
by John Lund 25 Feb '15

25 Feb '15

Hi list, OK, coming out of lurk mode briefly - can't hold myself back any longer... Ernst wrote: > What about a complete new set of color spaces that have more relation to > today's practices? All this energy about updating color spaces makes me wonder (again), why are we still stuck with the infamous "U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2.icc" profile? I'm not disputing the need to define color in some legacy files. But why is a profile describing some imaginary printing condition from 30+ years ago, on cheap paper (I guess you could say both the printing technology & paper of that day no longer exist?) the *default CMYK working space in Photoshop (North America)? Of course, that makes it also the default CMYK for most RIP installations, the default for prepress (what remains of it) in even high-end print vendors, the default for even some reputedly "high-end" commercial graphics vendors. And we know how few people ever change default settings in any software! Many years ago, we learned to supply quality separations from digital captures, simply by targeting the printer's contract proofing system - I remember the prepress guy asking "how come you guys get better saturation [& color] than we do?", so how do you convert the capture file?, "oh, I go Mode>CMYK" (didn't have to guess what his CMYK Working Space was). Recently finished a huge project prepping large image files for grand format output at international trade show, and the supposedly "high-end" commercial print vendor doing these enormous inkjet output was driving the printer with Onyx RIP, set for - you guessed it - "SWOP". Will "U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2.icc" be the default CMYK space forever? Will Photoshop CC 2034 *still ship that way? ;-) Maybe the Adobe team got so traumatized by the reaction to Photoshop 5's intro of color management (remember the infamous "convert on opening" RGB default?) that they never again want to impose anything new in file handling? Who knows. I just wish someday to not have to spend (waste?) half my time trying to get clients & vendors to stop hosing color in image files. Wouldn't the world be a better place with more intelligent choices for both RGB and CMYK color spaces? Whew! Thanks for the lively information exchange here! John JWL Images Emeryville, CA

5 10

Compatibility Issues?
by Dick Busher 25 Feb '15

25 Feb '15

I am contemplating buying the latest Mac tower, which I am guessing would require the latest OS and the Cloud version of PhotoShop, etc. Are there any issues regarding file conversions? My typical workflow in PS starts with RGB which I quickly convert to Lab for most editing. I then convert to cmyk for output, either for my inkjet printers or for offset printing. What I am concerned about is any variations behind the scenes from my current system which is CS3 and OS10.6.8. Is there anything I need to be aware of, any "new and improved" features that could screw me up? Dick Busher Cosgrove Editions 7042 20th Place NE Seattle, WA 98115 206-524-6726 888-507-7375 dick(a)cosgroveweb.com

2 1

profiling iMac Retina displays running OS X 10.10
by Bruce Bumbarger 25 Feb '15

25 Feb '15

Hello: I've been trying to profile two new iMac Retinas using an i1Display Pro and software. Both have the desktop set to medium gray. Using the advanced mode, I set the display type to White LED, the white point to D65, the luminance to 100cd/m2. Following advice found on www.imagescience.com.au, I've set the contrast ratio to 250:1 rather than native as I'd like the two displays to match as closely as possible. I use the default profile settings except that I change the profile version from 4 to 2. I choose the largest patch set. I choose to adjust brightness and contrast rather than using the ADC option and am able to adjust to 99 or 100 cd/m2, although it's not always the same on both monitors. After running through the measurement process, on my latest attempt I get white point results of 6506, luminance of 99 cd/m2 and contrast ratio of 278:1 on one display and 6522, 100cd/m2 and 275:1 on the other. Is this about as close as I'll get? It seems pretty consistent to me, but visually one display looks to be a more neutral gray while the other seems "warmer" and appears to have a slight magenta cast. I've tried profiling with different white point settings, but the mismatch seems to occur regardless of the choice I make. More than one viewer has the same impression. Can I expect to get the screens to match? I don't have a sense whether the difference in the results I get is large enough to account for the visual differences one sees. When I make a sample print and view it under the lighting we use I get what I consider to be a good match between the screen and print - it actually looks pretty consistent on both screens. However, the computers are in a lab space used by students and the question does come up as to why the screens don't match. I'd appreciate whatever advice/information that anyone can offer. Bruce -- Bruce Bumbarger Library Conservator Magill Library - Haverford College 370 Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 610-896-1165

4 8

white reflectance calibration strip: flatbed scanners
by andre ribuoli 24 Feb '15

24 Feb '15

Does anyone know more about the white calibration strips on modern flatbed scanners? I'm looking to replace mine, not sure if there's a particular set of parameters I should stay within. I.E. 75%, 80%, or 99% Reflectance values Epson 10000XL & 11000XL scanner model Epson does not provide this strip as a part I can order. It's only available as a complete upper assembly replacement. Not what I want or need. Any suggestions, advice or knowledge on these calibration strips is appreciated!!!1 Andre

1 0

Fwd: Store lighting suggestion?
by Ernst Dinkla 24 Feb '15

24 Feb '15

Whether they are distributed in the USA is another question but the tests done here say a lot about their spectral distribution, dimming properties, economy etc. http://www.olino.org/advice/us/ Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:41 AM, David Scharf <dscharf2(a)roadrunner.com> wrote: > 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 > > > On 2/23/15 5:26 PM, Roger Breton wrote: > >> Hi David, >> >> Do you perhaps mean this lamp : http://www.soraa.com/public/ >> docs/Spec-Sheets-GU5.3-US/3.0/Soraa%20SM16%207W.pdf >> >> I couldn't find the spectral power distribution in the specs :( >> >> Is this a lamp that you used yourself? >> >> Best / Roger >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=videotron.ca(a)lists.apple.com [mailto: >> colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=videotron.ca(a)lists.apple.com] On Behalf Of >> David Scharf >> Sent: 23 février 2015 19:58 >> To: Randy Norian; ColorSync User List List >> Subject: Re: Store lighting suggestion? >> >> Look at Soraa Lighting LED bulbs. They make a pretty good MR-16 >> replacement bulb with up to 95 CRI. >> >> Regards, >> >> David >> DAVID SCHARF PHOTOGRAPHY >> >> *DAVID SCHARF PHOTOGRAPHY* >> >> Scanning Electron Microscopy >> >> http://www.scharfphoto.com >> >> On 2/23/15 12:33 PM, Randy Norian wrote: >> >>> I was contacted by the owner of a quick-print shop, asking for >>> suggestions on in-store lighting. >>> >>> He is planning to change to all-LED lighting in his store - I really >>> have no expertise in the area of workplace lighting and was wondering if >>> anyone would care to chime in? >>> The store is in a university setting and there are a number of student >>> projects printed here, so there *are* some clients who care about color >>> accuracy and appearance. >>> >>> I'm not consulting on this job, just looking for info for a friend. >>> >>> 5000K throughout makes for pretty harsh workplace lighting... what >>> advice would we have, for a store owner who is asking how he can do things >>> better? >>> >>> Many thanks- >>> >>> Randy Norian >>> rg500delta(a)me.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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/david%40scharf >>> photo.com >>> >>> This email sent to david(a)scharfphoto.com >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/graxx%40videotron.ca >> >> This email sent to graxx(a)videotron.ca >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/david%40scharfphoto.com >> >> This email sent to david(a)scharfphoto.com >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ernst.dinkla%40gmail.com > > This email sent to ernst.dinkla(a)gmail.com >

1 0

Store lighting suggestion?
by Randy Norian 24 Feb '15

24 Feb '15

I was contacted by the owner of a quick-print shop, asking for suggestions on in-store lighting. He is planning to change to all-LED lighting in his store - I really have no expertise in the area of workplace lighting and was wondering if anyone would care to chime in? The store is in a university setting and there are a number of student projects printed here, so there *are* some clients who care about color accuracy and appearance. I'm not consulting on this job, just looking for info for a friend. 5000K throughout makes for pretty harsh workplace lighting... what advice would we have, for a store owner who is asking how he can do things better? Many thanks- Randy Norian rg500delta(a)me.com

5 5