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