Refik Telhan wrote:
Dear colleagues, I invite you to shed some light on this in mystery.
Perhaps you can better explain your workflow assumptions in making use of the FOGRA profiles. A basic property of profiles is that they are only as good as far as they accurately describe the printing process they purport to be for. As far as I can gather, you are taking a profile made by someone else (FOGRA) based on prints that they made with their paper, ink, printing press and measurement conditions, and applying it to your press, with your paper, ink, press setup and visual evaluation conditions, and reporting that it doesn't look very good. In a general sense, nothing unexpected is going on here - the profile doesn't match your output (or vice versa). It would seem to me that the only way this combination is likely to give satisfactory results is if you go to some trouble to make your press behave in a way that very closely mimics the way the FOGRA press was setup, and evaluate the prints in the same way they evaluate them (i.e. viewing booth spectra & UV content). The fact that you get poor results either means that your press and evaluation conditions don't match the ones the FOGRA profile is intended for, or that the FOGRA profile you are attempting to use is not appropriate for your conditions. As a profile making type person, my natural inclination would be to say "profile your press, and use that :-)", but it really comes down to what your intention is. If your intention is to run a press to FOGRA51 conditions so that customers can do separations using the standard FOGRA51 profile, then it seems you aren't currently hitting that mark with your press, or that your evaluation conditions differ markedly from the ones FOGRA51 uses, or that perhaps FOGRA51 press conditions are out of the range possible with your setup. Cheers, Graeme Gill.