As a commercial photographer and color enthusiast I felt I had a good grasp of RGB to CMYK workflows, that is, deliver RGB when possible so images can be repurposed later. Sometimes a client will demand CMYK files without offering any description of the output conditions. In this case it seemed consensus was to convert to SWOPv2 which is easy as it's the Photoshop default and most photographers simply use image>mode>convert to CMYK. Many photographers who offer in house conversions and proofs are also using SWOPv2 for a multitude of reasons. Now I come to find out that things have changed quite a bit in the last few years and press data beyond TR001 and new or refined specifications like G7, GRACoL 7, SWOP 3 and 5 are all well known and accepted. And Lab data too! I've seen posted here that converting to SWOP2006grade3 is a much better choice for unspecified CMYK web than SWOPv2 as it has better data from a better run on a whiter paper that is more common. I've also read and seen in colorthink that SWOPv2 has a similar white point as the SWOP2006grade5 which is more yellow. So should photographers who choose to convert to CMYK themselves who had been using SWOPv2 change to the newer SWOP2006 profiles? Does Adobe plan to change the default CMYK from SWOPv2 to a newer profile? Along the same lines, I'm helping a friend setup an Epson 7900 proofing edition with EFI XF 4.1. They send untagged PDF/X-1a documents to the RIP from indesign CS3. We plan to set up the Epson with GRACoL certification and the training videos suggest setting the "CMYK source" in EFI to CoatedGRACol2006.icc Does that mean the PDF/X-1a from indesign (and the included images) should also be in the CoatedGRACol2006 space before it is sent to the RIP untagged? And a final question, should photographers convert to CoatedGRACoL2006 instead of SWOPgrade3 for unspecified CMYK conversion or just stick with SWOPv2 and pretend none of this happened? TIA
On Mar 23, 2012, at 4:32 PM, jeff@bigtopstudio.com wrote:
Sometimes a client will demand CMYK files without offering any description of the output conditions. In this case it seemed consensus was to convert to SWOPv2 which is easy as it's the Photoshop default and most photographers simply use image>mode>convert to CMYK. Many photographers who offer in house conversions and proofs are also using SWOPv2 for a multitude of reasons.
That isn’t true really. The bottom line is, if a photographer (or anyone) is asked to make a CMYK conversion when the actual output conditions are unknown, don’t do it. Here’s an analogy. Someone asks you what F-Stop and shutter speed to set on their camera with no other information about the film or ISO setting, lighting or lack thereof etc. Someone else says “Use F8 and 125th”. That would be good advise if and only if that were the correct combination of the two, based on an ISO of the capture and scene being shot. More likely, it will not be. How can anyone provide exposure information like this? They can’t and should not. No different with a blind CMYK conversion. IF a press condition is conforming to SWOP V2, that would be a great conversion. If not, depending on how far from that behavior the press conditions are, the results can be really poor. Just like an image capture that is 2 stops off isn’t real useful. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
I totally agree with Andrew's sentiment here, but sometimes you CAN'T get real info, either because you're using a print broker who has not assigned the job, or the printers just give misinformation or lie, and they wont accept RGB. And it may not be your choice to say go elsewhere. So what then? Maybe try to determine if it's a web or sheetfed job, at least, and if not, go with a safe TIL. Separate to a likely standard, taking care to avoid avoidable problems, and hope for the best. Probably use a medium GCR to compromise between ink-density-related color shifts and hammered black, and hope for the best. By all means, try and get the info, and get a sense if there's any likely adherence to it. Otherwise, play the horses. But some people play the horses better than other, and it's not all just luck. Rick Gordon ------------------ On 3/23/12 at 5:21 PM -0600, Andrew Rodney wrote in a message entitled "Re: CMYK for photographers":
On Mar 23, 2012, at 4:32 PM, jeff@bigtopstudio.com wrote:
Sometimes a client will demand CMYK files without offering any description of the output conditions. In this case it seemed consensus was to convert to SWOPv2 which is easy as it's the Photoshop default and most photographers simply use image>mode>convert to CMYK. Many photographers who offer in house conversions and proofs are also using SWOPv2 for a multitude of reasons.
That isn't true really. The bottom line is, if a photographer (or anyone) is asked to make a CMYK conversion when the actual output conditions are unknown, don't do it.
Here's an analogy. Someone asks you what F-Stop and shutter speed to set on their camera with no other information about the film or ISO setting, lighting or lack thereof etc. Someone else says "Use F8 and 125th". That would be good advise if and only if that were the correct combination of the two, based on an ISO of the capture and scene being shot. More likely, it will not be. How can anyone provide exposure information like this? They can't and should not. No different with a blind CMYK conversion.
IF a press condition is conforming to SWOP V2, that would be a great conversion. If not, depending on how far from that behavior the press conditions are, the results can be really poor. Just like an image capture that is 2 stops off isn't real useful.
-- ___________________________________________________ RICK GORDON EMERALD VALLEY GRAPHICS AND CONSULTING ___________________________________________________ WWW: http://www.shelterpub.com
And if it slides one way or another, which way will look worst, and maybe bias a bit in that direction To light, vs. too dark? Too much magenta vs not enough? etc. ------------------ On 3/23/12 at 5:51 PM -0700, Rick Gordon wrote in a message entitled "Re: CMYK for photographers":
I totally agree with Andrew's sentiment here, but sometimes you CAN'T get real info, either because you're using a print broker who has not assigned the job, or the printers just give misinformation or lie, and they wont accept RGB. And it may not be your choice to say go elsewhere. So what then?
Maybe try to determine if it's a web or sheetfed job, at least, and if not, go with a safe TIL. Separate to a likely standard, taking care to avoid avoidable problems, and hope for the best. Probably use a medium GCR to compromise between ink-density-related color shifts and hammered black, and hope for the best.
By all means, try and get the info, and get a sense if there's any likely adherence to it. Otherwise, play the horses. But some people play the horses better than other, and it's not all just luck.
Rick Gordon
------------------
On 3/23/12 at 5:21 PM -0600, Andrew Rodney wrote in a message entitled "Re: CMYK for photographers":
On Mar 23, 2012, at 4:32 PM, jeff@bigtopstudio.com wrote:
Sometimes a client will demand CMYK files without offering any description of the output conditions. In this case it seemed consensus was to convert to SWOPv2 which is easy as it's the Photoshop default and most photographers simply use image>mode>convert to CMYK. Many photographers who offer in house conversions and proofs are also using SWOPv2 for a multitude of reasons.
That isn't true really. The bottom line is, if a photographer (or anyone) is asked to make a CMYK conversion when the actual output conditions are unknown, don't do it.
Here's an analogy. Someone asks you what F-Stop and shutter speed to set on their camera with no other information about the film or ISO setting, lighting or lack thereof etc. Someone else says "Use F8 and 125th". That would be good advise if and only if that were the correct combination of the two, based on an ISO of the capture and scene being shot. More likely, it will not be. How can anyone provide exposure information like this? They can't and should not. No different with a blind CMYK conversion.
IF a press condition is conforming to SWOP V2, that would be a great conversion. If not, depending on how far from that behavior the press conditions are, the results can be really poor. Just like an image capture that is 2 stops off isn't real useful.
-- ___________________________________________________
RICK GORDON EMERALD VALLEY GRAPHICS AND CONSULTING ___________________________________________________
WWW: http://www.shelterpub.com _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/lists%40rickgordon.c...
This email sent to lists@rickgordon.com
-- ___________________________________________________ RICK GORDON EMERALD VALLEY GRAPHICS AND CONSULTING ___________________________________________________ WWW: http://www.shelterpub.com
A chuck full of interesting questions. And you already received very good replies from the other List members. I like color, as a subject, because it is endless. As far as Adobe is concerned, my take is that they don't want to be seen as leaders in color reproduction matters. Which explains why, CS after CS versions, SWOPv2 remains the default. Their intention is to get out of the color way as much as possible. SWOPv2 is the default and is not to be seen as an endorsement of anything, other than historic ties. (You would think?) Terry Wyse once suggested that SWOP2006_C3 would make a better all-around CMYK sort of blind output conditions. I wasn't in agreement back then but now, I can see the value of this statement. I think converting to Coated #3 paper causes less than converting to Coated #5 paper, which isn't to say that "thou shalt only use C3". I like Andrew's stance that if the output conditions are not known then don't do the conversion. That's a position with plenty of merit. We scrupulously screen every job for color where I work. If a client supplies proofs, they are compared to our proof for the given substrate the job is running on. Easy for us to do since we have an extra bit of information many don't have by the time their client require them to supply CMYK imagery. All I can say is that, regardless of the choice of conversion, the moment the chosen CMYK percentages hit some kind of viewable support, whether "electronic", in the form of computer display monitor, or physical, in the form of a proof on paper, then two things are bound to happen. Either some live person looks at color or limit his or herself to content. Content is easy to approve. If content is all that's approved at this stage, then color is not important and will receive whatever treatment on press as whoever is running the job is seeing fit. If color is important then it's a different story. And a possibly complex one. Some people will look at color on their screen and declare themselves satisfied with what they see. Some people look at a printed proof and declare themselves satisfied. It can get really nasty beyond this point. Hopefully, someone will look at color with a critical eye somewhere along the line. Hopefully. Yet, I've recently seen cases where an ISO Coated v2 proof came in the door and it virtually looked identical to a SWOP2006_C3 proof. There are many ways of generating hardcopy proofs, as many way as there are printers, inks sets, instruments, proofing substrates, lighting setups and viewers! So who's to say that, a priori, a given proof will not matched or can not be matched or will be matched on a given press printing conditions? And we have not started to include pressmen here. In my very humble experience, what can be considered a match can be as wide as a football field, depending on who's looking at the proof. Some client are very demanding but most clients, including advertisers are far more relaxed in what they will judge as acceptable color. There is a lot to be said about that. So, to conclude, I would personally tend not to use SWOPv2 as the default because SWOPv2 represents an inherently yellow substrate and will render all colors with that tint of yellow that they don't originally have, most likely. I would tend to think that ISO Coated might be a better choice, but again so is SWOP2006_C3. Really, in a lot of printing conditions, we'd be surprised at how much of a toss up is color. Best / Roger -----Original Message----- From: colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=videotron.ca@lists.apple.com [mailto:colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=videotron.ca@lists.apple.com] On Behalf Of jeff@bigtopstudio.com Sent: March-23-12 6:32 PM To: colorsync-users@lists.apple.com Subject: CMYK for photographers As a commercial photographer and color enthusiast I felt I had a good grasp of RGB to CMYK workflows, that is, deliver RGB when possible so images can be repurposed later. Sometimes a client will demand CMYK files without offering any description of the output conditions. In this case it seemed consensus was to convert to SWOPv2 which is easy as it's the Photoshop default and most photographers simply use image>mode>convert to CMYK. Many photographers who offer in house conversions and proofs are also using SWOPv2 for a multitude of reasons. Now I come to find out that things have changed quite a bit in the last few years and press data beyond TR001 and new or refined specifications like G7, GRACoL 7, SWOP 3 and 5 are all well known and accepted. And Lab data too! I've seen posted here that converting to SWOP2006grade3 is a much better choice for unspecified CMYK web than SWOPv2 as it has better data from a better run on a whiter paper that is more common. I've also read and seen in colorthink that SWOPv2 has a similar white point as the SWOP2006grade5 which is more yellow. So should photographers who choose to convert to CMYK themselves who had been using SWOPv2 change to the newer SWOP2006 profiles? Does Adobe plan to change the default CMYK from SWOPv2 to a newer profile? Along the same lines, I'm helping a friend setup an Epson 7900 proofing edition with EFI XF 4.1. They send untagged PDF/X-1a documents to the RIP from indesign CS3. We plan to set up the Epson with GRACoL certification and the training videos suggest setting the "CMYK source" in EFI to CoatedGRACol2006.icc Does that mean the PDF/X-1a from indesign (and the included images) should also be in the CoatedGRACol2006 space before it is sent to the RIP untagged? And a final question, should photographers convert to CoatedGRACoL2006 instead of SWOPgrade3 for unspecified CMYK conversion or just stick with SWOPv2 and pretend none of this happened? TIA _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/graxx%40videotron.ca This email sent to graxx@videotron.ca
On Mar 23, 2012, at 4:32 PM, jeff@bigtopstudio.com wrote:
So should photographers who choose to convert to CMYK themselves who had been using SWOPv2 change to the newer SWOP2006 profiles?
Along the same lines, I'm helping a friend setup an Epson 7900 proofing edition with EFI XF 4.1. They send untagged PDF/X-1a documents to the RIP from indesign CS3. We plan to set up the Epson with GRACoL certification and the training videos suggest setting the "CMYK source" in EFI to CoatedGRACol2006.icc
a. "untagged" PDF/X-1a doesn't really make sense. It is "tagged" with an OutputIntent, and if it's not a standard condition, then an ICC profile must be embedded, which implicitly acts as both a source and destination profile for all CMYK content. b. GRACoL is a broad lithographic printing specification. The CoatedGRACoL2006.icc profile (Adobe) is based on a particular data set (CGATS TR 006). It's possible to conform to the printing specification, yet have a printing behavior that is not like that data set. c. PDF/X-1a dictates that the PDF itself determines the Output Intent. An override at the proofing RIP is kinda sloppy. It departs from a major point of the spec. Prepare the document correctly by having it announce its condition correctly, and have the proofing RIP honor the Output Intent. d. If the condition is compatible with CoatedGRACoL2006.icc, then the use of SWOP v2 or either SWOP 2006 condition, doesn't seem to be indicated. You don't want your images converted to SWOP (any of them) yet then have InDesign producing PDF/X-1a's set to CoatedGRACoL2006.icc.
Does that mean the PDF/X-1a from indesign (and the included images) should also be in the CoatedGRACol2006 space before it is sent to the RIP untagged?
The PDF/X-1a's Output Intent should be set to the intended printing condition, yes. All CMYK images placed in the InDesign document should likewise be in that same color space. It is possible to place RGB images into InDesign, and have them converted to CMYK at the time the PDF/X-1a is produced by InDesign (by default it will do this anyway, if you're choosing a PDF/X-1a preset because RGB isn't allowed). While the CMYK objects in the PDF/X-1a are /DeviceCMYK, i.e. they are not "tagged" or more correctly they are not /ICCBased, the Output Intent which is required by PDF/X-1a, is the implicit source *and* destination profile for CMYK objects in the document.
And a final question, should photographers convert to CoatedGRACoL2006 instead of SWOPgrade3 for unspecified CMYK conversion or just stick with SWOPv2 and pretend none of this happened?
It's like asking me if I should rent a car in Tokyo or New York City when I'm not being told whether I'm going to be in Tokyo or NYC. The answer is, I don't know. If you get it wrong, you're compromising something no matter what. The safest option is the one with the lowest practical ink limit, not knowing anything else. And for that it's SWOP coated 5, with an ink limit of 300%. Coated 3 limits at around 310%. And GRACoL 2006 Coated 1/2 limits at 320%. If you bust an ink limit, printing companies are well within their right to reject the job. Chris Murphy
participants (5)
-
Andrew Rodney
-
Chris Murphy
-
jeff＠bigtopstudio.com
-
Rick Gordon
-
Roger Breton