RE: Silly question department, Display Media White Point
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@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
Don, I find one of the enduring impressions is that standards are based on 'ideal' conditions. They are based on an average and try to reflect what a printer might be reasonably expected to achieve in the real world. There is still some debate on what that average should be but I just wanted to make the point that his is why the specifications have tolerances. It is also why the tolerances for proofing are tighter than are for printing. As for the 'problem' of Adobe default Color Settings ( if that's what you were referring to) I personally don't understand it. If anyone in this industry doesn't know how to customise their Color Settings or, better still, access and install those provided by a multitude of global publishing industry organisations along with all the helpful information that goes with it they should be washing windows. Regards, Mark Stegman
On 28 Feb 2015, at 3:31 am, Don Hutcheson <don@hutchcolor.com> wrote:
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@hutchcolor.com M: 908-500-0341 ........................................................
Mark, I would hesitate to characterize Adobe’s CMYK color settings as a serious “problem”, because as a “source profile” (for viewing non-critical CMYK files), U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2 is actually quite similar to current CMYK color spaces - in fact it passes G7. However as a “destination profile” (for converting from RGB to CMYK), you should avoid U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2 like the plague, because of it’s antiquated structure (lack of GCR, excessive TAC and low Max Black values). The same goes for all other Adobe-generated CMYK profiles. Don’t convert into them! For a company so vital to the ICC revolution, Adobe’s apparent inability to make good ICC profiles has always surprised me. As for their failure to change the Color Settings default to a more modern CMYK color space, we shouldn’t be surprised. For years, Adobe has treated print as a “already dead”. In fact I can’t think of one new CMYK feature in Photoshop since the late ‘90s. But then, it’s Photoshop, not Printshop. ........................................................ Don Hutcheson, President HutchColor, LLC Washington, NJ USA don@hutchcolor.com M: 908-500-0341 ........................................................ On Feb 27, 2015, at 19:49 , Mark Stegman <mark.stegman@gmail.com> wrote:
Don,
I find one of the enduring impressions is that standards are based on 'ideal' conditions. They are based on an average and try to reflect what a printer might be reasonably expected to achieve in the real world. There is still some debate on what that average should be but I just wanted to make the point that his is why the specifications have tolerances. It is also why the tolerances for proofing are tighter than are for printing.
As for the 'problem' of Adobe default Color Settings ( if that's what you were referring to) I personally don't understand it. If anyone in this industry doesn't know how to customise their Color Settings or, better still, access and install those provided by a multitude of global publishing industry organisations along with all the helpful information that goes with it they should be washing windows.
Regards,
Mark Stegman
On Feb 27, 2015, at 8:17 PM, Don Hutcheson <don@hutchcolor.com> wrote:
For a company so vital to the ICC revolution, Adobe’s apparent inability to make good ICC profiles has always surprised me.
Their SWOPV2 didn't follow TR001 and thus produce a good profile for that output specification (at the time)?
In fact I can’t think of one new CMYK feature in Photoshop since the late ‘90s.
Device Link Profile support is one that comes to mind. What CMYK features are needed? Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
Andrew, DeviceLink support, really? I know it is a bit OT, but since you mentioned it, I want to chime in. Adobe's support is somewhat between "it sucks" and "non-existent". The DL conversion is obviously not via an ICC mechanism but und it works like a filter. That's the reason why they are unable to attach the correct device profile after conversion. And this is the reason why images look whacked after DL conversion in Photoshop. And this is why you destroy images permanently if you don't attach the correct profile manually but hit the save button, instead. It was Adobe who introduced the PSID (Profile Sequence Identifier) tag. And it's them who don't (and can't) use their own tag – nearly everybody else in the industry does. So far for DeviceLink support. Mit freundlichen Grüßen/Best regards, Karl Koch Sent from my iPad
Am 28.02.2015 um 04:31 schrieb Andrew Rodney <andrew@digitaldog.net>:
On Feb 27, 2015, at 8:17 PM, Don Hutcheson <don@hutchcolor.com> wrote:
For a company so vital to the ICC revolution, Adobe’s apparent inability to make good ICC profiles has always surprised me.
Their SWOPV2 didn't follow TR001 and thus produce a good profile for that output specification (at the time)?
In fact I can’t think of one new CMYK feature in Photoshop since the late ‘90s.
Device Link Profile support is one that comes to mind.
What CMYK features are needed?
Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/ _______________________________________________ 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/basicc%40me.com
This email sent to basicc@me.com
On Feb 28, 2015, at 2:33 AM, Karl Koch <basicc@me.com> wrote:
Adobe's support is somewhat between "it sucks" and "non-existent". The DL conversion is obviously not via an ICC mechanism but und it works like a filter.
As one who finds Adobe bashing when it isn't pertinent unuseful, I didn't put a judgment on the full functionally. I'm simply pointing out that Adobe DID indeed add some support for CMYK via Deivce Links well past the last 1990's in an aid to Don. IF you want to start a post about how presumably a product you produce and sell is superior, start one. Some of you might ask yourselfs how well your business working with color would be today had Adobe not implemented color management in Photoshop way back in 1998, along with what some suggest is the dreadful SWOPV2 profile. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
Did I mention any one of the products I produce or sell, let alone claiming these products being superior? I am nor aware of that. If I remember correctly, I said that Adobe are nearly the only ones who don't use the tag they had invented, when you mentioned their only progress in supporting CMYK, namely DeviceLinks. And I explained why they are unable to do so. Karl
Am 28.02.2015 um 16:40 schrieb Andrew Rodney <andrew@digitaldog.net>:
IF you want to start a post about how presumably a product you produce and sell is superior, start one.
On 28 Feb 2015, at 03:17, Don Hutcheson <don@hutchcolor.com> wrote:
As for their failure to change the Color Settings default to a more modern CMYK color space, we shouldn’t be surprised. For years, Adobe has treated print as a “already dead”. In fact I can’t think of one new CMYK feature in Photoshop since the late ‘90s.
You’ve got to admire their commitment to halting *any* form of progress in this area though. Only Adobe could ensure that the Desaturate command would never, ever work in CMYK throughout three entire decades. They should change the shortcut from Command-Shift-F To Command-Shift-FU -- Martin Orpen Idea Digital Imaging Ltd
Martin, On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 1:06 AM, Martin Orpen <martin@idea-digital.com> wrote:
Only Adobe could ensure that the Desaturate command would never, ever work in CMYK throughout three entire decades.
They should change the shortcut from
Command-Shift-F
To
Command-Shift-FU
Nice one. Like it. That's going in my lesson material for custom keyboard shortcuts. Attribution is assured. Mark
participants (5)
-
Andrew Rodney
-
Don Hutcheson
-
Karl Koch
-
Mark Stegman
-
Martin Orpen