On 24 Aug 2018, at 07:28, Andreas Kraushaar <Kraushaar@fogra.org> wrote:
if you are close to Munich I invite you to see that what you (can) see on screen is what you get on print. Softproofing is working (both for F39 and F51).
You don’t need to travel further than your screen. Open the BVDM Roman16 image with the blue background. We don’t want more magenta than yellow in her skin — you don’t get that in 39 — but that’s what you get with 51… and then expect it to print well on a blue paper! Convert the same image to 51 in ColorServer and then try explaining the difference to a bewildered client. -- Martin Orpen Idea Digital Imaging Ltd
Hi to all, With the introdcution of the M1 measurement condition and corresponding lightning for the light booth at the press and for proofs, we are running in strong shift for graphics arts color management with standard ICC profiles. The range of paper colors for different paper types expanded massive into the blueish area because of higher activation of optical brighteners in differnt papers. Before M1, the range of paper white for the standard profiles provided both by FOGRA and GRACoL has been from b* -2 to b*1 for the majority of papers. Especially for for FOGRA39 acting as an standard profile - but also for most other profiles, users got an acceptable match from monitor to proof to press (old lightning), when seperation in Photoshop / InDesign is relative colorimetric with BPC, no paper simulation for softproofing and a proof on a FOGRA39 compatible proof media. This colormanagement workflow - which still satisfied majority of users - is history (looking from a standards perspective). A separation with Relcol +BPC with FOGRA51 does not deliver a proper match RGB-image - CMYK image - proof on FOGRA51 "compliant" proof media. There are solution using perceptual colormatching, paperwhite simulation on in Photoshop and lightbooth for proofs with new reference lightning. But these are mor for specialists and for the broad majority of users... Currently, the standards community (FOGRA, ECI, Idealliance etc. ...) has not convinced both the majority of its users base as also Adobe to replace FOGRA39 with FOGRA51 as a standard color setting in Adobe CC. I still doubt, that this makes sense. We may should promote still FOGRA39 (or similar) as an standard color setting and exchange space for the majority of graphic arts users and color servers at the printing house for optimization according the papertype / printing standard. (This includes both PDF/X-4 wuth RGB images and FOGRA39 output intent or FOGRA39 CMYKonly data...) We also should consider, that the majority of print jobs is printed without proofs today. If standard users would send FOGRA39 data and asks for a proof on coated paper, his data would be converted to FOGRA51 with a proper color server and he would get a FOGRA51 proof. If a user still wants to work directly in FOGRA51, the standard community should inform these users, that they should not use their color setting standard setting RelCol+BPC and that they should work on the level of prepress specialist concerning monitor calibration and proofing. If not, they should deliver FOGRA39 and let the printer or the prepress specialist do the job. Regards Jan-Peter Am 24.08.2018 um 11:05 schrieb Martin Orpen:
On 24 Aug 2018, at 07:28, Andreas Kraushaar <Kraushaar@fogra.org> wrote:
if you are close to Munich I invite you to see that what you (can) see on screen is what you get on print. Softproofing is working (both for F39 and F51).
You don’t need to travel further than your screen.
Open the BVDM Roman16 image with the blue background.
We don’t want more magenta than yellow in her skin — you don’t get that in 39 — but that’s what you get with 51… and then expect it to print well on a blue paper!
Convert the same image to 51 in ColorServer and then try explaining the difference to a bewildered client.
_______________________________________________ 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/homann%40colormanage...
This email sent to homann@colormanagement.de
-- Homann colormanagement tel: +49 30 611 075 18 Jan-Peter Homann mob: +49 171 54 70 358 Herzbergstr. 55 www.colormanagement.de 10365 Berlin mailto:homann@colormanagement.de
Hi Jan-Peter, Can you elaborate on what you refer as the "proper color server"? From the look of things, we have to say goodbye to Adobe Photoshop as a conversion and soft proofing tool. What additional functionality in a color server makes it a proper conversion tool? Regards, Refik Telhan On 26.08.2018 22:22, "colorsync-users on behalf of Jan-Peter Homann" <colorsync-users-bounces+rtelhan=icloud.com@lists.apple.com on behalf of homann@colormanagement.de> wrote: Hi to all, With the introdcution of the M1 measurement condition and corresponding lightning for the light booth at the press and for proofs, we are running in strong shift for graphics arts color management with standard ICC profiles. The range of paper colors for different paper types expanded massive into the blueish area because of higher activation of optical brighteners in differnt papers. Before M1, the range of paper white for the standard profiles provided both by FOGRA and GRACoL has been from b* -2 to b*1 for the majority of papers. Especially for for FOGRA39 acting as an standard profile - but also for most other profiles, users got an acceptable match from monitor to proof to press (old lightning), when seperation in Photoshop / InDesign is relative colorimetric with BPC, no paper simulation for softproofing and a proof on a FOGRA39 compatible proof media. This colormanagement workflow - which still satisfied majority of users - is history (looking from a standards perspective). A separation with Relcol +BPC with FOGRA51 does not deliver a proper match RGB-image - CMYK image - proof on FOGRA51 "compliant" proof media. There are solution using perceptual colormatching, paperwhite simulation on in Photoshop and lightbooth for proofs with new reference lightning. But these are mor for specialists and for the broad majority of users... Currently, the standards community (FOGRA, ECI, Idealliance etc. ...) has not convinced both the majority of its users base as also Adobe to replace FOGRA39 with FOGRA51 as a standard color setting in Adobe CC. I still doubt, that this makes sense. We may should promote still FOGRA39 (or similar) as an standard color setting and exchange space for the majority of graphic arts users and color servers at the printing house for optimization according the papertype / printing standard. (This includes both PDF/X-4 wuth RGB images and FOGRA39 output intent or FOGRA39 CMYKonly data...) We also should consider, that the majority of print jobs is printed without proofs today. If standard users would send FOGRA39 data and asks for a proof on coated paper, his data would be converted to FOGRA51 with a proper color server and he would get a FOGRA51 proof. If a user still wants to work directly in FOGRA51, the standard community should inform these users, that they should not use their color setting standard setting RelCol+BPC and that they should work on the level of prepress specialist concerning monitor calibration and proofing. If not, they should deliver FOGRA39 and let the printer or the prepress specialist do the job. Regards Jan-Peter Am 24.08.2018 um 11:05 schrieb Martin Orpen: >> On 24 Aug 2018, at 07:28, Andreas Kraushaar <Kraushaar@fogra.org> wrote: >> >> if you are close to Munich I invite you to see that what you (can) see on screen is what you get on print. Softproofing is working (both for F39 and F51). > > You don’t need to travel further than your screen. > > Open the BVDM Roman16 image with the blue background. > > We don’t want more magenta than yellow in her skin — you don’t get that in 39 — but that’s what you get with 51… and then expect it to print well on a blue paper! > > Convert the same image to 51 in ColorServer and then try explaining the difference to a bewildered client. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/homann%40colormanage... > > This email sent to homann@colormanagement.de -- Homann colormanagement tel: +49 30 611 075 18 Jan-Peter Homann mob: +49 171 54 70 358 Herzbergstr. 55 www.colormanagement.de 10365 Berlin mailto:homann@colormanagement.de _______________________________________________ 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/rtelhan%40icloud.com This email sent to rtelhan@icloud.com
Hi Refik and all, There are Colorservers, which convert images only and other which also convert PDF files. In the graphics arts, it is typical that PDF color servers use devicelink technology to address e.g. conversion with preserving gray, preserving pure primaries and secondaries ,preserve the separation characteristics but adapting TAC or apply inksaving. Concerning PDF Colorservers there are quite a lot solutions on the market ranging from Pitstop or Callas PDF Toolbox (both available as Server or Acrobat PlugIn), Dedicated PDF Colorserver applications from e.G. Alwan, Colorlogic or GMG or the big prepress workflows from e.g AGFA, FUJI, Heidelberg or Kodak Colorlogic also offers Sets of ICC DeviceLink Profiles, which can be used in different applications like e.g. Photoshop, Pitstop and Callas PDF Toolbox, if you are data creator, or your ICC compliant prepress workflow, if you are a printer. A dedicated introduction to devicelink technolgy and PDF color servers is also part of my book: https://www.amazon.com/Digital-Color-Management-Jan-Peter-Homann/dp/35406711... Regards Jan-Peter Am 28.08.2018 um 17:09 schrieb Refik Telhan:
Hi Jan-Peter,
Can you elaborate on what you refer as the "proper color server"? From the look of things, we have to say goodbye to Adobe Photoshop as a conversion and soft proofing tool.
What additional functionality in a color server makes it a proper conversion tool?
Regards,
Refik Telhan
On 26.08.2018 22:22, "colorsync-users on behalf of Jan-Peter Homann" <colorsync-users-bounces+rtelhan=icloud.com@lists.apple.com on behalf of homann@colormanagement.de> wrote:
Hi to all, With the introdcution of the M1 measurement condition and corresponding lightning for the light booth at the press and for proofs, we are running in strong shift for graphics arts color management with standard ICC profiles.
The range of paper colors for different paper types expanded massive into the blueish area because of higher activation of optical brighteners in differnt papers.
Before M1, the range of paper white for the standard profiles provided both by FOGRA and GRACoL has been from b* -2 to b*1 for the majority of papers.
Especially for for FOGRA39 acting as an standard profile - but also for most other profiles, users got an acceptable match from monitor to proof to press (old lightning), when seperation in Photoshop / InDesign is relative colorimetric with BPC, no paper simulation for softproofing and a proof on a FOGRA39 compatible proof media.
This colormanagement workflow - which still satisfied majority of users - is history (looking from a standards perspective). A separation with Relcol +BPC with FOGRA51 does not deliver a proper match RGB-image - CMYK image - proof on FOGRA51 "compliant" proof media.
There are solution using perceptual colormatching, paperwhite simulation on in Photoshop and lightbooth for proofs with new reference lightning. But these are mor for specialists and for the broad majority of users...
Currently, the standards community (FOGRA, ECI, Idealliance etc. ...) has not convinced both the majority of its users base as also Adobe to replace FOGRA39 with FOGRA51 as a standard color setting in Adobe CC.
I still doubt, that this makes sense. We may should promote still FOGRA39 (or similar) as an standard color setting and exchange space for the majority of graphic arts users and color servers at the printing house for optimization according the papertype / printing standard. (This includes both PDF/X-4 wuth RGB images and FOGRA39 output intent or FOGRA39 CMYKonly data...)
We also should consider, that the majority of print jobs is printed without proofs today.
If standard users would send FOGRA39 data and asks for a proof on coated paper, his data would be converted to FOGRA51 with a proper color server and he would get a FOGRA51 proof.
If a user still wants to work directly in FOGRA51, the standard community should inform these users, that they should not use their color setting standard setting RelCol+BPC and that they should work on the level of prepress specialist concerning monitor calibration and proofing. If not, they should deliver FOGRA39 and let the printer or the prepress specialist do the job.
Regards Jan-Peter
Am 24.08.2018 um 11:05 schrieb Martin Orpen: >> On 24 Aug 2018, at 07:28, Andreas Kraushaar <Kraushaar@fogra.org> wrote: >> >> if you are close to Munich I invite you to see that what you (can) see on screen is what you get on print. Softproofing is working (both for F39 and F51). > > You don’t need to travel further than your screen. > > Open the BVDM Roman16 image with the blue background. > > We don’t want more magenta than yellow in her skin — you don’t get that in 39 — but that’s what you get with 51… and then expect it to print well on a blue paper! > > Convert the same image to 51 in ColorServer and then try explaining the difference to a bewildered client. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/homann%40colormanage... > > This email sent to homann@colormanagement.de
-- Homann colormanagement tel: +49 30 611 075 18 Jan-Peter Homann mob: +49 171 54 70 358 Herzbergstr. 55 www.colormanagement.de 10365 Berlin mailto:homann@colormanagement.de
_______________________________________________ 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/rtelhan%40icloud.com
This email sent to rtelhan@icloud.com
-- Homann colormanagement tel: +49 30 611 075 18 Jan-Peter Homann mob: +49 171 54 70 358 Herzbergstr. 55 www.colormanagement.de 10365 Berlin mailto:homann@colormanagement.de
On 26 Aug 2018, at 20:22, Jan-Peter Homann <homann@colormanagement.de> wrote:
If a user still wants to work directly in FOGRA51, the standard community should inform these users, that they should not use their color setting standard setting RelCol+BPC and that they should work on the level of prepress specialist concerning monitor calibration and proofing. If not, they should deliver FOGRA39 and let the printer or the prepress specialist do the job.
This is good advice. The majority of people working with Photoshop and FOGRA51 & 52 will automatically choose RelCol+BPC because they will see hardly any shift in the RGB to CMYK conversions. The experience seems very much like using FOGRA39… until they see the proofs & print — which will be very disappointing. In the UK, the term “gammon” is becoming very popular as a description of the magenta skin colour of shouty, aggressive, white nationalists who demand we leave the EU on TV debate shows. Unfortunately the new standards are turning us all into gammons :( -- Martin Orpen Idea Digital Imaging Ltd
Martin, don't blame ECI for Brexit. ;-) My take of the discussion: relative colorimetric RI (with BPC) does not work for PSO Coated v3 - because of the architecture of ICC. Also Profiles created with other application does not lead to pleasant results (with relcol+BPC). PSO coated v3 is less suitable as a connection/master colorspace as ISO coated v2 was For Hi-End-Users (that uses proofs and color-servers) Fogra51 is an improvement, for the rest (95%) not. Btw, was this topic discussed/the issue mentioned before this thread arises? Kind regards, Jörg Schober
On 31 Aug 2018, at 13:24, jslist@vollbio.de wrote:
don't blame ECI for Brexit. ;-)
We will be OK, we are switching to British-sourced paper, printers, software and instrument makers… when I can find them... [snip]
Btw, was this topic discussed/the issue mentioned before this thread arises?
We discussed 52 last year. We hadn’t been supplied a large number of Photoshop conversions to Fogra 51 until this job turned up — so it was the first time we’d seen the huge differences between PS and our GMG ColorServer separations. Regards -- Martin Orpen Idea Digital Imaging Ltd
participants (4)
-
Jan-Peter Homann
-
jslist＠vollbio.de
-
Martin Orpen
-
Refik Telhan