Dan Margulis Applied Color Theory

Should a Printer Honor CMYK Profiles?

CMYK Images (w/ Profiles) that require modification.
Posted by: "Pylant, Brian"
Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:49 pm (PST)

I'm curious as to how other listmembers handle editing CMYK files with embedded profiles, when new files and/or additional info from the customer is not possible. Specifically, do you honor the profiles, discard them, or make a decision per image based on some other criteria?

Dan recommends discarding CMYK profiles (PP5, pg. 296), for reasons that make sense to me in theory, but unfortunately our situation is a bit atypical. To put things into perspective, we are the in-house prepress and print shop for a CD manufacturer, not a traditional prepress bureau or printshop. We deal with a lot of customers who are designing their own projects, or have hired friends or other non-professionals to do their artwork, and as such the quality of the files (from a technical, not artistic, perspective) is all over the map but with significant numbers at the low end. It's just the nature of our business.

One area where files are often out of spec is total ink; we routinely receive files that are 340% - 400% (!!!) and we clearly cannot let them run as-is.

If a traditional printer receives a file that violates their total ink, they are more likely to reject the file than make any adjustments (at least not without consulting with the designer first). However, given our customer base and production schedule that is not a viable option; if we *can* work with a file (with or without modifications) we *will*, knowing that our typical customer is more appreciative of us watching their backs than they are upset with us for modifying their CMYK files.

Which isn't to say I'm not concerned about delivering the highest possible quality regardless of what I'm given, and using the most appropriate methods to acheive that. (Not to mention training 30+ prepress operators to take the most appropriate action as well.) And I have seen that it is easy to get different results depending on whether you honor the profile or discard it, espcially when making profile conversions to tackle high ink and related problems.

Any advice, insight and/or guideance would be most appreciated.

BRIAN PYLANT
Manager, Electronic Prepress
___________________________________________________________________________

Re: CMYK Images (w/ Profiles) that require modification.
Posted by: Henry Davis
Thu Jan 22, 2009 5:04 pm (PST)

I hear you, and can't wait to hear the responses about educating your clients and their designers and everyone else who calls on the phone to all things color related. Ooo, and then there's the ethical part about honoring or changing a file - sorting out that dilemma is always a treat that brings out the Lieutenant Tragg in me. And then there's the custom profiles you'll need to provide (and explain) for each of your print conditions and each of them with varying black generations. But, you're shop probably has the time and resources available to hand-hold each and every client? No, probably not.
 
And don't forget that it's all push-button easy, and always good.

And fast.

And cheap.

My advice is to do whatever works the best for you, realizing that here is no perfect answer for your situation. You may decide, as unfair as it sounds, to apply more resources to some clients than others while still managing the others in a way that makes them happy. Providing options is a flexible approach that allows for the lack of perfection in the system. You are experienced and are aware of the various challenges. I eagerly await the post that recommends *the* perfect solution.

Henry Davis
___________________________________________________________________________

Re: CMYK Images (w/ Profiles) that require modification.
Posted by: Terence Wyse
Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:10 am (PST)

This "discussion" should be interesting indeed, given the rather heated discussion we had a few months ago regarding device link conversions in the prepress workflow prior to plate production.

What do you all think? Violate the customer's intention by discarding the profile or honoring the color appearance of their image by preserving the embedded profile? Which is more sacred, the numbers in the file even if the color goes to hell or honoring what the customer intended their job to look like even if you have to alter the CMYK values to preserve the color?

Are you going to say we don't give a rat's bottom about what your color expectation is but we intend to blindly send these CMYK values through our system and plate them as-is and print them to some unknown by your client press condition....or on the off-chance that you DO have a profile of your press, you intend to withhold that from your customer because it's a trade secret of your shop but would be the only chance your customer would have in providing you the separations you require?

This should be delicious!

Regards,
Terry Wyse

______________________________
Terence Wyse, WyseConsul
Color Management Consulting
G7 Certified Expert
___________________________________________________________________________

Re: CMYK Images (w/ Profiles) that require modification.
Posted by: "John Romano"
Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:12 am (PST)

Hi Brian

Sure this isn't going to be what this list wants to hear but.....here goes !

We break things up into 2 categories here, if it is images that are being proofed out as Loose color We will convert from the supplied profile to our profiles. No profiles we will Assign a profile That makes the image look pleasing on our calibrated and profiled monitors and then convert To our profiles. All being done in Photoshop.

For supplied pdfs we use Alwan CMYK optimizer to bring ALL pages into the same TAC. Alwan analyses the pages and only optimizes the ones that are out of range. Yes this is Device Link application that handles optimization for TAC and Ink savings !

In scenario one, we would rather show a proof the first time that looks good rather Than show one that did not.

No sense in wasting time, money and certainly put doubt in our customer� ??s Eyes As to why their files look good on printer A� ??s proofing but not on ours.

We proof and separate to an industry standard , if the softproof doesn� ??t look good we fix the file. Any edits start with an immediate CONVERT to our profiles.

We have been doing this long enough to know the VALUE of having ALL files in the same Color space On press and having the added benefit of Ink savings on long Web runs.

Also using something Like Alwan only the person who sets it up really needs to know what Is going on, no need to train 30+ people on how to convert or why.

--
John Romano
___________________________________________________________________________

Re: CMYK Images (w/ Profiles) that require modification.
Posted by: Dan Margulis
Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:43 am (PST)

On Jan 22, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Pylant, Brian wrote:

I'm curious as to how other listmembers handle editing CMYK files
with embedded profiles, when new files and/or additional info from
the customer is not possible. Specifically, do you honor the
profiles, discard them, or make a decison per image based on some
other criteria?

This question was addressed in a lengthy 2002 thread at
http: //www.ledet.com/margulis/ACT_postings/ProfilingandProofing/ACT-Dangers-of-Embedding.htm

The printer had honored an embedded CMYK profile which turned out to be incorrect, ruining the job, and the client did not wish to pay. Although there were differences of rationale, the group unanimously felt that the printer was to blame and had to eat the cost.

I wrote to the printer, "In the year 2002, expecting embedded profiles to be honored by another party is a highly nonstandard workflow. If Party A expects Party B to respect the profile, it's up to Party A to make sure that both are on the same wavelength. Absent such a request, if Party B decides to respect the profile nonetheless, then it's Party B's problem if things don't turn out well. That's what your company did, so it should eat the cost...If the client wants them used, it's the client's obligation to make that fact known. It's not fair to penalize the client for inadvertently throwing profiles in. If the printer decides to use them, the printer is the one who takes the responsibility."

Shortly thereafter we had one of the many threads where a photographer had supplied an Adobe RGB-tagged file to a printer, who ignored the embedded profile, ruining the job, and the client did not wish to pay. I felt the same sympathy that I have for the hundred or so other folk who have reported the same problem, but I said that in view of the fact that embedded tags are routinely ignored by service providers, it was up to the client to call attention to the tag, and having failed to do so, he should pay.

Interestingly, the color management advocates on the list took the position that the printer has to pay either way! That is, if the printer honors the profile and it's wrong, then the printer pays, but if he doesn't honor it and it's right, then the printer pays. This appears to be the flip side of John Romano's post today, where he asserts a unilateral right to intervene in client's files without their permission. In that scenario, if he honors the profile and it's wrong, the client pays, and if he doesn't honor it and it's right, the client pays, and if he assigns a profile randomly and it's wrong, the client pays also.

I don't think any of these positions has merit. Either the client has to be responsible for tagging the file accurately, and be required to pay the price if it is not, or the printer should not attempt to outguess him by making unwarranted assumptions. If I were a printer, I would have a stated, written policy that clients would get up front, stating that in the absence of contrary instructions we will honor RGB embedded tags and ignore CMYK. But if there is no such agreed-upon policy in effect, heads-I-win-tails-you-lose is not fair to either printer or client.

Dan recommends discarding CMYK profiles (PP5, pg. 296), for reasons
that make sense to me in theory, but unfortunately our situation is
a bit atypical. To put things into perspective, we are the in-house
prepress and print shop for a CD manufacturer, not a traditional
prepress bureau or printshop. We deal with a lot of customers who
are designing their own projects, or have hired friends or other
non-professionals to do their artwork, and as such the quality of
the files (from a technical, not artistic, perspective) is all over
the map but with significant numbers at the low end. It's just the
nature of our business.

First of all, you should have something on whatever it is you hand out to your clients stating for the record what your policy is. Second, you need to know your client. It sounds like you have a fairly liberal arrangement where a certain amount of handholding on your part is expected. For example, you state that the files often come in with too high an ink limit and that you generally will change it, presumably without notifying your client. Already that's something that certain clients would not accept; if that happened with one of my jobs, I would want it stopped until I could give instructions, I would not permit the printer to reseparate unilaterally.

As for making an ad hoc decision on whether the embedded CMYK profile is good, if your clients don't know what ink limit to give you they certainly don't know whether their embedded profiles have any meaning. OTOH they may be expecting you to "make the job look good," whatever it takes. In that case, you'd be free to try to outguess them.

My test would be this. If you saw a picture in your client's job that was grossly green, and you feel comfortable opening that file and moving it at least slightly toward something more balanced, then there shouldn't be any objection to your making assumptions about profiles. It's all a matter of comfort level between you and your client, as always.

Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________

Re: CMYK Images (w/ Profiles) that require modification.
Posted by: "John Romano"
Fri Jan 23, 2009 7:08 am (PST)

On 1/23/09 9:25 AM, "Dan Margulis" wrote:

Interestingly, the color management advocates on the list took the
position that the printer has to pay either way! That is, if the
printer honors the profile and it's wrong, then the printer pays, but
if he doesn't honor it and it's right, then the printer pays. This
appears to be the flip side of John Romano's post today, where he
asserts a unilateral right to intervene in client's files without
their permission. In that scenario, if he honors the profile and it's
wrong, the client pays, and if he doesn't honor it and it's right,
the client pays, and if he assigns a profile randomly and it's wrong,
the client pays also.

I don't think either of these positions has merit.

Who better should know what is going to print better ?

That� ??s Correct the PRINTER !

And its THEIR responsibility when INK hits paper as to what is the correct way.

If someone wants to supply files to us with our profiles then we will provide them with our profiles that reflect how WE print !

John Romano
___________________________________________________________________________

Re: CMYK Images (w/ Profiles) that require modification.
Posted by: "Louis Dina"
Fri Jan 23, 2009 7:08 am (PST)

Terry,

I had the pleasure of working with a very capable commercial printer who understood color management, had a well calibrated system and good process control. I always used their press profile for my jobs. My inkjet proofs matched theirs, and their proof matched the press sheet,
within VERY narrow and acceptable tolerances. I almost always attended press checks, and we'd make final adjustments to narrow those differences even further. I knew what I was doing, so did they, and I had the luxury of selecting them as my printer for all our marketing and advertising materials. But, I suspect color and tonal range accuracy mattered a lot more to me than it does the average user.

But....I was the ONLY person who worked this way with them, and the ONLY one supplied color managed files with ICC tags. The reason we were able to proceed in this fashion was that we communicated clearly and I instructed them to honor my profiles (actually it was their profile). I got to know the prepress people at the printing company first, so we were on the same page. They liked it because when I submitted a file, they could usually send it directly to press without any rework.

They said they could not work that way with most of their clients. So, in this day and age where things are all over the map, it doesn't seem that one size fits all. Some designers and corporate clients were clueless, so the printer did what they felt was right, which sometimes meant NOT honoring the profile, or turning color management off and just printing the numbers in the files. Their proof was the final standard to be matched. It was up to the client to reject the proof if they didn't like it. If it clearly looked wrong, they would adjust the files so it looked 'right'. I know...touchy stuff sometimes. These guys were great printers and very conscientious, and their work was high quality. They certainly weren't ordinary, nor were they the cheapest.

I think a lot of the onus has to be on the person submitting the file. They need to express their needs and desires clearly. I always sent a letter with my submissions, stating exactly what I wanted. That's what I got. Most people don't.

IF the industry ever reaches the point where it is more standardized, (a big IF), we may no longer have to do this. So, I don't see it all one way or the other. Depends on the circumstances. I want MY color and profiles honored, but others may have a big surprise if those profiles are honored (especially if they don't know what they are doing).

Lou Dina
___________________________________________________________________________

Re: CMYK Images (w/ Profiles) that require modification.
Posted by: "Todd Shirley"
Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:51 pm (PST)

Hi Brian

The debate on this list seems to center around whether or not the customer intended for you to honor their profile. Normally I assume that if someone embeds a profile, they want me to honor it. If the file has to be modified for ink limit, I will convert (relative colorimetric, with BPC) to a profile appropriate for the print condition and that's that. However, it sounds like you might not be able to make that assumption so you really have to go on a per image (or per client) basis.

To me, embedding profiles is all about communication. An embedded profile is SUPPOSED to mean this: "This is what this image file is supposed to look like. This is the colorspace these numbers were created for". If you can't be sure what the customer is trying to communicate, the next best thing is a proof. Did they provide a contract proof of how they want the job to look? Do you provide them with a contract proof of how it will print? This is also communicating a visual goal. As long as the client is signing off on a proof that you are confident that you can match, nothing else really matters; re- separate their file, discard the profile, color correct in photoshop� ’· it doesn't really matter as long as you can produce the agreed-upon color in the end.

If you have a calibrated and profiled monitor and the client has supplied you with a proof, you should be able to tell just by comparing the proof to the screen if they want you to honor the profile. If they are not even close, try assigning a profile that brings them closer. If no profile works for that, then assign your press profile and color-correct until you can create a proof that matches theirs.

-Todd Shirley
___________________________________________________________________________

Re: CMYK Images (w/ Profiles) that require modification.
Posted by: "Pylant, Brian"
Mon Jan 26, 2009 8:52 am (PST)

Thanks for the responses. I have a few replies/clarifications (and please let me know if I missed something specific I should have responded to):

As long as the client is signing off on a proof that
you are confident that you can match, nothing else really matters; re-
separate their file, discard the profile, color correct in photoshop—
it doesn't really matter as long as you can produce the agreed-upon
color in the end.

I agree, the end typically justifies the means especially if it's transparent to the customer. In many cases, however, I am forced to modify a file to meet printing specs with absolutely no clue as to the expectations of the customer before I issue a proof (see the next reply below). Honor the profile and get one result, discard it and get another. Sometimes one result is the obvious choice, but not always.

Hence:

... or honoring what the customer
intended their job to look like even if you have to alter the CMYK
values to preserve the color?

That's certainly what I would like to do in a perfect world. In many cases we can't answer this, since we don't really know what they are expecting to receive. A giant chunk of our customer base consists of non-professional designers, who really don't understand printing and how to supply files for professional output, and who sometimes have very unrealistic expectations of what can be delivered (think: "here's my super-vibrant RGB image, and a print of said image on my $49 inkjet using extra-bright photo paper. Since you're running a multi-million dollar press I don't understand why you can't get the same results!").

I'm sure many of you have similar exepriences, although I suspect they are your exception rather than our rule.

The debate on this list seems to center around whether or not the
customer intended for you to honor their profile. Normally I assume
that if someone embeds a profile, they want me to honor it.

Given the type of files we typically receive I think we generally must assume the opposite, that any embedded profile was not an intentional choice. But I also feel that always discarding the profile as a rule isn't necessarily the best idea, either. It's trying to figure out which is best for a given situation (and training a large prepress staff on the same) that I find most difficult.

If you can't be sure what the customer is trying to
communicate, the next best thing is a proof. Did they provide a
contract proof of how they want the job to look?

More often than not we receive no proof whatsoever, and when we do it's often a consumer-grade inkjet on super-bright photo paper. Sometimes on really cheap photocopier paper. Occasionally on non-white paper. Once on notebook paper (complete with "boogers"). Really.

I can count on probably three or four hands, maybe five (over the course of 13 years and many tens of thousands of jobs) the number of proofs we've received that we could actually use as an accurate color reference, output from a professional-level proofing device and usable as a contract proof.

It sounds like you have a fairly liberal arrangement where
a certain amount of handholding on your part is expected.

That is absolutely correct, and in some cases it goes far beyond "a certain amount of handholding." We are definitely a "value-added" provider in that regard, where we will go ahead and fix many things. Sometimes to the aggravation of a small number who didn't set things up correctly but didn't want us to fix anything, either. (It is an equally small number who send us files that are 100% ready-to-go as-is, and of course we don't touch these at all.)

For example, you state that the files often
come in with too high an ink limit and that you generally will change
it, presumably without notifying your client.

No, we do notify them that we've made a change, but that comes via a note with the proofs. Post-modification.

What we do not do is stop the job, try to get the customer (who may or may not be the designer, and who may or may not have a clue about any of this regardless) on the phone, explain what we've found, ask if they want us to fix it or if they'd like to resupply, try to explain to them *how* to fix it and all the variables involved, etc. We recognize something that violates our spec, we make an adjustment, and we move on.

ossly green...

One thing we don't ever do is make subjective judgements about color or design, any modification we make is for technical purposes only (even if I know I could make the image look better, which is often). As one of the staff often says, "it might be an ugly baby but it's *their* ugly baby."
:o)

As always, I appreciate the wisdom everyone brings to the list, and taking the time to help and advise. We are in a somewhat unique position in regards to the types of files we receive and how we handle them, and I'm always looking for ways to improve our process and make things easier for both us and our customers.

BRIAN PYLANT
Manager, Electronic Prepress

Disc Makers
7905 North Route 130
Pennsauken, NJ 08110