Dan Margulis Applied Color Theory
Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 02:14:25 -0000
From: "Mark Tucker"
Subject: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
I am an advertising photographer. This year, I
converted to digital cameras, (the Canon 1Ds, with 32meg 8bit RGB file).
Given the knowledge level here in the prepress and printing area, I would
like to know how you guys feel about a couple of issues.
* Submitting Proofs: There has been much discussion
about various ways to mimic a CMYK matchprint, either through Epson
Ultrachromes with SemiMatte; or with the Fuji Pictrography, or even sending
out for something like a Kodak Approval. Some would say that the Epsons, or
the Pictros, are not valid in any way, in the prepress world, due to there
being no dot; even if the profiles are handled well, and the color is
accurate. Would you think that, in general, a prepress person would
"honor" anything other than a MatchPrint or a Kodak Approval?
I am asking around at my local prepress houses, and
many of them do not run the Approval machines; they might run the CMYK
Pictro, or some other "digital proofer". Is the Approval the only
real trustable "standard", or are there other proofing devices
that most people in prepress would trust?
My goal is to submit something that the prepress guy
will trust and respect; something that he knows, and something that's in
"his language".
* CMYK vs RGB Submissions: If we, as photographers, are
asked to convert to CMYK, but for some reason we cannot find the specs or
the ICC profile for the job at the time that we are delivering it, is there
some agreed-upon CMYK spec that could be said would be a "safe general
all-around method" to convert to? Many times, either my clients don't
know the final purpose, or there are multiple purposes, (sheet AND web),
or, they know, but they can't get the prepress guy on the phone to confirm
it. So, as a result, we are forced to "pick a flavor" to convert
to, since most clients are not comfortable with me submitting RGB.
On this same point, do you think, in the future, say,
in two to five years, that prepress will step up and be more comfortable
accepting RGB images, if they were delivered in some agreed-upon standard
such as Adobe98RGB? In my town, Nashville, the prepress guys are, for the
most part, not color managed, and they seem very uncomfortable doing the
conversion to CMYK, and therefore being responsible for the color. So we've
kinda got this gap in the workflow, where nobody wants to deal with the
responsibility of actually making the conversion from RGB. Some of my
cohorts think that photographers will eventually be making these decisions;
others seem to think that prepress will step forward; personally, I would
prefer that prepress did it, due to multi-purposing for various uses. I
feel that my clients are more accustomed to dealing with prepress for
output issues. And I really don't want to be in that role anyway.
* General Thoughts on This Transition to Digital: Do
any of you have any recommendations to photographers who are shooting
digitally? Since there is no film to put on a light box and say, "Yes,
the color of the shirt is this exact shade of blue", photographers
seem to be dependent on ICC profiles to deal with color management. Yet we
seem to be getting some resistance on the prepress end. In the spirit of
"making this all work", can you offer any suggestions or insight
to make this transition to digital photography more smooth, when the job is
predestined for offset printing?
Thank you.
Mark Tucker, http://marktucker.com
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 06:22:16 -0400
From: Laurentiu Todie
Subject: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
Mark, I would recommend that you convert a copy of your
master (Adobe RGB) file to the ColorMatch RGB space for soft and Epson
proofing (if the offset printing is to be done in 4 colors). (well... Adobe
RGB has too much color and ColorMatch a bit too few)
If the master was good but the conversion produced
unacceptable color, you're pretty much screwed and have to work with a
reputable pre press house (or guru) to get the color right.
If the conversion looks right and the printer is
unknown or doesn't provide a press profile for CMYK conversion, make it US
SWAP coated v.2
If that doesn't look right, you are screwed and have to
work with (see above) ... blah, blah...
Laurentiu
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 08:33:01 -0400
From: "Remaley, Dan"
Subject: RE: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
If you would like some process control information for
newspapers (SNAP). I have written several articles at
<newsandtech.com> search under 'remaley'.
Dan
Dan Remaley
Process Control Mgr.
Graphic Arts Technical Foundation
412.741.6860x450
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 13:29:17 -0000
From: Stephen Marsh
Subject: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
Mark Tucker wrote:
* Submitting Proofs: Would you think that, in general,
a prepress person
would "honor" anything other than a
MatchPrint or a Kodak Approval?
If two parties agree on a 'contract proof' or
'aimprint' or 'guide' for whatever term/application they wish to use, then
yes.
But many third parties may not be that trusting, they
may accept a supplied print as an aimpoint but not a contract proof and
produce their own proof, which they know and trust more so than some
'print' sent in with a disk.
The evil $ rules, most will be happy with a non
halftone proof if the colour is accurate (lets hope that the time is put in
on preflighting pre and post RIPing of data to catch these missed issues).
I am asking around at my local prepress houses, and
many of them do
not run the Approval machines; they might run the CMYK
Pictro, or some
other "digital proofer". Is the Approval the
only real trustable
"standard", or are there other proofing
devices that most people in
prepress would trust?
I would say that many only trust what they themself
run, or if they know the proofs supplier and they trust them.
My goal is to submit something that the prepress guy
will trust and
respect; something that he knows, and something that's
in "his
language".
This would very much depend on the prepress guy in
question and the workflow.
* CMYK vs RGB Submissions: If we, as photographers, are
asked to
convert to CMYK, but for some reason we cannot find the
specs or the
ICC profile for the job at the time that we are
delivering it, is
there some agreed-upon CMYK spec that could be said
would be a "safe
general all-around method" to convert to?
Depends who you ask. By the 'textbook', no conversion
should take place without knowing the output conditions - so supply RGB.
Back in the real world, a 'SWOP' type separation could be considered common
for some markets and for many years CMYK was scanned on the fly to similar
aimpoints - even if the final output was not known.
Many times, either my
clients don't know the final purpose, or there are
multiple purposes,
(sheet AND web), or, they know, but they can't get the
prepress guy on
the phone to confirm it. So, as a result, we are forced
to "pick a
flavor" to convert to, since most clients are not
comfortable with me
submitting RGB.
Understood - this is why RGB is appealing, but if you
can't trust the next stage to handle the supplied RGB file correctly and
they prefer CMYK but are not helpful enough to give you the hard info you
need...
SWOP or Euro type aimpoints are often common in these
situations, depending on the location.
Don't forget about hardcopy and electronic read me
notes informing the next party of the files aimpoints for separation and
contact details etc.
Stephen Marsh.
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:25:52 -0400
From: Terry Wyse
Subject: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
on 8/16/03 10:14 PM, Mark Tucker wrote:
My goal is to submit something that the prepress guy
will trust and
respect; something that he knows, and something that's
in "his
language".
A Fuji Pictro proof wouldn't be first choice for
something akin to a contract proof but many people are using the Epson x600
Ultrachrome printers with good success AS LONG AS you invest in a good
color-managed RIP (Best Colorproof, Colorburst etc.). With RIPs similar to
these, you can insert your prepress/print providers press/proof profile and
simulate their proofing system/presses very well.
The "Approval" has become almost like the
term "Matchprint" but there's nothing magic about a Kodak
Approval proof. Other similar proofing systems would be Fuji FinalProof,
Creo Spectrum, Presstek HDP and Polaproof. These are all digital halftone
proofers.
The issue of contone "no-dot" proofing is
rapidly becoming a non-issue. Case in point: I've been involved with
rather large printing organizations that are rapidly either augmenting or
replacing altogether their "Approval" proofing systems. I
would say the majority of printers DON'T see the need for dots anymore
unless their client insists on a dot proof. And there are inkjet proofing
solutions like Best ScreenProof that can do a reasonable job of halftone
proofing at line screens of 175 line or less.
On this same point, do you think, in the future, say,
in two to five
years, that prepress will step up and be more
comfortable accepting
RGB images, if they were delivered in some agreed-upon
standard such
as Adobe98RGB? In my town, Nashville, the prepress guys
are, for the
most part, not color managed, and they seem very
uncomfortable doing
the conversion to CMYK, and therefore being responsible
for the color.
So we've kinda got this gap in the workflow, where
nobody wants to
deal with the responsibility of actually making the
conversion from
RGB. Some of my cohorts think that photographers will
eventually be
making these decisions; others seem to think that
prepress will step
forward; personally, I would prefer that prepress did
it, due to
multi-purposing for various uses. I feel that my
clients are more
accustomed to dealing with prepress for output issues.
And I really
don't want to be in that role anyway.
(Here we go again!)
If I were you, I'd search out a printer that will
accept and honor your RGB file with an embedded profile. This will allow
them the greatest flexibility when converting to CMYK as opposed to dealing
with your CMYK which may or may not be separated for their proof/press
conditions. The contract proof will be your "proof" that they did
the job to your satisfaction. If that scares you then have them provide
THEIR standard CMYK destination profile and you do the conversion yourself.
Using their profile, you could even make the proof yourself to verify the
results.
The alternative of YOU separating the file using some
"generic" CMYK profile I believe is potentially more dangerous.
If you separate the file yourself and provide it to them Untagged, the
color may not be to your liking and you'll probably incur additional color
correction charges. Provide them a TAGGED CMYK file and you may be opening
up yourself for an unwanted conversion to their CMYK profile along with the
inherent risks of a CMYK-to-CMYK conversion. This is the reason I believe
that sending along tagged RGB data is the way to go; the color will be more
"right" than some generic CMYK separation and is more likely to
have the correct values for their print conditions (dot gain, total ink
amount, UCR/GCR, etc.).
And of course, ANY of these scenarios should be
accompanied with good communication between you and the prepress dept. If
you send them tagged data, let them know that so they can be assured that
you knew what you were doing when you embedded the profile. That should
give them the heads-up to honor your profile and do the right thing with
the image. If all you get is blank stares from them, then that is your clue
to either ask for their CMYK profile OR separate it yourself and send it
along Untagged along with the inherent risk that the color may not be
optimum.
* General Thoughts on This Transition to Digital: Do
any of you have
any recommendations to photographers who are shooting
digitally? Since
there is no film to put on a light box and say,
"Yes, the color of the
shirt is this exact shade of blue", photographers
seem to be dependent
on ICC profiles to deal with color management. Yet we
seem to be
getting some resistance on the prepress end. In the
spirit of "making
this all work", can you offer any suggestions or
insight to make this
transition to digital photography more smooth, when the
job is
predestined for offset printing?
First of all, you should be using good digicam profiles
so your data is properly tagged/assigned when opening it in Photoshop. We
could argue all day about how well digicam profiling works but I'd say it
will give you the best hope of matching the products/artwork that your
photographing. After tagging/assigning your digicam profile, it's your call
whether you want to convert into one of the standard Photoshop RGB working
spaces (I would). Proof it as RGB to your profiled inkjet printer and use
this as you virtual "transparency". Based on this proof, you or
the prepress folks should be able to make an intelligent decision about
converting to CMYK (rendering intents, UCR/GCR settings etc.).
As far as the reluctance on the prepress side to using
profiles, it's NOT universal like some would have you believe. Search out a
printer/prepress shop that uses profiles internally and that will welcome
your tagged images. Trust me, they're out there, you just need to look and
ask questions.
Cheers,
Terry
--
__________________________________
WyseConsul
Color Management Consulting
v 704.843.0858
__________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:53:27 -0400
From: "fred"
Subject: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
on 8/16/03 10:14 PM, Mark Tucker wrote:
* Submitting Proofs: There has been much discussion
about various ways
to mimic a CMYK matchprint, either through Epson
Ultrachromes with
SemiMatte; or with the Fuji Pictrography, or even
sending out for
something like a Kodak Approval. Some would say that
the Epsons, or
the Pictros, are not valid in any way, in the prepress
world, due to
there being no dot; even if the profiles are handled
well, and the
color is accurate. Would you think that, in general, a
prepress person
would "honor" anything other than a
MatchPrint or a Kodak Approval?
Speaking from a printer's viewpoint; we will not accept
any non-dot proof from a first time client unless we have had some lead
time to establish that a supplied digital non-dot proof will match our
internal Kodak Approvals. We do have several clients with whom we have
tested and will accept non-dot proofs supplied by these clients. Printers
tend to be nervous about those proofs as the absence of dots is very
unsettling. Stephen Marsh is correct in stating the evil dollar rules I
can't afford to lose any dollars because I trusted a non-dot proof, that I
couldn't match, it is cheaper for me to make an Approval than it is to
reprint.
* CMYK vs RGB Submissions: If we, as photographers, are
asked to
convert to CMYK, but for some reason we cannot find the
specs or the
ICC profile for the job at the time that we are
delivering it, is
there some agreed-upon CMYK spec that could be said
would be a "safe
general all-around method" to convert to? Many
times, either my
clients don't know the final purpose, or there are
multiple purposes,
(sheet AND web), or, they know, but they can't get the
prepress guy on
the phone to confirm it. So, as a result, we are forced
to "pick a
flavor" to convert to, since most clients are not
comfortable with me
submitting RGB.
Our shop will accept RGB. There have been several
threads here recently however where many people in this group indicate they
prefer sending untagged cmyk to the printer so as not have any issues
regarding conversions etc... as a printer these files are great to deal
with, we don't have to do anything with it other than make sure it is
linked properly to your layout application (indesign, quark, PageMaker)
then postscript, impose and RIP it.
* General Thoughts on This Transition to Digital: Do
any of you have
any recommendations to photographers who are shooting
digitally? Since
there is no film to put on a light box and say,
"Yes, the color of the
shirt is this exact shade of blue", photographers
seem to be dependent
on ICC profiles to deal with color management. Yet we
seem to be
getting some resistance on the prepress end. In the
spirit of "making
this all work", can you offer any suggestions or
insight to make this
transition to digital photography more smooth, when the
job is
predestined for offset printing?
Everyone here is more qualified to answer this than I
am, their answers will no doubt be forthcoming.
Fred Gamber
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 12:40:21 -0400
From: Terry Wyse
Subject: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
on 8/18/03 10:25 AM, Terry Wyse wrote:
A Fuji Pictro proof wouldn't be first choice for
something akin to a
contract proof but many people are using the Epson x600
Ultrachrome printers
with good success AS LONG AS you invest in a good
color-managed RIP (Best
Colorproof, Colorburst etc.). With RIPs similar to
these, you can insert
your prepress/print providers press/proof profile and
simulate their
proofing system/presses very well.
In light of my recommendation to submit tagged RGB to
your prepress service provider, I forgot to mention ANOTHER option that may
be the best of all worlds for you:
There are a few ICC color-managed RIPs where you can
actually submit your RGB image but get a proof that's a CMYK simulation in
your preferred "press" space as opposed to taking the RGB image
and "proofing" it to the full gamut of the inkjet device. The
conversion goes something like: RGB -> PressCMYK -> Inkjet CcMmYKk
(or whatever).
A couple of products that offer this "3-way"
conversion are: Best PhotoXPosure (PC) and Best Photo Edition (Mac)
ColorBurst Systems RIPs, both PC and Mac OS X platforms.
The beauty of this workflow would be that you could
supply the tagged RGB image but submit a CMYK proof along with the file to
be used as a guide for THEIR CMYK conversion. Unless their CMYK process is
significiantly different (flexo or newprint for example) than your CMYK
simulation (TR-001 SWOP?), you should expect very similar results to your
supplied proof.
Just thought I'd mention it. You can contact me
off-list if you'd like more details.
Later,
Terry
--
__________________________________
WyseConsul
Color Management Consulting
v 704.843.0858
__________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 14:01:30 -0500
From: Bob Smith
Subject: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
On Monday, August 18, 2003, at 11:40 AM, Terry
Wyse wrote:
There are a few ICC color-managed RIPs where you can
actually submit your
RGB image but get a proof that's a CMYK simulation in
your preferred "press"
space as opposed to taking the RGB image and
"proofing" it to the full gamut
of the inkjet device. The conversion goes something
like:
RGB -> PressCMYK -> Inkjet CcMmYKk (or whatever).
I believe Mark is just talking about proofing images...
not page layouts. You can cross render images just fine in Photoshop
using a well profiled Epson printer and get an excellent prediction of what
final printing will look like. No need for a RIP.
Search out a printer/prepress
shop that uses profiles internally and that will
welcome your tagged images.
Trust me, they're out there, you just need to look and
ask questions.
In principle I completely agree, but in the real world
photographers rarely have that luxury. Who we're delivering to is
dictated by who hired us. Good communication with the ultimate output
provider gets rid of 95 percent of the issues that are tossed about on this
list regardless of workflow specifics. Unfortunately I'd say that the
majority of my jobs occur where I have very minimal if any communication
with people specifically connected to controlling output. I'm often
dealing with people several bureaucratic layers away from the final
prepress department. I imagine that Mark and many other photographers are
in the same boat. In these circumstances (repeat for emphasis: in
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES) what I've found to work best for me, and present the
least opportunity for gross errors is: Deliver both RGB and CMYK
files along with a guide print.
The guide print is properly cross-rendered from the
CMYK file to an Epson printer. The print is clearly labeled that it is
intended to simulate SWOP or whatever was used as a CMYK target. Without
the label an Epson print is often immediately brushed off as something
that's not an accurate predictor. Including the label shows that you
understand the issues and have attempt to properly compensate. This
raises the chances (slightly) that they'll give the guide print more
serious attention.
RGB files are tagged sRGB because that's the space
that's least likely to be misinterpreted regardless of how their machine
may be configured. Its still possible to screw up, but of all the
options its the least likely to produce a gross error. Open that file
on most any machine with an even modestly calibrated monitor and they're
likely to see a good representation of what the image should look like.
If some non graphics savvy person (maybe an account exec or sales
person) opens the file in a non color managed app and outputs it on auto to
their desktop color printer they'll get something at least remotely close
to what its supposed to look like and you'll avoid frantic phone calls
about why the color looks so whacked out. That's not true of any
other common RGB space.
CMYK files are separated using whatever common aim
point seems most appropriate based on known region or type of job (SWOP,
Euroscale etc). CMYK files are sent untagged. That means that
when they open them they see them in their working space with no conversion
and can tell at a glance whether or not they'll print anything like the
supplied guide print. If not, they can build their own seps from the
tagged RGB file or alter the CMYK file to suit. It seems that many printers
would rather alter existing CMYK than build new seps from RGB. By supplying
both files and a print, you're giving the output provider a broad array of
options as to how they want to proceed to get the color that you've shown
them you expect. Absent specific instructions about conditions its
about all you can do. Delivering only RGB or only CMYK forces the
receiver into a specific workflow. The whole point here is that we
know very little about the receiver so give them all of the options that
you can. Many will argue that a larger RGB space should be used or CMYK
files should be tagged. That's true in other situations where more is
known about the receiving party, but in this circumstance it offers
relatively little benefit while opening the door to several errors that
could potentially be huge. This is a cover your rear workflow.
Bob Smith
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 19:56:26 -0400
From: Terry Wyse
Subject: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
on 8/18/03 3:01 PM, Bob Smith wrote:
Delivering only RGB or only CMYK forces the
receiver into a specific workflow. The whole
point here is that we
know very little about the receiver so give them all of
the options
that you can. Many will argue that a larger RGB space
should be used or
CMYK files should be tagged. That's true in other
situations where
more is known about the receiving party, but in this
circumstance it
offers relatively little benefit while opening the door
to several
errors that could potentially be huge. This is a
cover your rear
workflow.
I agree with everything you've said as long as we both
agree this is far from the optimum workflow and the expectation should be
set higher.
The interesting thing for me is that in the next
30-45 days I'll have the privilege of training two more printing companies
and introduce them to a profile-managed workflow for the first time. So
hopefully, if I do my job, that'll be two more printers that will be
more-or-less risk free for customers to supply images to. One can only
hope!
Terry
--
__________________________________
WyseConsul
Color Management Consulting
v 704.843.0858
__________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 19:49:19 -0400
From: Terry Wyse
Subject: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
on 8/18/03 3:01 PM, Bob Smith wrote:
I believe Mark is just talking about proofing images...
not page
layouts. You can cross render images just fine in
Photoshop using a
well profiled Epson printer and get an excellent
prediction of what
final printing will look like. No need for a RIP.
Yes, I thought of that option (source profile,
"proof setup", destination profile) but I tend to think in terms
of production solutions, not one-at-a-time solutions. I could argue that a
decent RIP, with it's calibration/linearization controls, will still
produce superior results but basically you're right, it doesn't require a
full-blown RIP.
Terry
--
__________________________________
WyseConsul
Color Management Consulting
v 704.843.0858
__________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 23:35:01 -0000
From: "Mark Tucker"
Subject: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
Thank you for the responses so far. Here are some
additions, based on what I've read here:
* Yes, it seems that in my world, which is shooting for
big agencies across the country, I am rarely able to talk to their prepress
vendor. I don't know if the agencies are just too busy to mess with it, or
they don't know the importance of it, or they think it's overkill, or what,
but most of them just say, "Just convert it to CMYK and send it on
disc".
With one large agency, I did have a conference call
with the AD, and the head of production. I could tell in the production
person's voice, she was not thrilled to be "bothered" with having
to talk to a photographer, and you also could tell that she was not hopeful
that we'd hit the color and density on the first round. (We did, except for
one image, out of 46). In that case, I sent a few tests in advance, toned
in three different ways; it was a four-color B/W job, where the color was
skewed slightly warmish; not neutral.
* It just seems that most everyone that I deal with
either does not understand the need to talk to the prepress person, for
they feel it's a waste of time, because the AD, at that time, does not even
know where the job is finally headed, so therefore, how could he know the
exact CMYK flavor to convert to? Or in several cases, the image will be
used for many different usages, on both a sheetfed press AND a webpress. So
I think the AD just thinks "Well, I'll repurpose it later, with the
prepress guy anyway, so why mess with it now?"
So this is why I'm looking for one standardized method
to convert to; and I have been using the U.S.PrePress defaults in
Photoshop. But I always also deliver an Adobe98RGB folder as well, as a
fallback, and an insurance policy.
* I have been delivering Fuji Pictrography "guide
prints". I don't call them contract proofs, simply because they're
not. The Pictro is an RGB device, so it's not fair to deliver that. But I
have been testing converting from Adobe98RGB to CMYK, and then back to RGB,
so that the conversion throws away the out-of-gamut information, so that it
might more closely mimic the CMYK gamut. But honestly, I'm in over my head,
and don't know the accuracy of this approach.
* Whatever the procedure that I end up with, I need to
come up with something that does NOT require a phone call to a prepress
person. There is either not time, or someone is out, or something, and
then, BAM, there is the FedEx cut-off time, and it's got to ship. I think
while it's well-and-good to think you could talk to someone in person, in
reality, and least in my reality, it rarely happens, and my clients seem
more bothered by me trying to get to their prepress people than excited by
it. Most of the time, I get a "Gosh, I don't know; Why do you need to
talk to them?" kind of response. (Isn't this the whole purpose of
Color Management; so that you don't HAVE to talk to someone...? Where
profiles do the talking for you...?)
Thanks again,
Mark Tucker
Photographer
Nashville TN
http://www.marktucker.com
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 12:30:58 -0300
From: "Ellie Kennard"
Subject: Tips for Conversion from RGB to CMYK for press
Hello group,
I have been asked to prepare some images of paintings
for a catalogue, and have been asked by the printer to send them in CMYK.
The images were taken using an Imacon 4040 with their supplied RGB profile,
and corrections and ajustments (where needed) were made in ARGB 1998. The
reason for this is that the images are also intended for a CDROM where they
will be in ARGB (Or possibly SRGB, to take into account other's monitors.)
The files are now in ARGB. When I asked what his specs were, the printer
has specified:
"Use SWOP US Coated profile. Make sure your
maximum ink coverage does not exceed 300% and keep your CMY highlight
values between 3 and 5% minimum."
Has anyone any tips on how to avoid pitfalls in this?
(I am using PS7)I have been told that this is full of potential for
disaster. I have my default CMYK setup as the SWOP US coated. This has the
right TIL. I was going to go Image-Mode-CMYK. I'm not sure, however, where
I will see what the highlight falues are within his limits. This may be a
very basic question, but obviously I have to get it right, or it will be my
fault if they are a mess. He has just asked for CMYK files, not
separations.
Some of the images are black and white. Any suggestions
for these?
Many thanks.
Ellie Kennard
Innovative Imaging Studio
http://www.iiStudio.com
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 12:33:26 -0400
From: Terry Wyse
Subject: Re: Tips for Conversion from RGB to CMYK for
press
on 8/19/03 11:30 AM, Ellie Kennard wrote:
I have been asked to prepare some images of paintings
for a
catalogue, and have been asked by the printer to send
them in CMYK.
The images were taken using an Imacon 4040 with their
supplied RGB
profile, and corrections and ajustments (where needed)
were made in
ARGB 1998. The reason for this is that the images are
also intended
for a CDROM where they will be in ARGB (Or possibly
SRGB, to take
into account other's monitors.) The files are now in
ARGB. When I
asked what his specs were, the printer has specified:
"Use SWOP US Coated profile. Make sure your
maximum ink coverage
does not exceed 300% and keep your CMY highlight values
between 3
and 5% minimum."
This is pretty straightforward. If you would like to
stay in RGB but predict what the resulting CMYK highlight dot % will be,
simply change your info pallette to ACTUAL color on the left (RGB) and CMYK
color on the right. Now as you adjust your RGB values, you'll see the
resulting CMYK. You must make sure however that your current CMYK Working
Space is set to "USWebCoatedSWOPv2" (that's the CMYK% that the
info pallette is showing you). You can also set your Proof Setup to your
desired CMYK and set the info pallette to Proof. FYI, RGB values of around
238-245 should get you in that 3-5% range that the printer is suggesting.
As far as the Total Ink Limit, that's going to be 100%
controlled by your CMYK profile. If the CMYK Working Space profile has a
300% TIL, then there's NOTHING you could do in RGB that could exceed that.
However, AFTER it's converted to CMYK you could potentially apply edits
that could exceed that limit. Beware of "punching up" the K
channel in CMYK to add "contrast" as this could easily get you
into an "over limit" situation and possibly plugged shadow
detail.
Has anyone any tips on how to avoid pitfalls in this?
(I am using
PS7)I have been told that this is full of potential for
disaster. I
have my default CMYK setup as the SWOP US coated. This
has the right
TIL. I was going to go Image-Mode-CMYK. I'm not sure,
however,
where I will see what the highlight falues are within
his limits.
I don't see the pitfalls here. The printer has told you
exactly what profile/CMYK Working Space he prefers and what the minimum
highlight dot he can reliably print should be. The TIL will take of itself
when you convert. End of story.
The only thing I would is to possibly avoid a simple
Mode Change to get to CMYK. You might consider using "Convert to
Profile" and alternating between Perceptual and Relative Colorimetric
(with Preview on) and seeing if you prefer one conversion over the other.
I'll offer a "creative" suggestion and say that if the paintings
are watercolor and/or have lots of light/pastel colors then relative
colorimetric might be the better choice. If the painting have very
"heavy"/saturated colors like you might find in an oil painting,
then perceptual rendering might be a better choice as it will better
maintain shape and detail in these darker colors, but at the expense of
lighter colors. Of course, I believe that the PS7 default profiles only
support relative colorimetric anyway so maybe it's a moot point.
BTW, one could say that "CMYK" and
"separations" are really the same thing. Lots of printers use the
terms interchangeably.
Some of the images are black and white. Any suggestions
for these?
Use the same profile for gray (USWebCoatedSWOP) so the
dot gain compensation is identical to your CMYK seps. In your Color
Settings, simply go the Gray working space and select "Load Gray"
and select the same profile that you're using as your CMYK working space.
Once you load it, it will then say "Black Ink - <profile
name>" and you'll be all set.
Cheers,
Terry
--
__________________________________
WyseConsul
Color Management Consulting
v 704.843.0858
__________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 09:40:16 -0600
From: Andrew Rodney
Subject: Re: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
on 8/18/03 5:35 PM, Mark Tucker wrote:
So this is why I'm looking for one standardized method
to convert to;
and I have been using the U.S.PrePress defaults in
Photoshop.
Until there is some form of 3standardized2 CMYK
printing, you1re kind of out of luck. But in cases where a contract proof
or CMYK process is close to TR001 SWOP, that1s about the best you can do
(unless you want to build your own profiles for a specific print
condition).
* I have been delivering Fuji Pictrography "guide
prints". I don't
call them contract proofs, simply because they're not.
The Pictro is
an RGB device, so it's not fair to deliver that.
Sending an RGB file that way I1d agree. But if you
cross render (CMYK to RGB) with good profiles, you can get the Pictography
to match a proof (color) about 98% (closer than the proof to press sheet in
many cases). In fact, a lot of shops are loving the PictoProof which is
just a Pictography with a RIP and some special proofing paper. The
Pictography is more versatile since you can print RGB (not on the
PictoProof due to the RIP) and cross render. And it cost a lot less money.
I1m not suggesting you try and force anyone into agreeing to use this as a
contract proof (unless they really want to which is fine). But cross render
the CMYK back to RGB and send that as your guide print and you1ll be VERY
close to the contract proof or final color assuming the CMYK and RGB
profiles are both doing an accurate job of fingerprinting the print
processes.
But I have been
testing converting from Adobe98RGB to CMYK, and then
back to RGB, so
that the conversion throws away the out-of-gamut
information, so that
it might more closely mimic the CMYK gamut. But
honestly, I'm in over
my head, and don't know the accuracy of this approach.
Just do the CMYK to RGB with RGB being the Pictography
profile and off you go. Use an Absolute Colorimetric intent to match paper
white (trim away the white paper of the Pictography print that isn1t in the
print area) and you1re off.
on 8/18/03 5:45 PM, Terry Wyse wrote:
So rather than claim that the "industry has voted
unanimously" that embedded
profiles don't work and then proceed as if they don't
exist, search out
those printers that do care about color management. Why
not use those
printers that make it EASY for you to work with them
rather than harder?
Amen to that! Fortunately there are printers out in the
3real world2 that fall into this camp. Not enough but the cream floats to
the top.
Andrew Rodney
http://www.imagingrevue.com/
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:04:40 -0400
From: Dolores Kaufman
Subject: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
Terry wrote:
The interesting thing for me is that in the next 30-45
days I'll have the
priviledge of training two more printing companies and
introduce them to a
profile-managed workflow for the first time. So
hopefully, if I do my job,
that'll be two more printers that will be more-or-less
risk free for
customers to supply images to. One can only hope!
That's great Terry. Really. I'm sure we all wish there
were more of you to go around. Let the rest of us know, if you can, who the
educated ones are when you get them up and running.
Dolores
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 18:49:44 -0000
From: "Ellie Kennard"
Subject: Re: Tips for Conversion from RGB to CMYK for
press
Thank you so much Terry. I am so unfamiliar with this
territory (hence the remark about separations - thanks for the explanation)
and it has certainly helped, having this info. I will digest it and give it
a try. I feel much less intimidated.
I do have Dan's book, but couldn't see any direct
reference to this in one section that was easy to find.
Best regards,
Ellie
Innovative Imaging Studio
http://www.iiStudio.com
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 23:56:30 -0000
From: "Bern Caughey"
Subject: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
I am also a photographer & I see file delivery as
being the biggest issue facing our industry. By one estimate, 70% of
professional photographers will be purchasing digital cameras this year
& already film labs are struggling to stay open.
Alot of jobs are getting ruined due to CM issues &
standards will be established, but it's going to get uglier before it gets
better. Many of the magazines have already settled on ARGB1998 & that
would be fine with me, but this is far from a industry wide standard. Many
photographers & CM gurus advocate submitting CYMK & taking the
profits, but I'd rather focus on shooting, so I'd rather submit RGB.
The writing is clearly on the wall & those who
don't embrace these changes will go out of buisness. Anomosity is building
between many photographers & pre/press houses & this is bad for
both industries, as our clients deserve better.
Best regards,
Bern Caughey
LA, CA USA
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 09:05:21 -0000
From: Stephen Marsh
Subject: Re: Tips for Conversion from RGB to CMYK for
press
Terry Wyse wrote:
As far as the Total Ink Limit, that's going to be 100%
controlled by your
CMYK profile. If the CMYK Working Space profile has a
300% TIL, then there's
NOTHING you could do in RGB that could exceed that.
However, AFTER it's
converted to CMYK you could potentially apply edits
that could exceed that
limit. Beware of "punching up" the K channel
in CMYK to add "contrast" as
this could easily get you into an "over
limit" situation and possibly
plugged shadow detail.
I was once shocked to find that some custom ICC profile
conversions did not honour BPC (killing shadow transitions and detail) and
the max ink was way over limit of 330% - around 380% or something from
memory (it is all in the list archives, Chris Murphy replied I think).
This was for RelCol transforms with v5.5. Perceptual
did not break the TIL, but I did not like the inbuilt contrast bump. This
seems to be a bug which was not advertised as being fixed - but the issue
is not there in v6 or higher.
The issue in the production setting was that v6 was on
one machine where I did most of my work and did not have any profile issues
- but I quickly did some batch seps on a v5.5 box and when I was going over
them I got a nasty shock.
Just as it is often critical to mouse-over info
readings to verify that areas do not have scum dots or to verify min dot
values - it is also wise to double check the raw conversion to CMYK, just
in case something has gone wrong.
AFAIK, the v2 Adobe profiles do support
perceptual/relcol transforms to CMYK, where as the old legacy built in CMYK
is only relcol.
P.S. BPC is usually a very good thing when doing relcol
transforms, but I have a crazy Imacon profile which hates BPC and is better
off without it!
One must understand how the various CM nuts and bolts
and ICC profiles being used behave (or misbehave).
Stephen Marsh.
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 10:16:49 -0000
From: "Mark Tucker"
Subject: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
Here is a link to DISC, which I assume, is an informal
consortium of offset publications. If you look at their suggested
submission guidelines for digital files, you'll find three levels of
quality, which they list as A,B, and C. They are suggesting Adobe98RGB as
the space, and even JPG 8 instead of TIFF, which I find strange. I'd be
curious what you prepress/print folks would think about these guidelines:
http://www.disc-info.org
I think the "4 A" ad agency group is also
working on a set of standards for the advertising business. Let's just hope
that TIFF would be the bare minimum.
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 13:20:39 -0000
From: Stephen Marsh
Subject: Re: Tips for Conversion from RGB to CMYK for
press
--- Ellie Kennard wrote:
I have been asked to prepare some images of paintings
for a
catalogue, and have been asked by the printer to send
them in CMYK.
When I asked what his specs were, the printer has
specified:
"Use SWOP US Coated profile. Make sure your
maximum ink coverage
does not exceed 300% and keep your CMY highlight values
between 3
and 5% minimum."
Good for you (and the printer) Ellie! Some guidelines
and a profile recommendation. Communication in action.
I'm not sure, however,
where I will see what the highlight falues are within
his limits.
This may be a very basic question, but obviously I have
to get it
right, or it will be my fault if they are a mess. He
has just asked
for CMYK files, not separations.
Some chapters in Dan's book which may _generally_ help
with this project include:
* Preflight: What Shall We Do with This Image?
* Color Correction By the Numbers
* The Steeper the Curve, The More the Contrast
* Sharpening with a Stiletto
* Plate Blending as Poetry
* In Color Correction, The Key Is the K
* Friend and Foe in Color
Some of the images are black and white. Any suggestions
for these?
I like four colour grayscales for the added density and
rosette pattern over a stipple, but there is room for colour casts to creep
in...
When doing colour greyscales - think Heavy GCR in the
old legacy CMYK speak.
Sadly the profile you are using is far from Heavy GCR
and is not the best for holding a safe neutral.
So if separating with the legacy CMYK engine with Heavy
GCR, post conversion assign the SWOP v2 profile that is used for colour
work and then ensure that the CMY mix reads as 0A0B in LAB info readout
values. Place colour samplers on the image set to LAB mode and use channel
mixer to get the CMY balance correct, or curves if you really have too.
Or one could manually perform GCR moves by doing a
correct separation to the v2 profile and then channel mixing the new K and
CMY data, keeping an eye on TIL and neutrals etc.
The yahoo web based list archives should have many
posts on keywords such as - heavy gcr and four colour or 4c grey/grayscale,
holding neutrals etc.
P.S. I developed a method to _subtly_ enhance brushwork
of drum scans of oil paintings at a previous job - but this filter is very
similar in effect and less time consuming to post:
http://www.reindeergraphics.com/free.shtml
Adaptive Equalization plug-in
(I suggest blending the results of this filter
operation in luminance mode at low percentage to key areas etc).
Regards,
Stephen Marsh.
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 10:05:00 -0700
From: Dennis Dunbar
Subject: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
In speaking with several heads of production at large
ad agencies it has become clear that many of them are hesitant to embrace
proofs made on an ink jet system. This is due to the fact that they are
uncertain about how well this proof may follow the standards and fear that
it does not predict what can be achieved on press.
I know that ink jets can be run so they get very close
to contract proof quality. The question in my mind is how can we
demonstrate this? Especially if we are not running a RIP. Coming up with
some generally accepted system of showing your proofs are close to SWOP
would make this whole question much easier for photographers.
Dennis Dunbar
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 10:09:54 -0700
From: Peter Figen
Subject: Re: Re: Tips for Conversion from RGB to CMYK
for press
I was once shocked to find that some custom ICC profile
conversions
did not honour BPC (killing shadow transitions and
detail) and the
max ink was way over limit of 330% - around 380% or
something from
memory
That sounds to me like the older Linocolor (PrintOpen)
profiles, which according to Lino, were built to be sort of a dual purpose
profile. Perceptual was used for press output, but Relative was used IF you
proofed through Linocolor, applying different ink limits for the
proofer. I don't know anyone who ever proofed like this. These profiles,
do, however work quite well using Perceptual and they do honor BPC if so
desired.
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 10:45:26 -0700
From: Peter Figen
Subject: Re: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
Bern Caughey wrote:
I am also a photographer & I see file delivery as
being the biggest issue
facing our industry. By one estimate, 70% of
professional photographers will
be purchasing digital cameras this year & already
film labs are struggling to
stay open.
It's my opinion, as a commercial photographer who
shoots digital and drum scans my own film, when, we photographers assume
the role prepress providers, we should learn as much as we possibly can
about what makes the best file for each and every output that our clients
use. To hand off RGB to any device needing CMYK is passing the buck and not
accepting full responsibility for our actions. In addition, it's not enough
to make any sort of generic conversion, even if those "stock" v2
profiles in PS are becoming some sort of a standard. If a particular
photographer is not willing to make the full commitment, then that person
should make arrangements with someone who can reliably handle that aspect
of the job.
Alot of jobs are getting ruined due to CM issues &
standards will be
established, but it's going to get uglier before it
gets better. Many of the
magazines have already settled on ARGB1998
I deal with dozens of magazines all over the country
and beyond, and have yet to hear of a single one requesting anysort of RGB.
Which magazines are requesting RGB?
Anomosity is building between many photographers
&
pre/press houses & this is bad for both industries,
as our clients deserve
better.
I think any animosity is primarily due to the fact that
so many photographers are not willing to spend the effort to become at
least minimally proficient in basic prepress skills. The prepress guys see
a chunk of their work being replaced by photographer, many of whom, don't
have an inkling of how to do it right. Who could blame them.
Peter Figen
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:43:25 -0600
From: Andrew Rodney
Subject: Re: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
on 8/20/03 11:05 AM, Dennis Dunbar wrote:
I know that ink jets can be run so they get very close
to contract
proof quality. The question in my mind is how can we
demonstrate this?
What1s kind of ironic is that if you go back in time a
good 6-8 years, anyone that suggested you could use an Iris Ink Jet as a
contract proof would get laughed out of the shop. Today I find more and
more people using the Iris to do this to produce a more 3affordable2
solution to some customers. Get yourself into a time machine and I can
assure you that in a few years (it should be today), people will be using
Epson1s to do this. There1s nothing inherently superior about an Iris (in
fact, unless you prefer ink spilling on your floor or huge service
contracts, you1ll find a lot of people are now ditching their Iris1s in a
big way. Nash Editions tossed them all out this year and could barely give
them away).
Andrew Rodney
http://www.imagingrevue.com/
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:02:08 -0700
From: Peter Figen
Subject: Re: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
I know that ink jets can be run so they get very close
to contract
proof quality. The question in my mind is how can we
demonstrate this?
I had to do this a few months ago. What I did was make
custom profiles of the Epson 2200 and of the DuPont WaterProof digital
proofer in question. A simple cross rendering from "WaterProof
CMYK" to Epson RGB using Absolute Colorimetric after making a custom
tweak to the Absolute Colorimetric white point of the Epson profile
resulted in Epson prints that were extremely close to the WaterProof. I
also did the same thing with a MatchPrint Commercial proof as part of the
same presentation.
The biggest variable I see is whether or not to use
Absolute Colorimetric vs. Relative in the conversion to the Epson profile.
While AbCol may technically be more correct, in that it takes the white
points of the proofing stocks into consideration, the fact that the real
paper for the job may not match the proofing stock may make RelCol a better
choice. It can also depend on image content as to which rendering intent
works best.
As far as RIPs are concerned, I just save the page as
an EPS in Xpress and rasterize that into Photoshop, using the correct
profiles and convert from there. If you're only doing a few pages at a time
this is a workable solution. If the volume is substantial, then a RIP is
definitely in order.
The bottom line, is that in order to be taken
seriously, you need to be able to show consistently that you can come very
close to the proofer being used with a wide variety of images. In my
experience, most images work pretty well, but there are always certain
colors, even though they are supposedly contained in the gamut of the
Epson, that do cause problems. But then again, this can also happen with a
Matchprint, Waterproof, etc.
I don't think not being able to show a dot is as big a
deal on Epson prints as some make it out to be. Most of the time, it's
pretty easy to spot images or parts of images that are going to be a
problem and take pre-emptive action. I pretty much use the Epson as a
pre-proofer and will see a proof with a dot as a final proof before going
to press anyway.
Peter Figen
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 00:44:02 EDT
From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Re: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
Dennis writes,
I know that ink jets can be run so they get very close
to contract
proof quality. The question in my mind is how can we
demonstrate this?
Especially if we are not running a RIP.
The problem is that inkjets can also be run in a
fashion such that they bear no relation at all to contract proofs, and the
printer/art director has to take your word for it. IOW, if you supply them
with four pieces of film and a Matchprint, no matter who made that
Matchprint the printer will shortly have a very good idea of whether he has
a shot of getting an acceptable match on press. But if you supply an inkjet
proof and a digital file, the printer is quite understandably hesitant to
bet press time that the job is actually achievable.
Printers, contrary to some of the nonsense spewed
around here, are actually fairly receptive to new ideas that make their
clients happy. So, many printers will happily accept an inkjet proof, BUT
the burden is upon you to convince them of its quality.
If I were in your shoes, I'd approach some progressive
printers in the area with an offer. A problem they all have is that clients
complain that what appears in print isn't the same that's on their screen,
and most printers aren't able to explain why that is. A reasonable solution
(and one that my companies used to adopt) was run off a large number of
Matchprints of small (2x3) colorful photographs, and on request, give one
plus the CMYK file that produced it, to a client who could then evaluate
whether his screen looked anything like it before committing to a live job.
Such a calibration aid can be an attractive marketing
piece, if only the printers had the design skill to make one. So, I would
suggest to them, give me a thousand of these small Matchprints (or whatever
other reliable contract proof they have) and I'll return to you 500 kits
with CDs and little explanations of what color management is all about.
These small Matchprints, in quantity, cost the printer very little in
return for what he's getting.
The remaining 500 small Matchprints, of course, you
keep for yourself. If I were a printer, and you gave me an inkjet proof
with nothing more, I wouldn't take the job. But if your proof had, outside
the trim area, one of these 2x3 images, and you handed me a Matchprint of
that 2x3 image at the same time as your inkjet proof, then if the two were
reasonably close, I'd have to concede that your inkjet proof would be
usable.
Dan Margulis
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 00:26:23 EDT
From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Re: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
Peter Figen writes,
It's my opinion, as a commercial photographer who
shoots digital and drum
scans my own film, when, we photographers assume the
role prepress providers,
we should learn as much as we possibly can about what
makes the best file for
each and every output that our clients use. To hand off
RGB to any device
needing CMYK is passing the buck and not accepting full
responsibility for our
actions. In addition, it's not enough to make any sort
of generic conversion, even
if those "stock" v2 profiles in PS are
becoming some sort of a standard. If a
particular photographer is not willing to make the full
commitment, then that
person should make arrangements with someone who can
reliably handle that
aspect of the job.
This is a stunningly cogent analysis of the realities
of the situation.
The original question, how much prepress work should
the photographer allow the printer to do, can be made even more general.
Whenever two parties work as partners in producing
color, the best results will be gotten if the more knowledgeable party does
most of the work. We've been talking about photographers and printers here,
but it could be anybody, art directors and photographers, whatever. If the
photographer feels he is likely to do better prepress than the printer can,
he should go ahead and do so and supply CMYK, caring not a bean that he
doesn't know the specific printing condition. Similarly, if the
photographer thinks the printer is likely to be more knowledgeable than he
is, the best approach is to give him as close to a raw file as possible.
Any attempt to "improve" the file is likely to make the more
knowledgeable person's life more difficult down the line.
Things get interesting when the parties are of
approximately equal skills. That's when we can start considering things
like handing off corrected RGB and letting the printer take care of the
rest.
As we've seen here in recent weeks, there's a huge
range of skill difference among photographers and among printers. The fact
that there are photographers like Peter and Bob Smith and Lee Varis who
have clearly demonstrated that they aren't buffaloed by CMYK and can take
charge of difficult prepress work doesn't mean that the average
photographer has anything like these skills. Similarly, the fact that we
appear to have some highly skilled printers here doesn't mean that the
average printer knows how to take an RGB file into CMYK.
The sad truth is that since the demise of the prepress
industry, neither photographers nor printers have really picked up the
ball. Neither group, on the average, has as much knowledge as it should.
If we know who the printer is going to be and what his
skills are, that of course changes everything. But the original question
said we don't know. To that, I'd say, if you're the photographer, and you
don't think it's likely that you know more about prepress than some unknown
printer, I'd have to advise you to change that situation in a very big
hurry. If a client is dissatisfied with the way a job looks in print, it's
a whole lot easier to find a new photographer than it is a new printer. So,
I agree with Peter: if you can't do it yourself, hire somebody who can. But
you can't leave yourself at the mercy of an unknown printer.
I think any animosity is primarily due to the fact that
so many photographers are not willing to spend the effort to become at
least minimally proficient in basic prepress skills. The prepress guys see
a chunk of their work being replaced by photographer, many of whom, don't
have an inkling of how to do it right. Who could blame them.
I could.
With the sharp reduction in dedicated prepress, there's
a fairly sizable amount of work up for grabs that neither the average
photographer nor the average printer can currently handle well. Clients are
looking for people like Peter and Bob and Lee who are going to squire the
job from beginning to end and take responsibility for any screwups. They
don't want to hear about ink densities or ICC profiles or LAB color
correction. They want to see good pictures in print and they want to have
somebody who understands their concerns.
The animosity Peter speaks of was there long before
photographers became competitors. We've unfortunately seen here in recent
weeks some all-printers-are-stupid rhetoric. While nobody has come back
with all-photographers-are-scum (Peter's post is probably the closest thing
to that!) certainly that opinion is out there.
The historical reason for the animosity is that
photographers have been unable to explain, in language that printers can
understand, what needs to be done to the image. They therefore often throw
up their hands and say "match the art" when in actuality they
want nothing of the kind.
Printers, for their part, have not been able to
explain, in language that photographers can understand, what is and is not
possible in print, and what the options are for dealing with the
limitations of the print process.
It's really not that hard to learn the other side's
language, as several printers and photographers here have recently shown.
But most people have been too lazy to do it. They deserve the animosity of
the other side, and they deserve their declining market share.
Speaking of which, I will now return to my studies to
see whether I speak a language that my Swiss friends will understand on
Monday.
Dan Margulis
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 23:18:52 -0600
From: Ron Kelly
Subject: Re: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
Folks:
I agree that letting the more experienced hand run the
tiller is the way to go. The problem is, how can you know in a given
situation? Many times you're dealing with the unknown in this aspect.
I have been following this thread with interest, and I
just feel compelled to put this in.
I've been a commercial photographer for 25 years. In
the last 10 I've been learning about the issues this thread
discusses, ie digital reproduction on offset.
It just seems to me that it is Ostrich time for
photographers if they don't work with CMYK at some level. I don't think
there's any other way to put it; it's a critical step that must be
undertaken. Physics demands that printers use it, so just accept it and
dive in.
I'm not suggesting that this fixes everything, but I
guess what I am saying is that the converse definitely doesn't work. If you
do work that is going to press, don't expect to stay in the RGB universe
and be satisified.
Leaving the RGB to CMYK step to someone else is like
letting someone else decide what your composition should be.
May the four( s) (C-M-Y-K) be with you.
Ron Kelly
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 08:47:19 -0400
From: John Rawlins
Subject: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
Dennis Dunbar wrote:
In speaking with several heads of production at large
ad agencies it
has become clear that many of them are hesitant to
embrace proofs made
on an ink jet system. This is due to the fact that they
are uncertain
about how well this proof may follow the standards and
fear that it
does not predict what can be achieved on press.
I know that ink jets can be run so they get very close
to contract
proof quality. The question in my mind is how can we
demonstrate this?
It's all done with the $$$$
As a commercial printer, we made the switch to CTP, 4
years ago. Initially, we intended to run Kodak Approvals, for most of our
work, and actually output film, just to make Matchprints for those agencies
that had to have a non-digital contract proof. They were insistent on
reviewing Matchprints or Colorarts for their color.
Things started to get expensive. If you are not aware,
there is about $30 worth of material cost in a 2 page Kodak Approval. Add
to that $1000 per month service agreement with Kodak to keep the machine
up. Then add the film, and chemistry, and the Matchprint material, and the
time. We soon realized our CTP savings, and then some, had gone out the
window. About a year into this, we made a decision that would effect our
direction. We broke the news to our sales staff that within 90 days we
would no longer be able to output any film. Additionally, we were phasing
out all Kodak Approvals, Matchprints, and Colorarts. Epson 10M inkjet
proofs, along with HP Spinjet Imposed proofs would be our standard
proofing. I think Panic stricken would probably describe the scene. We were
pummeled with all the many reasons why we couldn't, why we shouldn't, why
it was just not possible, why we would lose most of our business, etc etc.
Our out was that we would commence an educational campaign to our clients
to explain, and to show them what digital proofing could do, and what it
could save.
All of our quotes started going out showing a
"standard" price for the pre-press, printing, and finishing, to
include inkjet proofing. An option was included for Approvals, if required.
A small job showed a small additional fee. A catalog job, made a difference
into the thousands of dollars. Basically we took them from $45 per page, to
$8 per page, and passed the saving along. Most all nibbled the bait,
several bit immediately. Within our 90 day window, all but a few absolute
die hards were on board with the new program. Granted, we had to be able to
satisfy them with the Epson's. It was a bit of a struggle until we brought
in some expert assistance (Terry Wyse), but I assure you, our Epsons match
our presses. We believe even closer than the Approvals ever did. We
eliminate film completely. We don't even have a frame to burn a plate if we
had to, and we don't. If a client has film, someone has the files that made
it. If they don't. Sorry try somewhere else.
Since the initial change over, we replaced our CTP
device with a Creo Lotem, with the Spectrum proofing option. This allowed
us to make an ablated 30x40" Digital Matchprint, or Digital Kodak/
Imation, if we absolutely had to. We have made only 4 in the last year. If
we had it to do over, I would not have wasted the money. Within the past 4
months we have added an HP Indigo 3000 that now allows us to do ink on
paper dot proofs for $2 per page, and we have moved most of the proofing
from Epsons to Indigos.
I know many are hesitant to go this direction, but it
is inevitable. If you are a commercial printer, you just can't compete with
someone that has a $2 per page proof cost. For the die hards, that
absolutely have to have otherwise... make a set of plates and throw up a
set of random press proofs. With no film and stripping, we can output a set
of plates and get a full form press proof, on the actual paper stock in
about an hour. For less than what film and a 30x40 Matchprint cost 4 years
ago! Time and technology changes everything.
John Rawlins
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 09:03:31 -0400
From: "Remaley, Dan"
Subject: RE: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
I think this is a great idea, (Dan M.) having an image
that you can compare to the monitor. Actually we have had this for years,
the GATF Proof Comparator (product #7145), it is recommended by SWOP
<www.swop.org> to be on every proof - but no one uses it. When I was
the plant manager for a high end pre-press house making films and proofs -
we placed a Proof Comparator on every proof. It has a visual, as well
as denso or spectro information, including gray balance. Since I was the
"Dirty Harry" guy who had to visit the printer when proofs didn't
match the press condition, this target was valuable in trouble shooting the
problems. By the way, it was never the proof!
Dan R.
Dan Remaley
Process Control Mgr.
Graphic Arts Technical Foundation
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 10:01:41 -0400
From: "Jim"
Subject: RE: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
Andrew:
Just curious, if the printers are ditching Iris's in a
big way, what are they moving toward? The epsons as your post suggests?
Which model?
Jim Ray
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 10:28:25 EDT
From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Re: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
Dan Remaley writes,
I think this is a great idea, (Dan M.) having an image
that you can compare
to the monitor. Actually we have had this for years,
the GATF Proof
Comparator (product #7145), it is recommended by SWOP
<www.swop.org> to be
on every proof - but no one uses it.
*I* use it from time to time, and recommend it to
others.
The problem with that particular product in Dennis's
setting is that in addition to the image of a woman (Stella, we call her)
there are a whole bunch of color bars that can serve to confuse the issue.
That is, if somebody gives us a traditional contract proof and the solid
magenta patch is something nonstandard, that casts serious doubts on the
reliability of the proof. In Dennis's case, there may be a number of
reasons why he can't hit 100% magenta, and it doesn't necessarily
invalidate the proof.
I'd therefore prefer to go with a slightly larger image
or images and avoid confusion by omitting the bars. YMMV.
Dan Margulis
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 09:12:18 -0600
From: Andrew Rodney
Subject: Re: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
on 8/21/03 8:01 AM, Jim wrote:
Just curious, if the printers are ditching Iris's
in a big way, what are
they moving toward? The epsons as your post
suggests? Which model?
By and large the 96001s. That1s what Nash editions is
using now for all their fine art output (with the ImagePrint RIP).
Prepress/printers are somewhat of a different story although I1m sure there
are those moving towards Epson (which pretty much put the nail on Iris
coffin). I find a number of shops are using the Pictoproof (but that of
course isn1t an ink jet printer). The pigmented inks are nice for proofing
because they dry down super fast and are pretty stable. They have plenty of
color gamut to simulate CMYK output. The need now are more RIPs to simulate
a halftone dot.
Andrew Rodney
http://www.imagingrevue.com/
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 11:37:32 -0700
From: Dennis Dunbar
Subject: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
Dan,
Thanks for your thoughts. I think you hit the nail on
the head when it comes to why printers and clients are slow to accept
inkjet proofs.
What I get from your post is that you suggest working
with some local print shops to create a way of verifying the proof. The way
you propose is to create a page with a range of images and run several
matchprints of this page.Then include some of those images on the inkjet
proof (outside the "live" area). Finally delivering the inkjet
proof and one or two of the same test images on a matchprint should provide
enough information for a client or printer to know they can or cannot trust
the inkjet proof.
What about using color bars and gray ramps? There are a
few available through GATF or even Don Hutcheson's site. I had thought that
since the inkjet proofs were basically RGB (when run without a RIP) the
gray ramps and color bars wouldn't hold up, (you can't do a CMY only gray
ramp to demonstrate gray balance). But on further thought it seems that
this actually could be a good test. If the "proof" is accurate
then the CMY patches and tints etc. should look correct.
I'd like to hear your, and the list's thoughts on this
idea.
Thanks!
Dennis Dunbar
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 16:07:37 EDT
From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
Dennis writes,
What about using color bars and gray ramps? There are a
few available
through GATF or even Don Hutcheson's site. I had
thought that since the
inkjet proofs were basically RGB (when run without a
RIP) the gray
ramps and color bars wouldn't hold up, (you can't do a
CMY only gray
ramp to demonstrate gray balance). But on further
thought it seems that
this actually could be a good test. If the
"proof" is accurate then the
CMY patches and tints etc. should look correct.
Not necessarily. See my reply to Dan Remaley. If you're
working with CMYK, the patches would have to look correct or the image
wouldn't look correct. But you may be working in CMYK++ and you may have
RIP anomalies or substrate issues and it may be physically impossible for
you to match the solid pure color of a process ink. That doesn't matter,
unless what you're selling is color bars and not images. That you can't hit
the solid colors in these circumstances doesn't mean you can't hit the
image.
If the recipient of the proof is knowledgeable, it
won't hurt and might help to have the bars there, but if you're trying to
convince some doubting Thomas who doesn't know what an inkjet proof is, he
may seize on a bad match for 100% magenta as an excuse to reject a
perfectly viable proof.
I'm off to the airport now for a two-week hiatus. Best
wishes to the group.
Dan Margulis
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 16:42:46 -0400
From: Terry Wyse
Subject: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
on 8/21/03 11:12 AM, Andrew Rodney wrote:
By and large the 96001s. That1s what Nash editions is
using now for all
their fine art output (with the ImagePrint RIP).
Prepress/printers are
somewhat of a different story although I1m sure there
are those moving
towards Epson (which pretty much put the nail on Iris
coffin).
Since I work mostly on the prepress/print side, I'll
say that I see maybe 1-2 7600/9600s for every *10* 10600UCs. On the
prepress side, proofs per hours weighs more than ultimate image quality. In
this case, a 10600 can outperform 76/9600 by at least 3:1. To further
reinforce this, I normally will calibrate/profile a 10-6 for both 720 and
1440dpi output. When I show them the quality AND explain the performance
hit at 1440, they almost always opt for 720x720 output. It seems a slight
improvement in quality doesn't warrant getting HALF the number of proofs
out per shift. It's only in rare cases where the horizontal banding is
unacceptable at 720 that I recommend 1440 output.
Different strokes.
Terry
--
__________________________________
WyseConsul
Color Management Consulting
v 704.843.0858
__________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 20:30:18 -0600
From: Andrew Rodney
Subject: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
on 8/21/03 2:42 PM, Terry Wyse wrote:
Since I work mostly on the prepress/print side, I'll
say that I see maybe
1-2 7600/9600s for every *10* 10600UCs.
I forgot to mention the Epson 10600 which is pretty
much the same beast (faster, dye based inks). I like the pigmented inks
because they dry down super fast and stay that way for a long time but a
10600 would certainly do the job and it1s a screamer. The point is that who
needs a big Iris. I'll bet the old service contract in a year would pay for
a few Epson large format printers.
On the prepress side, proofs per hours weighs more than
ultimate image
quality.
Absolutely. And I think from a quality standpoint, the
10600 is up there with the other printers.
1440 is really the only way to go unless you have to
crank out something REALLY quickly.
Andrew Rodney
http://www.imagingrevue.com/
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 08:36:48 -0400
From: "Remaley, Dan"
Subject: RE: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
I'm not sure that I understand (Dan M.'s) color bar
issue. I do know for sure, that the color bar should 'look' like the
finished printed sheet's color bar. It may not measure the same i.e. a
Polaproof -yellow, midtone dot gain (when made correctly) measures 7%. When
printed it 'measures' 20%! But they visually 'match'. Some proofing
systems like MatchPrint and Fuji, the numbers measure the same as the
press. To see the differences, check out <www.swop.org> they have a
PDF of every SWOP certified proofing system. This means that these proofs
will visually match a SWOP certified press sheet, they have dot gain,
density and Lab values for each system and they are all - different!
The 'proof' is designed to
represent the print condition - density, dot gain, gray balance -press
characteristics. If a proof has too little 'weight' (dot gain) say 15%, but
looks OK - and the press prints with 20% gain - the dots are too large and
the press runs the ink density lower to decrease the dot gain, for a visual
match.
I have several articles at
<newsandtech.com> - search under 'remaley' for process control - scan
to print. If anyone would like a PDF on how to use a 1-plate control target
2-proof comparator 3-color bar - send me your e-mail address.
Dan
Dan Remaley
Process Control Mgr.
Graphic Arts Technical Foundation
412.741.6860x450
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 10:08:19 -0400
From: Terry Wyse
Subject: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
on 8/21/03 10:30 PM, Andrew Rodney wrote:
I forgot to mention the Epson 10600 which is pretty
much the same beast
(faster, dye based inks). I like the pigmented inks
because they dry down
super fast and stay that way for a long time but a
10600 would certainly do
the job and it1s a screamer.
Actually, I was referring to the 10600 Ultrachrome
(10600UC). NOBODY in prepress/print should be getting the photo dye inks in
my opinion. The Ultrachrome inks are better in virtually every way compared
to the dye inks and simply profile much better. The 10600UC shares all the
good characteristics of the 76/9600 just without the addition of light
black ink. Even without the light black, the 10600 doesn1t seem to suffer
from the 3black peppering2 effect anywhere near like the 10000/10600 Photo
Dye machines. The black is much less dense (about -.20-.30 than photo dye
black) so it seems you can get away with much more black in your profile
without any bad side effects.
Cheers,
Terry
--
__________________________________
WyseConsul
Color Management Consulting
v 704.843.0858
__________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 18:30:43 -0000
From: "Bern Caughey"
Subject: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
First of all I'd like to thank everyone involved in
this thread.
The reality that most photographers will never be able
to speak to the prepress house leaves no option except to come up with some
standard means of delivery that requires no further interaction between
these two parties.
Why can't this just be some flavor of RGB? If they file
has been handled properely, why couldn't this be equivalent of a
transparency? If the photographer, client & prepress all have their
high-end monitors well calibrated to the same standards, shouldn't this be
enough of a common language?
I'm sure prepress houses are receiving alot of poorly
handled files & it's only going to get more common as digitally capture
is being widely embraced by unprepared photographers. But alot of
resposible photographers are also seeing their properely handled files
trashed in prepress.
As it stands now, I'd only feel real comfortable
submitting both RGB & CYMK files with some example KAPs. This is
crazy, wastful & often not practical. Can't the image, xRGB on a proper
monitor, just speak for itself?
Sincerely,
Bern Caughey
Photographer
LA, CA USA
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 16:55:16 EDT
From: Paul Harding
Subject: Re: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and the NEW
Science
New to the group but old to computer graphics, I began
my computer graphics teaching career with Apple IIe's and the first CAD
program ("ROBOCAD" - 1983/84). I taught in a very affluent
and progressive school system, where they were always eager to embrace the
"new" technology. With a MS in Industrial Arts Education, I was
very well schooled in the "old" version of the printed page....in
fact I just found an old quoin key and composing stick the other day and
wondered if anybody still wanted them ..Ebay I guess. ..but as the
technology began to implode on the schools, I found myself learning the new
graphic and printing technology. Illustrator 88 was my first vector
challange and soon Photoshop 1.1 was on the horizon. Vectors and bit maps
became the words of the day and STILL are. I am now retired but taught
until the early 90's and returned as a computer graphics consultant for an
additional 4 years. ..AND EVEN TO THIS DAY I STILL HAVE TO DEMO THE
DIFFERENCES IN THE TWO CONCEPTS .. TO PRINTERS AND PHOTOGRAPHERS THAT
HAVE BEEN IN BUSINESS SINCE DAY 1. PHOTOGRAPHERS STILL INSIST ON SETTING
TYPE IN PS.
Now add a dose of RGB and CMYK and the proliferation of
low cost "easy-to-use professional pre-press and layout apps and what
can we expect".
and now you (generic) are expecting ALL of the people
involved in the process to immediately embrace something that is so
convoluted as to be almost non-understandable.
As Tolstoy once wrote" I know that most men,
including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as
would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have
delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to
others, and which they have woven, thread by thread. into the fabric of
their lives"
I instructed my students to spend at least half a day
with their selected printer in reviewing the requirements for the best
outcome for their project .. and every one of the printers or service
bureaus asked for CMYK files.
The answer: "EDUCATION"
Cheers to all!
Paul Harding
JIT Graphics
Jackson, NJ
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 14:06:33 -0700
From: Peter Figen
Subject: Re: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
Bern Caughey wrote:
The reality that most photographers will never be able
to speak to the
prepress house leaves no option except to come up with
some standard
means of delivery that requires no further interaction
between these two
parties.
Usually, if you ask, you actually can talk to the
prepress folks. I do it all the time. I ask them for as much information as
possible regarding the job, but only once, at George Rice and Sons in L.A.,
have I ever gotten a custom profile, so my next step is almost always to
email them a target file so I can make my own profile. By asking to talk
the people who matter, it shows your client that you have their best
interest at heart, that you are willing to make an extra effort that
hopefully will save them time and money. That gives you added value in a
very competitive market.
Why can't this just be some flavor of RGB?
Because no one prints RGB, and as has been pointed out
often, too many prepress service providers just don't deal with RGB very
well. If you have communicated with your SB, and you have sent them RGB to
see how well they handle it, then, maybe it can be all right for that
vendor, but I almost always make small tweaks to an image after it's been
converted to CMYK that are based on my personal preferences and years of
experience. All of these tweaks, which are done before the first proof is
pulled, are typically the kinds of adjustments that typical service bureaus
do on two or three rounds of proofing. Can you trust the judgment of your
supplier to make those tweaks for you, and get them right?
If they file has been handled
properely, why couldn't this be equivalent of a
transparency? If the
photographer, client & prepress all have their
high-end monitors well
calibrated to the same standards, shouldn't this be
enough of a common
language?
If, if, if.... In a perfect world, if all parties
involved have similar high end monitors, and they are using the same
profile setup in PS, and they have roughly the same ambient viewing
conditions, then this can help to assure that at least everyone is seeing
the same image, but in reality, it's not going to work that way.
I'm sure prepress houses are receiving alot of poorly
handled files & it's only
going to get more common as digitally capture is being
widely embraced by
unprepared photographers.
The trend for lower quality files hasn't just begun.
It's been going on for the last decade, as affordable desktop publishing
tools have made anyone who can afford them an instant expert. Photographers
will either learn how to properly prepare their files for output or their
clients will end up paying for multiple rounds of proofing to get it right.
At some point, when the time and expense get to be too much, the clients,
who are paying for it, will make a change.
But alot of resposible photographers are also
seeing their properely handled files trashed in
prepress.
Explain this one to me. If the files are being properly
handled before they get to the SB, then there should be no problem. If the
photographers are sending RGB to prepress houses, that's not handling them
properly unless prior agreements and testing have proven that it's
acceptable. How are the files getting trashed?
As it stands now, I'd only feel real comfortable
submitting both RGB & CYMK
files with some example KAPs.
If your output is CMYK, and you've made the right CMYK
for that output, then you don't need to send anything else. There are,
however jobs that I've been involved with where, after talking with the
people who handle the output, I will either send an RGB with a guide print,
or a CMYK with a guide. This has been either for trade show graphic or
billboards that are printed on large format inkjets and the operators have
no idea what color parameters their printers are need.
Peter Figen
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 10:48:50 -0400
From: "Dave King"
Subject: Re: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
From: "Bern Caughey"
As it stands now, I'd only feel real comfortable
submitting both RGB & CYMK
files with some example KAPs. This is crazy,
wastful & often not practical.
Can't the image, xRGB on a proper monitor, just speak
for itself?
It seems to me that you've hit the nail on the head, as
it may be less reasonable in real world terms to expect the majority of
professional photographers to learn enough about prepress CMYK issues than
for the press industry to accept a standard RGB input workflow. The
advent of monitors (such as the Artisan) that allow a consistent and
accurate way of softproofing color make this solution to a
"pressing" need more practical
too.
Dave King
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 19:28:04 -0000
From: "Bern Caughey"
Subject: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
Peter Figen,
Thanks for your detailed response.
There is a thread in Rob Galbraith's Color Management
forum, which illustrates much of the problems & confusion surrounding
this topic. Presently it is three pages long & has links to two other
related threads. It's almost completely from the photographers view point
& is somewhat biased.
"Files Delivered as LAB"
http://www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=
&Board=UBB3&Number=152999&fpart=1&PHPSESSID=
You are obviously a sharp cookie & I salute you for
knowledge, skill level & dedication. Being able to see every job all
the way through is demanding & beyond the abilities &/or desires of
most photographers. If you don't mind me asking, what type of commercial
photography do you do? Please feel free to email the answer if you'd rather
not discuss this online.
Busy schedules or client reluctance are just two areas
where actual photographer to prepress communication can be nearly
impossible. Often an image will be appear in the US, Europe, Japan &
the web, long after the photographer is away on another project. Even in
the same market, it may be in inserts, a magazine page or what-have-you.
There are some work arounds to all this, but wouldn't RGB submittal be best
for the widest possible usage?
I'm sure prepress houses don't want photographers
taking any profits out of their end & they are best positioned to
handle what has traditional been theirs, which was taking photographer's
RGB to the printed page.
Images that have a deliberate colorcast, say a
non-traditional skin tone, are examples of the danger of CMYK submittal
without a match print. Master photographer Melvin Sokolsky had such a
problem this past week with a story for the LA Times. Melvin is meticulous
is his file prep, but budget precluded KAPs. I believe he has decided to
always submit his own KAP from now on, which has normally been his
approach. This is an extreme example, but there are innumerous others with
more subtle issues. If the prepress had looked at his file on a proper
color calibrated monitor, then they would not have tried to correct the
color cast, but instead they printed them incorrectly.
Getting everyone to comply with a certain viewing
standard on a monitor really isn't asking too much & a lot cheaper the
pulling proofs. I know it's a lot of "if"s, but if you don't
comply, then you can't complain when fingers are pointed at you.
There are great arguments for seeing your files through
to press, but in reality this is often impossible or impractical. In such
cases, shouldn't we be advocating for a single standard, be it some flavor
of RGB or CMYK or both & viewed under identical conditions?
Thanks again,
Bern Caughey
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 19:27:54 -0500
From: Bob Smith
Subject: Re: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
On Saturday, August 23, 2003, at 02:28 PM, Bern
Caughey wrote:
Melvin is meticulous is his file prep, but budget
precluded
KAPs. I believe he has decided to always submit his own
KAP from now on,
which has normally been his approach.
Why KAPs (I assume that means Kodak Approval Print)?
You're not submitting something intended to be a contract proof, just
a guide print to say "hey, this is what I expect it to look
like". Its sort of the last line of defense against the chance
of any kind of whacked out setup on the other end that causes them to
misinterpret your digital files. A properly color managed, cross
rendered Epson print cost maybe a couple of dollars and takes minutes to
print. Its not exactly a major cost or inconvenience. It will serve the
purpose just as well as far more expensive digital prints that are more
typically used as contract proofs. Even the very low end, low cost
Epsons or other inkjets can do this just fine if properly color managed.
When working traditionally, I didn't always deliver the
same size and type of film or print to every client. Some wanted 4x5
transparencies even though the image would be reproduced tiny and 35mm
would be more than adequate. Some wanted only prints. Some
demanded transparencies though the photography requirements demanded neg
film. The point is I gave them what worked best for their workflow, not
necessarily what was easiest for me. It wasn't always logical.
Digital delivery is no different. Yes, in theory they could all work
from properly tagged RGB but the reality is that if you want the best
results (and the happiest clients) you're better off delivering whatever
flavor of digital that particular destination handles the best. And
not everyone has the same skills or works the same way.
Bob Smith
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 07:33:16 -0700
From: David Cardinal
Subject: RE: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
From: Bern Caughey
I'm sure prepress houses don't want photographers
taking any
profits out of their end & they are best positioned
to handle
what has traditional been theirs, which was taking
photographer's RGB to the printed page.
Bern--We have several thousand professional
photographers among our readership and they are all over the map on this
issue. 2/3 never deal with CMYK at all (do their own printing, or print to
services which accept RGB, or just send the files from the camera to their
editors). Out of the other 1/3, they divide into four groups, more or less:
1) Editorial/Stock shooters: Very little visibility
into the final output device. Interestingly many agencies and publishers
require CMYK from these photographers, but provide no insight on (and may
not know) how the images will actually be printed, so they get a fairly
random CMYK conversion (the Photoshop default, usually). The rest of the
time the photographer sends the image in RGB (Adobe RGB or sRGB or
unmanaged, either tagged or untagged). Months later the photographer sees
the final image in print, and if it doesn't look anything like the
original, sighs, says "oh, well", and forgets it. They may never
know whether the photo editor liked it better this way or someone just
didn't get it right.
2) Commercial shooters who fit the model you describe.
Many clients, many uses. They too tend to shy away from trying to
sort out CMYK issues for all the reasons you mention. And they hope that
their clients have in-house staff to deal with it.
3) Commercial shooters who either operate in-house for
large corporations or who have a small number of large clients and have
decided to tackle color reproduction head-on. These folks have actually
expanded their business to include more computers, more studio staff, and
more proofing hardware and work with their clients more extensively to take
responsibility for the CMYK conversions, and "only" submit CMYK
for the specific usage to their clients. Their workflow tends to begin with
careful profiling of their cameras and is color-managed (one way or
another) all the way through their studio.
4) Photographers involved with very small businesses or
organizations, where they wind up doing CMYK separations for their clients
as an add-on service because their clients don't really know how either.
This is a definite problem area and these are the photographers who seem
the most hungry for help in sorting out color issues, and learning about
various methods of color managing their workflow.
--David Cardinal
www.nikondigital.org
Pro Shooters LLC
www.proshooters.com
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 10:26:49 +0100
From: Richard Kenward
Subject: Re: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
Dear Bern
There is a simple logic in your proposal, but in my
view is less workable than the alternative CMYK supply route.
I felt the same as you up to perhaps six years ago and
then realized the impossibility of this expectation. Expecting
prepress/printers to firstly SEE the RGB file correctly on their screens,
and then take that interpretation through to CMYK and carry out the very
subjective image tweaks that one would like, was about as realistic as all
of us flying to the moon next week!
It is not just having a correctly adjusted monitor, it
is about having a perfect monitor without blotches and other bad things, it
is about having a correct, constant and ideal viewing environment. It
is about having competent staff, and a work ethic that allows sufficient
time and a careful approach to your work. At the end for it to fully
succeed it needs you to be able to look over the shoulder of the operator
and say, yes or no to the screen image. Finally what you see
on the monitor will not be totally be the same on the proof and anyhow as
you already know viewing a proof in a viewing booth is not the same as
seeing the image on screen. Getting a proof from the same file
from different proofing systems or even the same make and compare the
results...horror! So how can this work?
No, the only real and workable answer for the
photographer who is really picky about their work, is to try their best to
establish where and how and on what the images are to be printed, and if
possible get the appropriate press or proofer profile and go from there.
This does mean you need to have access to a good CMYK proofer that
replicates the final output so that you are able to send a good proof with
your file/s.
Hope this helps from a fellow photographer who has
learnt the hard way!
Cheers
--
Richard Kenward
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 10:25:19 -0400
From: Terry Wyse
Subject: Re: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
on 8/22/03 2:30 PM, Bern Caughey wrote:
The reality that most photographers will never be able
to speak to the
prepress house leaves no option except to come up with
some standard
means of delivery that requires no further interaction
between these two
parties.
If the two parties are unable to communicate, how can
they agree on a "standard" in the first place?
Why can't this just be some flavor of RGB? If they file
has been handled
properely, why couldn't this be equivalent of a
transparency? If the
photographer, client & prepress all have their
high-end monitors well
calibrated to the same standards, shouldn't this be
enough of a common
language?
I think it can be a flavor of RGB but assuming everyone
is viewing your "transparency" on a high-end calibrated/profiled
monitor is a bit of a stretch. And there are significant enough differences
between monitor profiling apps and devices that you'd all probably have to
agree to use the exact same software/hardware and calibration aimpoints to
be assured that everybody's seeing the same thing.
As it stands now, I'd only feel real comfortable
submitting both RGB & CYMK
files with some example KAPs. This is crazy, wastful
& often not practical.
Can't the image, xRGB on a proper monitor, just speak
for itself?
Here's what I'd do:
* Provide an RGB file tagged with your working space of
choice. This can be anything you want but I'd avoid leaving it tagged with
your "raw" scanner or digicam profile. Having said that, I'd
still stick to a WS that's more-or-less close to the color gamut of a
high-end monitor. (I still like the idea of supplying 16-bit LAB images but
that's a topic for another thread!).
* Provide an "RGB" print of your image. THIS
is what I would consider as your "transparency" as opposed to a
monitor soft-proof. This RGB print would simply be converted from your RGB
space directly to the printer's output space without cross-rendering. IOW,
a "full-gamut" print.
* Provide a "CMYK" proof to be used a guide
and to sort of show what is acceptable to you as far as color gamut
compromises. This proof could simply be a "cross-rendering" or
simulation of your RGB image to a typical CMYK working space such as
"USWebCoatedSWOPv2".
* This is where you can be tricky and I've actually
done this: Along with your tagged RGB images, provide converted-to-CMYK
images on the CD BUT put them in a Stuffit Archive (or similar) that's been
*password-protected*. If you provide the CMYK images just open and
available, most prepress/print folks will ALWAYS default to using these and
probably not even open your RGB images. But "locking" the CMYK
images in an archive, they will have to contact you somehow to get to them.
This will give you the opportunity to discuss things with them directly
and, if the situation warrants, you can opt to give them the password to
unlock the CMYK images. At any rate, this would be a great opening to
discuss working with tagged RGB images and to assess how
"ICC-aware" they are. If you don't feel comfortable, then it'd be
your choice to let them work with the CMYK images.
* And OF COURSE provide them with a little "Read
Me" on the CD that briefly explains what it is you've sent them and
how they should be handled.
Regards,
Terry
--
__________________________________
WyseConsul
Color Management Consulting
v 704.843.0858
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 19:12:11 -0400
From: "Lathan, Kim"
Subject: Re:Photographers,CMYK, and Proofing
Regarding the suggestion to submit a Kodak Approval or
other similar contract proof, this works only if the conditions are the
same as who is printing or giving you a new proof. We just had an ad
submitted to us (a digital file and Kodak Approval was sent), yet when the
job was output, it came out quite a bit warm. The proof looked totally
neutral (there were a lot of light gray and middle gray tones). Our Kodak
Approvals are set up to TR001-SWOP according to the Application Data Sheet
for the Approval XP (see www.swop.org). We send proofs and files all over
the US and the world so we have to standardize to some target, but do
retain the capability for very large or special jobs to create
special/different proofing conditions where needed. The proof that was
submitted to us also did not have any color bars on it, so we had no way of
checking to see if the proof was made 'correctly'. I would also like to add
that 'correctly' may be a matter of interpretation.
What it boiled down to is that the advertiser signed
off on an untargeted proof and we had to correct the image to match that
untargeted supplied proof. This job was supposed to have been 'a straight
output', don't touch it.
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 15:11:22 -0000
From: "Mark Tucker"
Subject: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
I am doing file prep on an offset Calendar that's going
to be run on a webpress. I asked the designer to call the printer, to try
to get an ICC Profile for the printer's proofing device. He just called
back, and said that the printer did not use ICC color management.
So now I wonder what to do.
I am working these photographs, with SoftProof turned
on in PS7, with USPrePress SwOP Coated Webv2 as my Softproof space. I guess
I'm embed the profiles but it sounds like that is not necessary.
I am trying to come up with some way to predict the
color, so I altered a Target File from Pixl.dk, and added some larger grey
wedges. I am going to send this to the printer today, and get a standard
digital proof, just to see what it looks like, and to develop some gut
feeling.
Here is the Image:
http://marktucker.com/bb/sheetfed.jpg
How does this sound to you guys? Is there some better
way, when the printer does not use ICC profiles?
And would you NOT embed the profiles, or would you just
leave them, and let them discard them?
Thanks,
Mark Tucker
Photographer
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 11:57:43 -0400
From: Andrew Darlow
Subject: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
Hi Mark:
This is a partial answer that will probably help you in
some way.
Regardless of whether you decide to embed a CMYK
profile or not, I would ask if they could send a recent digital proof of
another recent job along with a final press sheet from that same job
printed on the same press and paper that you'll be preparing for. Of
course, pressmen can do a lot to a job once ink hits paper, but it will
give you some sense of what will happen.
If they can't give you a proof, at least they can
probably give you a file that printed that other job, alonfg with a press
sheet(ask for the registration bars to be in there if you can).
Also, be sure that the CMYK proof they send you is the
same one they plan to use with the final job. Some companies have a Kodak
Approval, a CMYK Fuji proofer(based on the Pictography engine) and possibly
another proofer, all with their specific biases.
A press proof is always nice, and maybe they will go
out of their way to drop one of your files(or a strip of one) onto the side
of an upcoming job that will run on the same press with the same paper.
Hope that helps.
Andrew Darlow
PS-In general, I think that without a profiled press,
the midtones will have to be opened up to compensate for dot gain. Pulling
back black in light areas might also help and others will be able to tell
you more about custom sep setups depending on the type of product/imagery.
--
-------------------------
Photography, Digital Print Consulting and Custom
Editions
Andrew Darlow Images International
www.andrewdarlow.com
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 09:35:50 -0700
From: Peter Figen
Subject: Re: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
Mark Tucker wrote:
I am doing file prep on an offset Calendar that's going
to be run on a
webpress. I asked the designer to call the printer, to
try to get an
ICC Profile for the printer's proofing device. He just
called back,
and said that the printer did not use ICC color
management.
Most printers don't use ICC color management, but that
doesn't mean you can't.
So now I wonder what to do.
I would profile their proofing system.
I am working these photographs, with SoftProof turned
on in PS7, with
USPrePress SwOP Coated Webv2 as my Softproof space.
I wouldn't assume anything about what there printing
conditions are unless you actually know. Virtually every digital proofing
system used for DTP printing is calibrated only to the press it's set up
for, so where there used to be sort of a rough SWOP standard among analog
proofers, there is no standard whatsoever anymore. To some people the
differences are minor, but to my eye, they are huge. The only way to
accommodate these difference without multiple rounds of proofing is to make
a custom profile of the proofer you are using.
I guess I'm embed
the profiles but it sounds like that is not necessary.
Once the file is set up for your output, embedded
profile are not necessary for the successful printing of the job, but they
can be quite useful in soft proofing. As I have probably a dozen different
proofing systems that I have to use depending on the client and the job,
embedding the profile really helps me keep the files identified on my end.
Peter Figen
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 12:05:32 -0400
From: Jim Rich
Subject: Re: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
Mark,
One solution is the convert your file to CMYK
(say using SwOP Coated Webv2) and send it to the printer for a prepress
proof and then go from there.
If the proof looks like you want it to then you now
have a basis for using your printer with custom profiles.
One aspect of this long thread about embedding profiles
has been about good communication by either calling someone and or using
the profile as a communication tool.
As for embedding a profile, you can ask on the internet
all you want but what counts here is what your service provider says. So
you want to re-contact the printer to see how they handle them. And then
make your decision as to embedding or to not embed based on that
conversation.
My.02.
Good Luck
Jim Rich
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 11:23:58 -0600
From: Chris Murphy
Subject: Re: Re: Photographers, CMYK, and Proofing
On Friday, August 29, 2003, at 09:11 AM, Mark
Tucker wrote:
How does this sound to you guys? Is there some better
way, when the
printer does not use ICC profiles?
Call the printer on the phone and find out. Chances
are, unless they are printing 175-line or higher that you will get better
results using the SWOP v2 profile using relative colorimetric rendering.
And when the proofs come back and they aren't exactly
what you want, and you end up needing to do a round of edits on the images,
and then re-proof make sure the printer and the customer know that this
additional iteration wasn't necessary.
I expect TR004 to be released soon, and when that
happens we'll have another data set defining colorimetric aimpoints for
press behavior. This time it will be for coated sheetfed printing, I
believe the paper grade is going to be #1.
Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (TM)
www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor
Adobe Photoshop training classes are taught in the US by Sterling Ledet & Associates, Inc.
Receive Schedule
and Pricing updates.
If you let us know how to contact you, we will enter you into our monthly drawing for a free 2-day class (A $895 value).
- Get free video training
- Get free tips, tricks and shortcuts
- Get special sale pricing and free seminar invitations
Ledet Training 4100 Perimeter Park South Atlanta, GA 30341
work sales@ledet.com work administration@ledet.com work webmaster@ledet.com
P work 770.414.5007 P work 877.819.2665 F fax 312.896.9094
Need help? Try out live chat with a representative (9 to 6 EDT)
- Authorized Training Provider
Copyright 2013. Ledet Training. All Rights Reserved.
