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