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