From: INTERNET:john@hartleyandmarks.com, INTERNET:john@hartleyandmarks.com
Date: Wed, Jan 10, 2001, 10:17 PM
RE: [colortheory] Printing Overseas
We are book publishers based in North America and we do some of our colour book printing in Hong Kong. When we are printing here in North America, we use Matchprints in order to colour proof our work (which we have been happy with). At the moment we are not using colour profiling software. We get the colour we want by using our monitors, our experience and the matchprints that we run that are fairly close to what we are looking for on press. Often on press, we end up bumping up the yellow in order to get that "punch" in the colour that we like for our books.Our problem is that on the occasions that we have had stuff printed in Hong Kong, we have been disappointed with our output. We will get our matchprints looking good on our end, run our film and then ship it for printing. We explain to the printers that we want them to run heavy on the yellow but it always seems that our colour is lacking when we get the results. They take our negs and print from them even though they do most of their printing from positives and are not that familiar running film and printing from negatives. Our images are set with the dot gain settings that our printers have provided us (12%).
Our printers have told us they can provide us with a colour profile for their presses but they are a Mac shop and we are running PCs so I'm not sure that their profiles would be of any use to us.
We have asked our printer to provide printed samples and files for these samples so that we might compare their work on screen to our own and get a better sense of how we can improve our colour correction to get what we want. Is there a more accurate way to do this?
We would be happy to produce positives for them to print from but there is no one here in town that can make matchprints from positive film and we don't really have the experience with other proofing methods that we could be sure to trust them.
Is this a case where colour profiling software is the answer, given that our printer has a profile built to his press? Is there any way I can take their Mac profile and make it work with Photoshop on the PC (we are using Photoshop 5) without spending a bundle on profiling software? Or do we need to find another proofing system?
We would like to go to CTP printing but we are very nervous about not being able to properly proof our colour.
Thanks in advance,
John McKercher
Hartley & Marks Publishers
john@hartleyandmarks.com
From: Andrew Rodney, INTERNET:andrew@digitaldog.net
Date: Thu, Jan 11, 2001, 8:57 AM
RE: Re: [colortheory] Printing Overseas
on 1/10/01 8:04 PM, John McKercher at john@hartleyandmarks.com wrote:> Our printers have told us they can provide us with a colour profile for
> their presses but they are a Mac shop and we are running PCs so I'm not sure
> that their profiles would be of any use to us.No problem, the profiles will work just fine on your PC. Just be sure they place the .icm extension in the name and you're all set to go.
> We have asked our printer to provide printed samples and files for these
> samples so that we might compare their work on screen to our own and get a
> better sense of how we can improve our colour correction to get what we
> want. Is there a more accurate way to do this?Why don't you simply have them send you the profiles (email), convert some files from RGB to CMYK using the profiles and see if they would output a test for you. IF the profiles are good and IF your displays are properly calibrated, you should get a good soft proof on screen.
Andrew Rodney
From: Dan Margulis, INTERNET:76270.1033@compuserve.com
Date: Thu, Jan 11, 2001, 11:21 AM
RE: [colortheory] Printing Overseas
John McKercher writes,>>Our problem is that on the occasions that we have had stuff printed in Hong Kong, we have been disappointed with our output. We will get our matchprints looking good on our end, run our film and then ship it for printing. We explain to the printers that we want them to run heavy on the yellow but it always seems that our colour is lacking when we get the results. They take our negs and print from them even though they do most of their printing from positives and are not that familiar running film and printing from negatives. Our images are set with the dot gain settings that our printers have provided us (12%).>>
12% is ordinarily too low for printing from negs, and usually results in muddy-looking reproduction. However, with fine paper and good printing conditions, it is possible that it's right.
>>Our printers have told us they can provide us with a colour profile for their presses but they are a Mac shop and we are running PCs so I'm not sure that their profiles would be of any use to us.>>
You can use their profiles on a PC (you just have to give them an .icm suffix), but the problem is you would then have no method to generate a proof for yourself. Also, if this printer isn't even able to cope with supplied negs expecting them somehow to have an accurate profile is somewhat like expecting a fifth-grader to have an accurate understanding of calculus. And finally, in the unlikely event that the profile is accurate, it will only be accurate for supplied *positives*.
>>We have asked our printer to provide printed samples and files for these samples so that we might compare their work on screen to our own and get a better sense of how we can improve our colour correction to get what we want. Is there a more accurate way to do this?>>
This is normally the way to go, except here those printed samples were probably generated from positive film, hence useless to you if you are supplying negs. Nor can you use your own files and printed samples, because they were probably screwing around with them to try to match your proof, and it doesn't represent their normal printing. What you want them to give you is proofs from your own images, printed the way they feel comfortable printing them. If it looks too muddy or whatever, fine, you adjust your own methods to that.
>>We would be happy to produce positives for them to print from but there is no one here in town that can make matchprints from positive film and we don't really have the experience with other proofing methods that we could be sure to trust them.>>
To simplify: you are currently giving the printer something they don't get good results with. If you give them what they want, you currently have no ability to proof it. Something has to give.
The brute-force solutions are, a) find somebody who can make proofs from positive film; this is less common than it used to be, but it isn't a rare request. b) pull positives and negatives simultaneously, have proofs made from the negs and send the pos to the printer. c) pull positives and have your current supplier contact them into intermediate negs and make proofs from those. This can be done accurately, but the proofs will be wrong-reading.
The preferable method is to become more comfortable with digital proofing. Modern proofers can be configured to match almost any output. This way, you supply a digital proof with your negs. You are going to need to go through this education process anyway if you ever go CTP.
Dan Margulis
From: Chris Murphy, INTERNET:lists@colorremedies.com
Date: Thu, Jan 11, 2001, 3:21 PM
RE: Re: [colortheory] Printing Overseas
>Our images are set with the dot gain settings that our printers
>have provided us (12%).Which printer? The local one? Or the one in Hong Kong?
1.) The local printer's dot gain won't apply to the one in Hong Kong, so if it's coming from the local printer, it isn't valid.
2.) If the Hong Kong printer doesn't have a lot of experience working with negative platemaking, then their dot gain value is probably wrong also. I have yet to see a negative platemaking process with film that has dot gain that low even printing on a wonderful glossy coated paper which I assume you aren't. That dot gain sound like CTP dot gain, or a positive platemaking process dot gain with 8% added by someone who thinks negative platemaking has 8% higher gain than positive platemaking.
The two processes are completely different. So I'm inclined to think that this 12% figure is artificially low. Is there any chance they are doing a copydot scan of your film, then making new positive films and using a positive platemaking process?
>Our printers have told us they can provide us with a colour profile for
>their presses but they are a Mac shop and we are running PCs so I'm not sure
>that their profiles would be of any use to us.Not a problem. Just add the extension .icm to their profiles and they will work fine. Where they go depends on your Windows operating system, because the Joys of MicroSoft have decided to put ICC profiles in a different location in each of their five operating systems.
If you do a search for .icm you should find a folder full of them and that's a pretty safe bet that's where they should go on your machine. Newer Windows OS's will recognize either .icm or .icc.
>We have asked our printer to provide printed samples and files for these
>samples so that we might compare their work on screen to our own and get a
>better sense of how we can improve our colour correction to get what we
>want. Is there a more accurate way to do this?Sure. Have them print some small patches (1/2" x 1/2" is fine) in a trim area of 100% cyan, magenta, yellow, black; and overprints red, green, blue; and a 3 color black. Those colors you have someone measure xyY values and plug those into Photoshop's Ink Colors pop-up as Custom. Also have them print (it can all be done at the same time of course) at least a 50% dot area so you can measure the dot gain and plug that into Curves for each channel (so you need 50% cyan, magenta, yellow, and black). Photoshop lets you enter 13 points for each channel, but you generally don't need that much data. Minimum I'd get something in the middle, like 40% or 50% - then something at each end like 8% and 80% or 90% (or both).
Have them send you the prints and then you can have someone locally get you these measurements (ask your printer for their ink rep, he might be inclined to take the 15 minutes with his spectrophotometer he owns to get these measurements for you).
Keep in mind that this is going to be based *their* positive platemaking process. If you want to use negatives and find out their press behavior based on negative platemaking, then you will have to send them films with this test, and have them print it (and pay them for it) and then get it measured.
Separation information is condition specific. That includes RIP, imagesetter, film, plates, ink, temperature, humidity, blanket pressure, ink/water ratio - all those variables make a different with separation information. What that means is, you can't take accurate separation information and then change one of those variables (such as using negative platemaking when the basis for the separation info is for positive platemaking).
>Is this a case where colour profiling software is the answer, given that our
>printer has a profile built to his press?Perhaps. I'd be curious to see if it actually works, and the way you do that is you make all of your separations using their profile, and then get a contract proof that they will accept that simulates their press behavior. Now the first time around this might mean sending them digital files, and for them to have to *SHIP* you your contract proof. But at least you'll see if their profile is good enough and working. At that point it's their job to match the contract proof.
It's not so simple to just buy some software, push some buttons, and this problem is fixed. It takes more effort than that. If all our problems could be fixed by buying software and pushing buttons, man oh man would we all be a lot more sane than we are.
Anyway, there are a couple of problems that need to be solved as I see it whether you decide to adopt some form of color management or not:
1.) You need a way to get contract proofs that they will accept and match. I would focus on this first because no matter what else you do, if you are sending them negative based Matchprints and they aren't matching them good enough, then that's a dead end. You need to find some kind of proofing system they will accept, and that they can match.
2.) Maybe it's possible to use their profile, maybe not; but once you find a contract proofing system that you both can work with (and naturally you have reasonable access to) you can target that system for your separations and then it doesn't matter if you use their profile or not. If you get good looking proofs, and they've agreed to match them, then that's that.
3.) Now, theoretically if their press profile is good enough, and your tolerance isn't extremely high; you could just use their profile for both separations and making an in-house digital proof. They probably won't want to accept your proof as "contract" but you could send it as a guideline saying the proof is based on a profiled inkjet (or whatever) and their press profile. If their press profile is good, it will work. There are bunches of people who are doing this with large format printers on the Computer To Plate Pressroom list serve. So it can work, it's just a little risky because there is no film, there's no contract proof - etc. So this is one of those deals where it's easy and if it works, great; but I wouldn't be doing this or recommending it for really really important stuff. It sounds to me like it's important enough to be concerned about, but not important enough to be rejecting the problematic results you've gotten so far. So perhaps this is a viable option- at least at some point.
> Is there any way I can take their
>Mac profile and make it work with Photoshop on the PC (we are using
>Photoshop 5) without spending a bundle on profiling software? Or do we need
>to find another proofing system?You definitely need to be looking at finding a more appropriate proofing system that both they will accept *and* match *and* you have access to. Three whammies.
I would not concern yourself with a profiling package at this point. Even if you got one what would you do with it at that point? Fly to Hong Kong? I mean if it's getting to that point of seriousness call me :) But seriously, you can use their profile and see if it's good enough in the meantime. Just add .icm and stick it in the right folder, restart Photoshop, go into CMYK Setup, click on the ICC button at the top, and then pick their profile in the pop-up list.
>We would like to go to CTP printing but we are very nervous about not being
>able to properly proof our colour.That's the whole point behind contract proofs. A contract proof needs to be something that you can get, and the printer will accept *and* match. If you both sign off on it, then that is what they should be matching. It doesn't matter how it's made. If it's made by a 4 year old with crayons and you both agree to it, then that is the contract proof.
Chris Murphy
From: INTERNET:john@hartleyandmarks.com, INTERNET:john@hartleyandmarks.com
Date: Thu, Jan 11, 2001, 10:14 PM
RE: RE: [colortheory] Printing Overseas
we are intending to go to CTP in order to cut down on costs so I guess I'll need to go back and reread all those proofing threads again. Thanks.John
From: Chris Murphy, INTERNET:lists@colorremedies.com
Date: Fri, Jan 12, 2001, 1:14 AM
RE: RE: [colortheory] Printing Overseas
Dan writes:
>12% is ordinarily too low for printing from negs, and usually results in
>muddy-looking reproduction. However, with fine paper and good printing
>conditions, it is possible that it's right.I'm suspicious. It's possible, but if it's really this low, and the separation was made with this in mind, and yet the result wasn't satisfactory (sounds like it wasn't at all satisfactory) makes me think it's not right. And the fact it's in Hong Kong, and that they don't have a lot of experience with negative platemaking are contributing factors.
>You can use their profiles on a PC (you just have to give them an .icm
>suffix), but the problem is you would then have no method to generate a
>proof for yourself.If the profile is valid for the press (if if if if if), and yet more ifs for having a profile for a suitable inkjet printer, this would be possible. I'd be more interested in finding a contract proof everyone can agree regardless of whether their profile is used or not; but if it's a good profile there's no reason not to use it. More ifs.
> Also, if this printer isn't even able to cope with
>supplied negs expecting them somehow to have an accurate profile is
>somewhat like expecting a fifth-grader to have an accurate understanding of
>calculus.I disagree with the analogy. Just because they seem to have low experience with negative platemaking doesn't mean they don't have adequate profiles for their positive platemaking and printing process - which is afterall their normal workflow.
Just like here in the U.S. Just because most printers here would have a problem dealing with positive platemaking and have an equally low experience with it, doesn't mean they can't come up with good profiles for negative platemaking and printing.
So I think it's premature to say the profile isn't accurate. It is absolutely fair to say it's probably only accurate for positive platemaking (just like if you make one for negative platemaking it's not going to work for positive platemaking).
>The preferable method is to become more comfortable with digital proofing.
>Modern proofers can be configured to match almost any output. This way, you
>supply a digital proof with your negs. You are going to need to go through
>this education process anyway if you ever go CTP.Yes, yes, yes. I concur.
Chris Murphy
From: INTERNET:john@hartleyandmarks.com, INTERNET:john@hartleyandmarks.com
Date: Fri, Jan 12, 2001, 12:48 PM
RE: RE: [colortheory] Printing Overseas
The 12% figure is the figure that was given to us by the printers in Hong Kong, knowing they would be printing from negatives. The latest print job we got back from them was acceptable using this figure. This was the first job we had done with them using this figure (and the first one I was involved in as far as the colour correciton goes). I believe in the previous jobs, we were probably just using 20% (and standard Photoshop settings). So our results are getting better. We're just a little worried about going to CTP but I'll explore our proofing options with our overseas printers and see what they have to say.John McKercher
john@hartleyandmarks.com
From: mact@adcomgraphics.com [mailto:mact@adcomgraphics.com]
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 8:56 AM
To: john@hartleyandmarks.com
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Printing Overseas
>>positives for them to print from but there is no one here in town that can make matchprints from positive film and we don't really have the experience with other proofing methods that we could be sure to trust them.>>Imation DOES have film positive matchprint materials. It's new (last year or so I think). Ther are several different materials depending on dot gain. I believe they use the same processing, so there's no problem there.
Mac Townsend,
Adcom Graphics, Fairfield, CA:
Electronic Prepress
www.adcomgraphics.com
From: INTERNET:john@hartleyandmarks.com, INTERNET:john@hartleyandmarks.com
Date: Fri, Jan 12, 2001, 12:57 PM
RE: RE: [colortheory] Printing Overseas
>Imation DOES have film positive matchprint materials. It's new (last year or
>so I think). Ther are several different materials depending on dot gain. I
>believe they use the same processing, so there's no problem there.I know it can be done, but no one in town seems to stock the material and we don't do enough volume that it would make sense for these shops to stock it. On to digital proofing, I guess...
John
john@hartleyandmarks.com
From: "Dave Badger", INTERNET:dbadge@worldnet.att.net
Date: Sat, Jan 13, 2001, 4:18 PM
RE: Re: [colortheory] Printing Overseas
Dan Margulis wrote:>And finally, in the unlikely event that the profile is accurate,
>it will only be accurate for supplied *positives*.Could you explain how and why color is different when output to negatives vs positive films? I remember something about the middle tone giving a different dot gain. Also why is the rest of the world using positives with it's inherent problems of making clean proofs. Do they have any advantages over negs?
Dave Badger
From: Clare, INTERNET:clare@typeshop.co.nz
Date: Sat, Jan 13, 2001, 4:38 PM
RE: [colortheory] Printing Overseas
>>why is the rest of the world using positives with its inherent problems of making clean proofs. Do they have any advantages over negs?>>
The *rest of the world* does not necessarily print from positives. In New Zealand, by and large, the North Island uses possies and the South Island uses negs. Luckily, we are in the South Island and rarely deal with printers in the North Island so we usually output negs.
Clare Strange
TypeShop Ltd
Christchurch
New Zealand
From: Dan Margulis, INTERNET:76270.1033@compuserve.com
Date: Sat, Jan 13, 2001, 5:06 PM
RE: Re: [colortheory] Printing Overseas
Dave writes,>>Could you explain how and why color is different when output to negatives vs positive films?>>
The film is vacuum-contacted to the plate, which is then exposed. The contact is nearly, but not absolutely, perfect. As a result, wherever light and dark collide in the film, the dark recedes ever so slightly because a certain amount of light gets through. If using negative film, the halftone dots are light and the background dark, so the background recedes very slightly and the dots get bigger. With positive film it's the opposite. Although you'd need a loupe to see the difference, there's enough there so that negative film typically has around three points more dot gain than its positive equivalent.
>>Also why is the rest of the world using positives with it's inherent problems of making clean proofs. Do they have any advantages over negs?>>
Prior to electronic pagination, the rest of the world didn't pay strippers nearly as much as was the case in the U.S. Once a page was proofed and the client came back with significant type changes, the practice in the U.S. was to set the type on paper and repaste and reshoot the mechanical, so as to avoid unnecessary stripping time. Elsewhere, the practice was for the new type to be output in film and for the stripper to cut it into the flat. Naturally, it's a lot easier for the stripper to do this if the film is positive.
Nowadays there's less reason to do this, but whole workflows grew around the concept of positive film, and that's what their equipment was purchased to handle.
Dan Margulis
From: INTERNET:rproulx@r2p2.com, INTERNET:rproulx@r2p2.com
To: Dan Margulis, 76270,1033
Date: Tue, Jan 23, 2001, 10:52 AM
RE: [colortheory] Eurostandard<- help!
We're preparing an ad for a magazine that will be printed in the UK and I'm not quite sure how best to supply them with a digital document and proof.Because of time concerns the magazine is requesting the digital file be sent first so they can proceed with layout and producing plates and the proof only needs to arrive a few days later.
The requirements are "same size screened positives (right reading, emulsion side down) with progressives. Screen 54 ". I assume "progressives" refers to a contract proof of some sort and "Screen 54" is lpc(entimeter). So far so good.
Can I assume that "Eurostandard(Coated)" will produce an appropriate dot gain for POS films?
Are H/L and shadow values different when working towards this output? (5,2,2,0 / 80,70,70,70 - total Ink, etc..)?
Since the films will be produced in England from the digital file how can I produce a useful proof without also producing POS films here and finding someone who has appropriate proofing materials. Most proofing systems seem to be fine tuned to SWOP. Would it be fair to re-separate the file with SWOP(coated) settings and output this on a digital SWOP based proofer and send this along as the contract proof. Wouldn't this be a bit dishonest since it was not made from the same file they receive?
How do folks deal with cross-continent compatibility?
Thanks for any help.
Russell Proulx
Montreal (CANADA)
From: Dan Margulis, INTERNET:76270.1033@compuserve.com
Date: Tue, Jan 23, 2001, 9:46 PM
RE: [colortheory] Eurostandard<- help!
Russell writes,
>>The requirements are "same size screened positives (right reading, emulsion side down) with progressives. Screen 54 ". I assume "progressives" refers to a contract proof of some sort and "Screen 54" is lpc(entimeter). So far so good.>>Not necessarily. Your interpretation of Screen 54 is correct, however, the word "progressives," known as "progs" among the cognoscenti, may indicate a problem. A set of progs is a set of all possible combinations of inks for the image, e.g. a magenta-only version, a M+C version, an M+C+Y version, etc. This is of course a great help in diagnosing any difficulty that may arise on press, but to get a set of progs, obviously you need to be proofing the job on a press, not a digital or film-based contract proof.
A set of progs was in fact a requirement for U.S. magazine ads in the 1980s, and some magazines still state that they require them. However, I don't know that any magazine in the U.S. will currently turn away an ad that's accompanied only by a Matchprint. I can't, however, speak for UK printers. You need to find out whether they mean what they say about these progs. If they do, you need a press proof.
>>Can I assume that "Eurostandard(Coated)" will produce an appropriate dot gain for POS films?>>
No. It will compensate for the minor differences in ink hue, but it overstates the difference in dot gain. The use of positive film will knock 3-5 points off the dot gain you might expect in a North American publication. So, use the Eurostandard inks, but set the dot gain to whatever you are accustomed to less 3-5 points. The Photoshop Eurostandard default is 9%, which is too low.
>>Are H/L and shadow values different when working towards this output? (5,2,2,0 / 80,70,70,70 - total Ink, etc..)?>>
In principle they are the same, but Eurostandard does not apply the SWOP limitation of 300 total ink, I think they draw the line at 320. You should get marginally better shadow detail anyway owing to the reduction in dot gain, so you may feel it appropriate to hike the black a little for more snap.
>>Since the films will be produced in England from the digital file how can I produce a useful proof without also producing POS films here and finding someone who has appropriate proofing materials. Most proofing systems seem to be fine tuned to SWOP. Would it be fair to re-separate the file with SWOP(coated) settings and output this on a digital SWOP based proofer and send this along as the contract proof. Wouldn't this be a bit dishonest since it was not made from the same file they receive?>>
It would be fair, IMHO, but not every printer would agree. Presumably this is not the first time they have had to deal with someone from North America, so they may have some set policy.
>>How do folks deal with cross-continent compatibility?>>
They wing it, basically. Other than the dot gain differential printability is just about the same. Warning, though: European printing is a *lot* more variable in quality than what one finds on this side of the lake. Some printers are very, very, good, and some are very, very bad.
Dan Margulis
From: INTERNET:rproulx@r2p2.com, INTERNET:rproulx@r2p2.com
Date: Tue, Jan 23, 2001, 10:54 PM
RE: Re: [colortheory] Eurostandard<- help!
On 23 Jan 2001, at 21:18, Dan Margulis wrote:> obviously you need to be proofing the job on a press, not a
> digital or film-based contract proof.Yikes! I don't think we want to go there...
Perhaps a cheapo 3M colorkey would do and they could then mix and match the overlays to their hearts delight<g>
> I don't know that any magazine in the U.S. will currently turn away an
> ad that's accompanied only by a Matchprint.I have the printers name and email address in the UK and will check with him. I'm sure they won't insist on "progs".
> use the Eurostandard inks, but set the dot gain to whatever you are
> accustomed to less 3-5 points. ......You should get marginally
> better shadow detail anyway owing to the reduction in dot gain, so
> you may feel it appropriate to hike the black a little for more
> snap.This list is worth it's weight in gold :-))
> Warning, though: European printing is a *lot* more variable in
> quality than what one finds on this side of the lake. Some printers
> are very, very, good, and some are very, very bad.This is a top notch engineering/architecture magazine and every issue I've seen is very well printed. So at least this is one variable I can rule out.
Thanks again for your very generous help :-))
(Thanks "J" for your help, too.)
Sincerely,
Russell Proulx
Photographer
Montreal, CANADA
From: "Martin Bailey, Harlequin", INTERNET:martinb@harlequin.com
Date: Wed, Jan 24, 2001, 5:52 AM
RE: Re: [colortheory] Eurostandard<- help!
At 02:18 24/01/01, Dan Margulis wrote:>Your interpretation of Screen 54 is correct, however, the
>word "progressives," known as "progs" among the cognoscenti, may indicate a
>problem. A set of progs is a set of all possible combinations of inks for
>the image, e.g. a magenta-only version, a M+C version, an M+C+Y version,
>etc. This is of course a great help in diagnosing any difficulty that may
>arise on press, but to get a set of progs, obviously you need to be
>proofing the job on a press, not a digital or film-based contract proof.My understanding was that it's not all possible combinations of inks, but is defined by the lay-down order on press. If they're printing YMCK then you need to create Y, Y+M, Y+M+C and Y+M+C+K.
There are also some digital proofing devices that can produce progressives - I know Harlequin RIPs can make them and it wouldn't surprise me if others could too.
BUT ... the usefulness of those digital progressives depends rather on what you're planning to use them for and how well the colours of the donors and media on the proofing device match the inks and paper on press. If you're looking for screen moire then you'll need a half-tone proofer at an appropriate resolution.
If you're looking to gauge on-press colour then you'll need a proofer that matches the press colours because colour management effects may be somewhat strange - in the example above the Y+C proof won't include any M or K that might be required to adjust the proofer's Y+C donors to match the press.
>A set of progs was in fact a requirement for U.S. magazine ads in the
>1980s, and some magazines still state that they require them. However, I
>don't know that any magazine in the U.S. will currently turn away an ad
>that's accompanied only by a Matchprint. I can't, however, speak for UK
>printers. You need to find out whether they mean what they say about these
>progs. If they do, you need a press proof.Agreed - in my experience progressives are most use if you're spreading the CMYK over multiple press runs, e.g. on a two-colour press. In a modern publication web press there isn't exactly a lot of time to examine the web between stations, and you hardly want to cut or stop it just to examine it at that stage!
Regards
Martin Bailey
-------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Technical Consultant mailto:martinb@harlequin.com
Digital Print & Publishing +44 1223 873800
Harlequin http://www.harlequin.com
-------------------------------------------------------------
If my views didn't usually coincide with those of my employer
I wouldn't want to work here, but I am not a spokesman for
Harlequin and the buck stops with me for what I say.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adobe Photoshop training classes are taught in the US by Sterling Ledet & Associates, Inc.