Dan Margulis Applied Color Theory

Web vs. Sheetfed Printing

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 12:23:52 -0700
   From: Lee Varis
Subject: Web vs Sheetfed

Hi all,

Anyone know the relative percentages of the number of print jobs going to web presses vs the number of jobs that are sheetfed?

Also... I'm trying to come to grips with the differences I'm seeing in apparent dot gain between Photoshop's sheetfed profile and the SWOP profile... are these set up backwards or is the sheetfed profile just doing too much dot gain compensation?

regards,

Lee Varis
http://www.varis.com
888-964-0024
____________________________________________________________________________

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:02:26 -0600
   From: Chris Murphy
Subject: Re: Web vs Sheetfed

On Wednesday, June 25, 2003, at 01:23  PM, Lee Varis wrote:

Anyone know the relative percentages of the number of print jobs going
to web presses vs the number of jobs that are sheetfed?

Also... I'm trying to come to grips with the differences I'm seeing in
apparent dot gain between Photoshop's sheetfed profile and the SWOP
profile... are these set up backwards or is the sheetfed profile just
doing too much dot gain compensation?

Hi Lee,

If all things are equal, you will have less dot gain on sheetfed compared to web fed  printing. However, the two profiles aren't equal. The SWOP profile is based on 133 line screen printing, and the sheetfed profile is based on 175 line screen. The higher the line screen, the higher the dot gain.

Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (TM)
____________________________________________________________________________

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:07:29 EDT
   From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Re: Web vs Sheetfed

Lee Varis writes,

Anyone know the relative percentages of the number of print jobs going
to web presses vs the number of jobs that are sheetfed?

It's a trick question. If it's the number of *jobs*, obviously there are way more jobs printed sheetfed than web, because you have to be printing at least several thousand copies to make web economical.

OTOH, if it's the number of *impressions*, obviously there are way more impressions printed web than sheetfed, because web presses are capable not just of high speeds but greater page counts simultaneously, plus with longer runs, there's much less press downtime to change jobs.

Also... I'm trying to come to grips with the differences I'm seeing in
apparent dot gain between Photoshop's sheetfed profile and the SWOP
profile... are these set up backwards or is the sheetfed profile just
doing too much dot gain compensation?

It could be either one, but the most likely explanation is that they have them backwards--they simply put the wrong name on each of the profiles. Either that, or their measurements were even more screwed up than normal.

Chris's explanation that it's due to line screen is bogus. The difference in dot gain when going to 175 dots per inch exists but it's small. The difference between sheetfed and web is huge. In my book I suggested that it's about 6 points. That's roughly the difference between the two profiles as they stand, except that the wrong one is the darker one.

Thus, somebody needs to explain away 2*6=12 points of additional dot gain to account for how a web profile can produce seps that are six points *darker* than a sheetfed profile does rather than six points *lighter* as one would expect. In my book, I suggested that 175-dot per inch printing adds about one point of dot gain, so that's a start. As soon as Chris or somebody from Adobe comes up with an adequate excuse for the other 11 points (and 11 points is huge--almost the difference between web coated and newspaper printing), I'll believe that they didn't just accidentally swap the names of the two profiles.

Dan Margulis
____________________________________________________________________________

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:29:14 -0400
   From: Michael O'Connor
Subject: Re: Web vs Sheetfed

Lee Varis wrote:

Also... I'm trying to come to grips with the differences I'm seeing in
apparent dot gain between Photoshop's sheetfed profile and the SWOP
profile... are these set up backwards or is the sheetfed profile just
doing too much dot gain compensation?

I still think its a combination of factors, higher screen ruling, higher ink hold out of typical stocks, and typically higher ink densities used in sheetfed.

If you want a general profile to soft proof expected results you need to consider more than dot gain alone.

Michael O'Connor
____________________________________________________________________________

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:21:47 -0600
   From: Chris Murphy
Subject: Re: Web vs Sheetfed

On Wednesday, June 25, 2003, at 06:07  PM, Dan Margulis wrote:

The difference in dot gain when going to 175 dots per inch exists but
it's small. The difference between sheetfed and web is huge. In my
book I suggested that it's about 6 points.

If you don't take line screen or paper into account, yes it is. Otherwise it's the same process between the two. TR001 is based on sheetfed press runs, but is the colorimetric aimpoints for SWOP.

In "Quality & Productivity in the Graphic Arts" Miles Southworth quotes "Rosen test data" as showing dot gain for 120 lpi @15%. For 150 lpi it was 28%. That's a 13% difference just due to line screen. At 65 lpi dot gain was negligible at 2%. So there is clearly an increase in dot gain with increasing screen ruling. HOWEVER, I'd forgotten the Adobe press run was performed CTP. Dot gain is known to decrease by as much as 10%. The increase in dot gain going from 133 to 175 is offset to a great degree by the decrease in dot gain by printing CTP, but not entirely. I propose the remaining difference is due to paper white.

 As soon as Chris or somebody from Adobe comes up with an adequate
excuse for the other 11 points (and 11 points is huge--almost the
difference between web coated and newspaper printing), I'll believe
that they didn't just accidentally swap the names of the two profiles.

That's ridiculous. The SWOP v2  profile exhibits TR001 behavior (that's
the data that was used to build the profile). I've confirmed it, and others who depend on SWOP conditions have confirmed it. That profile is correct.

After doing some digging, here's what's going on
1. Make two LAB documents, fill both with L*=50
2. Convert on of them to SWOP v2, the other to Sheetfed Coated v2; use *Absolute Colorimetric* in order to preserve the requested L* exactly.
3. Go into color settings and set the rendering intent to AbsCol so the eye dropper tool reports actual LAB values instead of media relative values.

Results:
SWOP v2 = 51C, 40M, 37Y, 6K

Sheetfed = 51C, 42M, 38Y, 5K

Clearly the separation itself is not dramatically different, if you want the same color accounting for paper white, the profiles produce similar results. If you make relative colorimetric conversions, which don't take media white into account, you end up with darker separations with SWOP v2 than with Sheetfed v2. To simulate SWOP paper white on Sheetfed Coated takes values of 6C, 5M, 7Y which accounts for most of the difference.

The reason why a given CMYK image LOOKS darker with Sheetfed v2 assigned compared to SWOP v2 is again because rendering to the display is not taking paper white into account. If you take paper white into account by turning on paper white simulation on both versions, they end up looking very similar (the SWOP one gets darker).

Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (TM)
www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor
____________________________________________________________________________

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 07:52:54 -0700
   From: Lee Varis
Subject: Re: Web vs Sheetfed

On Wednesday, June 25, 2003, at 09:21  PM, Chris Murphy wrote:

The reason why a given CMYK image LOOKS darker with Sheetfed v2
assigned compared to SWOP v2 is again because rendering to the display
is not taking paper white into account. If you take paper white into
account by turning on paper white simulation on both versions, they end
up looking very similar (the SWOP one gets darker).

I think I understand this BUT... why should the paper white point be different if you print to the same kind of paper (coated)? Shouldn't they display consistently if both have paper white turned off?

regards,

Lee Varis
http://www.varis.com
888-964-0024
____________________________________________________________________________

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:26:44 -0600
   From: Chris Murphy
Subject: Re: Web vs Sheetfed

On Thursday, June 26, 2003, at 08:52  AM, Lee Varis wrote:

I think I understand this BUT... why should the paper white point be
different if you print to the same kind of paper (coated)? Shouldn't
they display consistently if both have paper white turned off?

You may be printing to the same kind of paper :) but SWOP specifies a #5 stock and that's what was used for TR001 (colorimetric aimpoints for SWOP), and TR001 was used to build the U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2 profile included with Adobe products. The U.S. Sheetfed Coated v2 profile is using either a #1 or #2 stock, I'm not sure which, but the reported brightness in the profile is pretty white at 97L*, -1a*, 2b* compared to SWOP which is 89L*, 0a*, 1b*. So these profiles will have behavior that is the result of their paper white no matter what rendering intent you use: in the case of AbsCol the paper white is taken into account in order to get an exact LAB match source to destination. But in the case of RelCol, the paper white measurement is subtracted such that the CMS assumes the paper has a whiteness of 100L*, 0a*, 0b*. The result is heavier separations. Within the current framework there is no way around this as far as I can tell.

I have a request in to see if TR001 is based on measurements over a black trap or over multiple sheets of #5. If it's the former, then TR001 is probably overstating the darkness of #5 stock. That stock is thin and thus translucent. If placed on a black trap per the ANSI standard method for taking colorimetric measurements, some of that black trap will show through and contribute gray component where there is none. In reality, the way people read magazines, it's paper on multiple sheets of paper except for the last page in the magazine. That's arguably the way it should have been measured, even if it's not standard.

If my suspicion is correct, #5 paper white would probably be closer to 93L*, 0a*,2b*. Maybe even L*=94. That would make a big difference in closing the gap between the Sheetfed and Web separations.

Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (TM)
www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor
____________________________________________________________________________

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:53:35 -0700
   From: Lee Varis
Subject: Re: Web vs Sheetfed

On Thursday, June 26, 2003, at 09:26  AM, Chris Murphy wrote:

If my suspicion is correct, #5 paper white would probably be closer to
93L*, 0a*,2b*. Maybe even L*=94. That would make a big difference in
closing the gap between the Sheetfed and Web separations.

OK... I got it!  All of this undocumented, invisible/visible stuff just seems so confusing. It seems much more straightforward to simply spec total ink, GCR, dot gain and black %... its just that when recommending separation settings to someone its nice to be able to say simply, "use U.S.Web Coated (SWOP) v2".

It had always seemed to me that this ended up being pretty reasonable for the average sheetfed job at a small print shop doing 150 lpi printing. For a real web press job I think it's a tad too dark whether or not it meets TR001 specs and it has nothing to do with the way it previews through the soft proof set up.

Now when using the Proof Colors view to visualize your separations we find that the "standard" CMYK profiles may or may not match up with your intended paper stock but you have no way of "switching" the preview to reflect different paper settings. If you choose not to view "Paper White" the preview , being RelCol, gives you an improperly skewed brightness regardless... there's NO perceptual rendering to the screen!

Everyone wants to be able to trust what they see on screen BUT you still must be very wary... check your numbers and cross your fingers. A custom press profile is impossible for most users and if you go down the rather dimly lit path of the Proof Colors view in Photoshop you could get yourself into some serious dodo!

regards,

Lee Varis
http://www.varis.com
888-964-0024
____________________________________________________________________________

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:40:33 -0400
   From: Michael O'Connor
Subject: Re: Web vs Sheetfed

I'm out of my element here, but it would seem to me that adding a mistaken gray component would make the soft proof made to the web profile darker rather than lighter, so if you took it away there would be more of a difference between web and sheetfed results, not less, what am I missing?

It also seems to me that cmyk made to the sheetfed profile is not darker across the board, its darker from near 3/4 tones to shadows, where the effects of higher paper grades and higher ink densities should be appearing.

Michael O'Connor
____________________________________________________________________________

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:12:03 -0600
   From: Chris Murphy
Subject: Re: Web vs Sheetfed

On Thursday, June 26, 2003, at 01:40  PM, Michael O'Connor wrote:

I'm out of my element here, but it would seem to me that adding a mistaken gray
component would make the soft proof made to the web profile darker rather than
lighter, so if you took it away there would be more of a difference between web
and sheetfed results, not less, what am I missing?

For the soft proof you are correct. But the effect on the separations generated by the profile are the opposite. For soft proofing, you use AbsCol which accounts for paper white. If that paper white is bogus and darker than it really is, the AbsCol rendering to the display will predict a darker final product.

BUT because the CMS subtracts the paper white value when making separations,  using the RelCol rendering intent, it's assuming the paper white is higher than it is, and thus is making heavier separations than it should. This problem is not a big deal with brighter papers, but the problem becomes a penalty the darker the paper.

Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (TM)
www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor
 ____________________________________________________________________________

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:08:31 -0600
   From: Chris Murphy
Subject: Re: Web vs Sheetfed
 
On Thursday, June 26, 2003, at 11:53  AM, Lee Varis wrote:

OK... I got it!  All of this undocumented, invisible/visible stuff just
seems so confusing. It seems much more straightforward to simply spec
total ink, GCR, dot gain and black %... its just that when recommending
separation settings to someone its nice to be able to say simply, "use
U.S.Web Coated (SWOP) v2".

There's a lot of room for improvement in both methods. TAC, GCR, K limit, and dot gain are only part of the tale. The ink colors themselves play a large role as well and most people using Custom CMYK don't take the ink colors into account, and merely just change dot gain and ink limits. Plus there's no simulation possible for white or black since that architecture assumes white has an L* of 100, and black has an L* of 0. Both are impossible. It also means black point compensation doesn't work.

It had always seemed to me that this ended up being pretty reasonable
for the average sheetfed job at a small print shop doing 150 lpi
printing. For a real web press job I think it's a tad too dark whether
or not it meets TR001 specs and it has nothing to do with the way it
previews through the soft proof set up.

That's because of how the CMS makes this assumption that the paper white is 100 L* when doing RelCol conversions. The darker the paper, the more gets subtracted from actual measurement data values by the CMS when using media relative rendering. It's arguably a huge bug in the ICC spec. What's needed is something like: RelCol rendering for just highlights and near neutrals, and AbsCol for everything else, but then also do black point compensation to map the source tonal range into the destination's tonal range to preserve shadow detail instead of clipping it (like AbsCol) would. So we really need a new or adaptive rendering intent to really solve the problem.

I've just heard that the L* for TR001 is artificially low because they did measure a single 60# sheet on a black trap, not on a stack of paper. There is a profile in the works using an updated paper white value. Once I have information on this profile, I'll let you know. The other thing you could do if you have a profile building application is to go in an edit the TR001 measurement data white point value and change it to something like 94, 0, 2 and then rebuild the profile. Then RelCol will behave better.

Now when using the Proof Colors view to visualize your separations we
find that the "standard" CMYK profiles may or may not match up with
your intended paper stock but you have no way of "switching" the
preview to reflect different paper settings.

Right. With ICC profiles, everything is locked into the profile. No ability to account for paper white. No ability to account for changes in dot gain. No ability to account for changes in ink limits or GCR. No ability to compensate for non-standard lighting conditions. You have to build separate profiles for each intended purpose.

More and more people are using ICC based color management, and we're finding increasing limitations with the framework.

Everyone wants to be able to trust what they see on screen BUT you
still must be very wary... check your numbers and cross your fingers.

Despite the flaws, it's pretty amazing how well it can work. But the system is very dependent on having a profile that represents actual output behavior.

 A custom press profile is impossible for most users and if you go down
the rather dimly lit path of the Proof Colors view in Photoshop you
could get yourself into some serious dodo!

Yes but it would be like ordering an Approval for a magazine job and then actually going to press using waterless inks and a positive plate making process. There are all kinds of ways to hose things when the wrong assumptions are made. That it's EASY and CHEAP to make the wrong assumptions with color management is certainly a gotcha (the consequences of easy and cheap assumptions end up being expensive).

Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (TM)
www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor
____________________________________________________________________________

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 08:03:19 EDT
   From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Re: Web vs Sheetfed

Chris writes,

In "Quality & Productivity in the Graphic Arts" Miles Southworth quotes
"Rosen test data" as showing dot gain for 120 lpi @15%. For 150 lpi it was 28%.
That's a 13% difference just due to line screen. At 65 lpi dot gain was
negligible at 2%.

I don't have access to this document, however, you must be misinterpreting what Miles said or else he is using some kind of percentage system that isn't the same as the rest of us use. I would try to be more reasonable about this, but basically this is the same as if you had said,

     *Miles Southworth has data showing that the current president of the United States is Rutherford B. Hayes.
     *Miles Southworth has found that the typical human being grows to a height of 213 feet, 9 inches.
     *Miles Southworth has a study indicating that the average summer temperature in Boulder, CO, is 247 degrees below zero.

None of these statements are any more preposterous than the numbers you're citing, hence it becomes very difficult to discuss it rationally, but here goes.

*Magazines printed on coated paper almost all use *either* 150 or 133-line screens, some interchangeably. An ad that prints in several magazines probably appears a few times at each one. Nobody does ads twice for the two different settings. If anything even remotely close to the numbers you cite were happening such a workflow would be out of the question.

*A common tactic of many authors, including me, is to run a page on which the same image appears at various different screenings. This would obviously be impossible if the dot gain difference were that severe. You do see the effect, but you have to look very, very, very hard. Certainly the effect is less than a tenth of what you are talking about above. In my most recent book I have a 150 next to a 300 printing on a web press that was absolutely never intended to print 300-line screens or anything close. That's about as extreme a challenge as could possibly be imagined. I'd estimate the additional dot gain at around 4%--nowhere near the numbers you're citing for far, far less demanding changes.

*If 65-line screens produce 26% less dot gain than 150-line, that's way more than the 10% or so extra dot gain contributed by newsprint. Therefore, if you're repurposing a commercial sheet-fed file for printing in a newspaper, you have to make the image grossly *darker*, to compensate for the smaller dot gain!!! All those people over the years who have mistakenly thought that the newspaper seps have to be grossly *lighter* obviously just don't understand ICC color management!

HOWEVER, I'd forgotten the Adobe press run was performed CTP. Dot gain is
known to decrease by as much as 10%.

It's not known to do any such thing. SWOP doesn't even make an allowance for it. My book suggests 3% and shows a sample to back it up. But, you're right, that would account for a small part of the difference between the profiles. I'd say you have 8 points to go now, not 11.

I propose the remaining difference is due to paper white.

If true, it's totally backwards. Judging by the proof settings, the "web" profile does seem to take a wildly pessimistic view of how white the paper is. If so, the logical reaction is to *lighten* the resulting separation, not darken it, as you suggest in a different post. If the profile is supposed to believe that the web paper is very dark, it becomes even more difficult to believe, if possible, that it is generating a sep that's much darker than the corresponding sheetfed sep.

2. Convert on of them to SWOP v2, the other to Sheetfed Coated v2; use *Absolute Colorimetric* in order to preserve the requested L* exactly.

Surely you cannot seriously be suggesting using Absolute Colorimetric in a production setting.

This whole conversation is as simple as it is ludicrous. Any digital file is going to appear darker if printed on a web press than on a sheetfed press under almost any conceivable condition. Logically, therefore, one must expect a web profile to generate a significantly *lighter* sep than a sheetfed profile--especially so, if the paper is supposedly dark. Instead, we get a profile that generates a significantly *darker* sep.

We do not need a discussion of tristimulus values, rendering intents, L*a*b*, colorimetry, ICC politics, how newspaper printing actually has less dot gain than sheetfed printing, or the square root of pi here. What we need is a for the web sep to be lighter than the sheetfed sep.

Since this is apparently too onerous a request, you offer us 1) that, according to color science, web printing is actually *lighter* than sheetfed printing, so we need a darker sep; 2) that you can, if not give us a lighter sep, then at least one equally dark, provided we are willing to accept an extreme cyan cast and not have our 0c0m0y areas 0c0m0y any more.

Now, refresh my memory. Why, exactly, does ICC color management have such a bad rep?

Dan Margulis
____________________________________________________________________________

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 07:46:34 -0600
   From: Jim Donovan
Subject: Re: Web vs Sheetfed

outstanding answer dan!!!!! once again you hit the nail on the head. thanx
for keeping it real life, not theroy, hard to believe anyone who puts dots
on paper could disagree. thanx!!!!!
____________________________________________________________________________

Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:28:58 -0600
   From: Chris Murphy
Subject: Re: Web vs Sheetfed

On Friday, June 27, 2003, at 06:03  AM, Dan Margulis wrote:

I don't have access to this document, however, you must be misinterpreting
what Miles said or else he is using some kind of percentage system that isn't
the same as the rest of us use.

I quote from page 14-18 "A 65-line screen has almost no dot gain, while a 150-line screen has considerable dot gain. It would be foolhardy to increase the frequency to more than 150 lpi, because in most cases that would cause extreme dot gain. Some printers are capable of printing finer screen rulings, but only with special attention to blankets, ink viscosity and tack, and critical ink and water balance. When printing too fine a screen ruling, press crews have to keep middletones and shadow open by reducing the SID."

This would be for film based plate making, in 1989. The soft dot produced on film makes it more susceptible to dot gain during plate making, thus it stands to reason the higher the line screen the bigger the dot gain problem. CTP/DTP have a sharp dot, and with linear plate making the dot you ask for is the dot you get regardless of line screen.

In any event, I've now provided two citations. It's not an acceptable form of debate to simply make jokes in a lame and unconvincing attempt to discredit something you don't even have access to. If you are going to make the claim that the data I've cited is wrong, you need to provide contrary credible evidence that specifically refutes what I've cited.

*Magazines printed on coated paper almost all use *either* 150 or 133-line
screens, some interchangeably. An ad that prints in several magazines probably
appears a few times at each one. Nobody does ads twice for the two different
settings. If anything even remotely close to the numbers you cite were happening
such a workflow would be out of the question.

If it weren't for transfer curves and reducing SID yes. Transfer curves have been used for years to compensate for dot gain in order to ensure file portability specifically in the example you cite.

*A common tactic of many authors, including me, is to run a page on which the
same image appears at various different screenings. This would obviously be
impossible if the dot gain difference were that severe.

That you are doing this at 300 lpi implies CTP and the difference in gain due to plate making is zero, unlike with film based plate making. You assume the difference is the same regardless of line screen. I don't.

*If 65-line screens produce 26% less dot gain than 150-line, that's way more
than the 10% or so extra dot gain contributed by newsprint. Therefore, if
you're repurposing a commercial sheet-fed file for printing in a newspaper, you
have to make the image grossly *darker*, to compensate for the smaller dot
gain!!!

1. Who prints 65 lpi on newsprint these days? SNAP calls for 32% dot gain @ 85 lpi.

2. You presume that there is only 10% extra dot gain contributed by newsprint. Due to the lower dot gain of 85 lpi, the actual contribution to dot gain by paper is a lot higher than  you are proposing, in my opinion. The whole point of printing at 85 lpi on newsprint instead of 150 lpi is because dot gain would be out of control at 150 lpi on newsprint. That's why there is such a thing as printing at lower line screens on lower quality papers. If the difference were just a few percent, as you are suggesting, then we could all print 175 lpi on any paper we wanted.

HOWEVER, I'd forgotten the Adobe press run was performed CTP. Dot gain is
known to decrease by as much as 10%.

It's not known to do any such thing. SWOP doesn't even make an allowance for
it. My book suggests 3% and shows a sample to back it up.

SWOP accounts for it by tying TR001 colorimetric behavior to SWOP. That is the target response. SWOP doesn't care if your dot gain is 2% or 30% so long as you hit the colorimetric aim points, and visual comparison to the proof.

I propose the remaining difference is due to paper white.

If true, it's totally backwards. Judging by the proof settings, the "web"
profile does seem to take a wildly pessimistic view of how white the paper is. If
so, the logical reaction is to *lighten* the resulting separation, not darken
it, as you suggest in a different post.

In that different post, I explicitly said that this only happens with the RelCol intent, and why: because RelCol doesn't take the paper white into account. It assumes paper white has an L* of 100. So it ends up making heavier separations than it should, and the problem gets worse with decreasing paper white L*.

Surely you cannot seriously be suggesting using Absolute Colorimetric
in a production setting.

It depends on what your doing. If you want an exact match of something, and using AbsCol won't induce undesirable clipping, then yes that it the rendering intent to use. That's the definition of the intent. If you have an image where AbsCol would induce undesirable clipping, or simulate a source white that isn't desirable (like a D65 white point from the Adobe RGB (1998) profile), then obviously that's not the correct intent to use.

The example was only to show that to match a given approximately midtone neutral value of L* 50, 0*a, 0b* you get about the same separation if you use AbsCol which accounts for paper white; and to demonstrate that your assertion the two profiles have had their names swapped is wrong.

Now, refresh my memory. Why, exactly, does ICC color management have such a
bad rep?

Because you make a mountain out of a mole hill. There are numerous flaws with ICC based color management, nearly all of which are well documented, and it works very well despite those flaws. The problem of darker separations occurring when paper white points are low is something that is easily dealt with in one of two ways: 1.) Use perceptual rendering which most vendors add a contrast boost in order to compensate for this very problem; since this is the intent to be used with lower gamut and lower dynamic range output device, it's possibly a more appropriate rendering intent. 2.) Use soft proofing with paper white and ink black simulation. If you do this, you would know visually that the separation is going to be darker even before you've done the separation.

However, per usual you prefer to complain about it rather than offer a solution. What kind of color management do you propose as an alternative to the ICC based color management you demonize, Dan?

Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (TM)
www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor
____________________________________________________________________________

From: "Remaley, Dan"
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 08:42:39 -0400
Subject: [colortheory] RE: dot gain Web Vs Sheetfed

I believe there is a little confusion on what 'dot gain' is, or 'tone value increase' as the professionals like to call it. In the film based world a linearized film output i.e. 50% dot became 56% on plate, (some shops became 60%), because of the plate exposure. In the past we never measured the values on the plate. The total gain (by the way, this is a DENSITY measurement of solid Vs tint), therefore, you can get a dot gain number from a proof that doesn't have dots!  The website www.swop.org has all the gain numbers and Lab numbers for SWOP certified proofs.

This gain number represents the TOTAL gain, optical and mechanical. Optical gain is caused by the light being reflected or absorbed by the substrate. Mechanical gain is the absorption of ink into the paper and physical attributes during platemaking. Coated paper less gain, un-coated higher gain.

A study, done here at GATF by Mr. John Lind, concluded that CTP dots print no different than conventional dots of the same value with film made plates. The lower gains of CTP is related to physical dot size on the plate. Remember the 3M Matchprint material, the staple of proofing in the past? It had very little physical gain, but a lot of optical gain. Take a 10 power loupe and compare the size of the dot on this proof and the same area on the press sheet - the press sheet dot is much larger - then why do they 'look' the same? Optical gain! When the gains are close the color matches, at least in film based, - with digital - all bets are off! Be aware that plate dot readers only measure the physical size of the dot (no optical gain).

I am in the process of measuring the dot size of film based plates exposed correctly (6-8 micron), at 100-133-150-175-200 line screens, I can tell you that the dot size (on the plate) increases in relationship to the line screen. A 50% dot at 100 line measure 56% at 200 line 62%. My next step is to print these values and measure the total gain. I'll present this information at Tech Alert in January.

Dan Remaley
Process Control Mgr.
Graphic Arts Technical Foundation
412.741.6860x450
 ____________________________________________________________________________

From: Dan Margulis
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 12:27:07 EDT
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Web vs Sheetfed

Chris Murphy writes,

I quote from page 14-18 "A 65-line screen has almost no dot gain, while
a 150-line screen has considerable dot gain. It would be foolhardy to
increase the frequency to more than 150 lpi, because in most cases that
would cause extreme dot gain. Some printers are capable of printing
finer screen rulings, but only with special attention to blankets, ink
viscosity and tack, and critical ink and water balance. "

This is a recognized industry expert with considerable printing credentials. Yet you are quoting him as saying that 175-line printing is nearly impossible due to excessive dot gain!!! The mind boggles. Surely, even a color management consultant must be aware that 175-line printing is completely standard now, and can probably be found at your local mom-and-pop sheetfed house. Can't you do some simple detective work, to figure out how such an authority could say something so obviously, utterly, and blatantly ridiculous?

Permit me to help. What Miles said was quite correct. Dot gain *is* extreme, and printing very difficult, at 175-line screens, IF YOU ARE MAKING YOUR SEPS ON A PROCESS CAMERA!!!! This information antedates drum scanning! He isn't even using today's definitions of dot gains, because they weren't standard until long after he wrote what you quoted. The films he was writing about were exposed through both a filter and a screen--their dot structure is analog and soft-edged, and it doesn't behave anything like the hard-edged digital dots of any device commonly used to output film or plates for the last 20 years.

In any event, I've now provided two citations. It's not an acceptable
form of debate to simply make jokes in a lame and unconvincing attempt
to discredit something you don't even have access to. If you are going
to make the claim that the data I've cited is wrong, you need to
provide contrary credible evidence that specifically refutes what I've cited.

It depends on how ludicrous the claim is, as I was attempting to point out. If your post says, I have a noted authority who states that even on today's modern roads, it's difficult to drive from New York to Philadelphia in less than three days, nobody needs to waste time refuting this. Now, even worse, you've posted your complete quote, which in effect says, it takes that long because you have to stop frequently to feed and water the horses.

[Re: why some magazines can print at 133-line screen and others use the
same file for 150-line with no noticeable difference in darkness.] If it weren't
for transfer curves and reducing SID yes. Transfer curves have been used for
years to compensate for dot gain in order to ensure file portability
specifically in the example you cite.

Transfer curves haven't been used "for years" in the magazine industry because all digital-to-plate workflows didn't make their appearance in the magazine industry until quite recently, and they aren't completely standard even yet. Transfer curves do not affect existing pieces of film.

For nearly two decades, the standard and exclusive practice was for specialized prepress houses to generate film, often creating as many as a dozen different versions for various magazines. The versions were all imaged from the same file, but with one of eight different output possibilities: positive or negative; RREU or RRED; and 133 or 150 screen. There was NO compensation for dot gain applied; if you looked at two negs from three feet away you wouldn't be able to see any difference as to which was 133 as opposed to 150.

The prehistoric figures you supplied would have made such a workflow absolutely impossible, yet substantially every magazine in North America did it.

[Re: the example in my book showing the same image output at various line
screens, with limited differences in dot gain] That you are doing this at 300
lpi implies CTP and the difference in gain due to plate making is zero, unlike
with film based plate making.

I think you should check with platesetter manufacturers before making such a bald statement, because most if not all of them either can't do 300-line screens and/or mix screen rulings on the same page. Yes, 99% of my book was printed direct-to-plate, but that page was done in film, because it had to be.

However, per usual you prefer to complain about it rather than offer a
solution. What kind of color management do you propose as an
alternative to the ICC based color management you demonize, Dan?

I did not complain, criticize, or demonize it. I said it had a bad rep. If you're asking how to improve it's bad rep, I would suggest that those proponents of it who have very little practical experience should refrain from making pronouncements about things that they don't understand, such as the difference between camera and scanner dots, the historical screening practices of magazines, or the capabilities of modern platesetters.

This thread concerns two methods of separation, one for an idealized web press and the other for idealized sheetfed. Anybody with more than a month or so of pressroom experience knows that the sheetfed sep needs to be significantly darker, period, no talk about measurements, no talk about rendering intents, no politics, no ISO standards. Just significantly darker, please.

Instead, this method makes the sheetfed sep significantly *lighter* than the web sep. This is such an obviously ridiculous outcome that anybody who tries to defend it calls anything else they might say on the topic of printing into question. The experienced person simply says, "something is seriously screwed up here."  Why can't you?

Dan Margulis
____________________________________________________________________________

Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:01:54 -0600
   From: Chris Murphy
Subject: Re: Web vs Sheetfed

Dan, don't have a cow. I had already put it into context by date. The fact of the matter is, there is a correlation between increasing line screen and increasing dot gain that exceeds your estimate, in my opinion.

 Now, even worse, you've
posted your complete quote, which in effect says, it takes that long because
you have to stop frequently to feed and water the horses.

I see your tactic: make believe that I've made some outlandish claim and ignore the context I put it it, and then give birth to one or more bovines while typing your response. Cute.

Here is something recent, from David Q. McDowell, who is involved in various CGATS subcommittees and standards processes:

"A piece of dot gain trivia that usually astounds most people is as follows:

1 If you assume dot gain is basically movement of the edge of the dot
2 Then a change from a 49 percent dot  to a 50 percent dot of a 133 l/in round dot screen tint is a movement of the edge of the dot of 0.7 microns (change in dot radius)
3  Typical ink film thickness are 0.7 to 1.2 microns.

Doesn't take much squishing or spread of the dot to change size.  Also even with CTP it doesn't take much beam spread to change dot size."

Tell me why we don't print 150 line on newsprint, Dan. If exceptional dot gain, beyond your few percent suggestion is NOT the reason, I'd like to hear it. While you're at it, I'd like to hear your explanation for the correlation between paper quality and line screen. The lower the paper quality the lower the line screen is. If it has nothing to do with dot gain, why is there such a correlation? Hmm?

If you're asking how to improve it's bad rep, I would suggest that those proponents
of it who have very little practical experience should refrain from making
pronouncements about things that they don't understand, such as the difference
between camera and scanner dots, the historical screening practices of
magazines, or the capabilities of modern platesetters.

Oh that's impressive spin, Dan. I'm definitely not on par with either your skill or apparently your experience in this regard.

The experienced person simply says, "something is seriously screwed
up here."  Why can't you?

I explained why it was screwed up from the get go, higher gain for 175 lpi printing causes the sheetfed profile to produce lighter separations; and known behavior for RelCol assuming paper white is L*=100 causes that intent to be increasingly ineffective for making separations with decreasing real paper whiteness. You deny both. In the first case, I've had a handful of people print 175 line screen on a #2 stock using the sheetfed profile and said it went OK. In the second, now there is something not deniable. Relative colorimetric doesn't take paper white into account, Absolute colorimetric does, yet you tried to argue even that point and say I was wrong.

Keep on denying it all Dan. I await Dan Remaley's results in the meantime.

Now the profiles that are screwed up are Web Uncoated and Sheetfed Uncoated - which are identical profiles only differing in name.

Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (TM)
www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor
____________________________________________________________________________

From: Dan Margulis
Subject: [colortheory] Re: Web vs. Sheetfed

Chris Murphy writes,

Tell me why we don't print 150 line on newsprint, Dan. If exceptional
dot gain, beyond your few percent suggestion is NOT the reason, I'd
like to hear it. While you're at it, I'd like to hear your explanation
for the correlation between paper quality and line screen. The lower
the paper quality the lower the line screen is. If it has nothing to do
with dot gain, why is there such a correlation?

http://www.ledet.com/margulis/PP7_Ch15_Resolution.pdf

has what you're looking for. A brief excerpt:

"Anyone who thinks that if a fine screen is good, then a finer one must be better, is a moron. The finer the screen ruling, the smaller the dots, but the smaller the dots, the harder they are to print properly. If they are on the cusp of what the press can tolerate, the following irritating things happen.
•   Darker areas start to plug up, resulting in a perceived lower maximum shadow.
•   The minimum acceptable highlight dot goes up; at some point, a dot simply gets too tiny for the plate and the blanket to hold. Overall, detail in the highlight will become inconsistent.
•   The image will begin to appear soft as transition areas become less distinct.
•   Dot gain will appear to increase.
Now, at what point does all this unpleasantness start to kick in? In newspaper printing, as a rule, it happens at about 100, so most newspapers print with an 85-line screen, and 65-line is not uncommon. Some, however, do use a 100-line screen, and I know of at least one that has successfully used 120 lines."

In the previous chapter, there is a nice graphic showing what happens when the screen ruling is higher than the printing conditions should tolerate--nice closeup of what's happening to the dots, next to a closeup of dots from the same file printed direct-to-plate, next to normal-sized versions of both.

The average person would call the result a color shift, not excessive dot gain. If the effect were even worse, the result would probably be called posterized before it would be called excessive dot gain.

Dan Margulis
____________________________________________________________________________

Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 17:25:32 -0000
    From: "Dave Marley"
 Subject: Re: dot gain Web vs. Sheetfed
 
 Dan Remaley wrote:
 
 I am in the process of measuring the dot size of film based plates
 exposed correctly (6-8 micron), at 100-133-150-175-200 line screens, I can
 tell you that the dot size (on the plate) increases in relationship to the
 line screen. A 50% dot at 100 line measure 56% at 200 line 62%.
 
 In general, these values seem reasonable. They are much more reasonable than Dr.  Southworth's hard-and-fast conclusions about the relation between dot gain and  screen resolution. Dan Margulis's observations about dot gain correspond vastly more  accurately to the experiences of high-quality lithographers.
 
 Regarding plate gain in particular, there is quite a bit of variation in plate quality just  there is in other material or equipment. For example, several years  ago I worked at a small book printer that specialized in fine-line duotone  reproduction. We were testing new plates with camera-generated, drop-out, 300-line  film. We found significant differences between plates from different manufacturers --  as much as ten percent variation in the midtones and three-quarter tones.  Surprisingly, the plates with the least gain also held the finest highlight dot. This  problem required camera negs to be duped to eliminate the vignette on scum dots.
 
 The point I'm making is there are many significant variables in dot gain. Chris Murphy  defers to unreliable or out-of-context conclusions when he derides the standard trade wisdom presented by Dan Margulis.
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

Three weeks later, the thread resumes.

Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:50:40 -0000
   From: "John Luke"
Subject: Photoshop SWOP and sheetfed reversed?

Don't laugh, but I read a post on the Rob Galbraith forum that indicated someone thought the Photoshop CMYK values for USWeb Coated (SWOP) v2  and US Sheetfed Coated v2 were reversed. Urban legend or what? And in which version of Photoshop?

John Luke
____________________________________________________________________________
 
   Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 12:25:38 -0600
   From: Chris Murphy
Subject: Re: Subject: Photoshop SWOP and sheetfed reversed?

On Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 09:14  PM, Jonathan Clymer wrote:

The ink limits of these two profiles, relative to each other, don't make
sense to me and I asked about it on this forum about six months ago. Check
the archives and you will see a long discussion, again on this forum, more
recently.

How do they not make sense? The sheetfed profile as a 350% TAC and the webfed  profile has a 300% TAC.

Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (TM)
www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor
  ____________________________________________________________________________

Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 22:07:38 -0400
   From: Jonathan Clymer
Subject: Re: Subject: Photoshop SWOP and sheetfed reversed?

Oops! Sloppy writing on my part! It's been a while since I've used either of these profiles. It isn't the ink limit that had me worried, it was the gain.

By the way, I went back to the original question I posed, which was further into the past than I remembered (in fact, I was shocked to see how much further). Here it is, with Dan's reply:

Jonathan writes,

Also, why are the grey values for web higher than sheetfed, when the
expectation for dot gain is higher for web?

The only logical explanation, which I have previously suggested to my good
friends at Adobe, is that when these two profiles were placed in Photoshop,
some knucklehead transposed their names. The sheetfed profile in fact does a
pretty good job of making web separations, and vice versa.

As you and Dan Remaley note, dot gain is distinctly higher in web than
sheetfed printing, regardless of screen. A separation generated for web
should be lighter than one for sheetfed, period. These two profiles have it
backwards.

If you must use these profiles, the workaround is, while shaking the head and
rolling the eyes, to assume that the one labeled "sheetfed" is really web,
and the one labeled web sheetfed.

Dan Margulis

(message 2808, May 8, 2002)

Since that time I have used only the Custom dialogue box to set values for my CMYK seps (even though that is a primitive (!) method according to Adobe expert Chris Cox).

Jonathan Clymer
____________________________________________________________________________
 
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 01:41:18 EDT
   From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Re: Re: Subject: Photoshop SWOP and sheetfed reversed?

Jonathan quotes me as saying,

The only logical explanation, which I have previously suggested to my good
friends at Adobe, is that when these two profiles were placed in Photoshop,
some knucklehead transposed their names.

Evidently I'm going to have to withdraw that statement. As noted by Chris Murphy, the sheetfed profile has a total ink limit of around 350%, which is way too high for web work, and in fact wouldn't be accepted by certain sheetfed printers. The web profile has a more normal 300% limit.

Still, the idea that a sheetfed profile should produce a lighter separation than a web profile is absurd, so all we can say is that there was something seriously deranged in the way that these two profiles were produced.

Personally, I stick with Custom CMYK as Jonathan does. I'd be happy to switch over as soon as the Photoshop team gives us the ability to edit the profiles within Photoshop.

Dan Margulis
____________________________________________________________________________

Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 09:36:27 -0400
   From: John Castronovo
Subject: Re: Re: Subject: Photoshop SWOP and sheetfed reversed?

From: <Dan Margulis>

Personally, I stick with Custom CMYK as Jonathan does. I'd be happy to switch
over as soon as the Photoshop team gives us the ability to edit theprofiles
within Photoshop.

I recently heard that Kodak has a plugin to accomplish just that. I have no reports, pro or con, about it yet.

Have you heard of it?
http: //www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/software/colorFlow/customColor/customColor.jhtml?id= 0.3.8.38.3.4.6&lc=en
____________________________________________________________________________

Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 13:28:56 -0600
   From: Chris Murphy
Subject: Re: Re: Subject: Photoshop SWOP and sheetfed reversed?

On Friday, August 1, 2003, at 08:07  PM, Jonathan Clymer wrote:

Oops! Sloppy writing on my part! It's been a while since I've used either of
these profiles. It isn't the ink limit that had me worried, it was the gain.

The gain between them is virtually identical. The problem comes when using relative colorimetric with SWOP, which causes the CMS to assume paper white is L*=100 instead of actual paper white, so it makes SWOP separations heavier than they should be. This came up barely a month ago on this forum.

Since that time I have used only the Custom dialogue box to set values for
my CMYK seps (even though that is a primitive (!) method according to
Adobe expert Chris Cox).

It is rudimentary but if you give it good information it can make good profiles. The problem is most people accept the default ink hues which are not based on TR 001 even though the default says it's using SWOP. And they also plug in a single dot gain value, which causes Photoshop to presume that dot gain for MYK only, and 4% higher than that for C. So the separations are less than ideal than if correct data were plugged into it.

Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (TM)
www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor  
____________________________________________________________________________

Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 13:37:39 -0600
   From: Chris Murphy
Subject: Re: Re: Subject: Photoshop SWOP and sheetfed reversed?

On Friday, August 1, 2003, at 11:41  PM, Dan Margulis wrote:

Still, the idea that a sheetfed profile should produce a lighter separation
than a web profile is absurd, so all we can say is that there was something
seriously deranged in the way that these two profiles were produced.

Considering the huge variation possible in sheetfed printing compared to publication printing, I think that's a big assumption to make. There are seriously deranged print behaviors. The problem as I see it is in the name and presentation of this profile as though there is a generic sheetfed profile for the U.S. There are many dozens of such behaviors not even counting for the different kinds of paper stocks and coatings used.

But to suggest it is an invalid profile, in the sense that it cannot represent a sheetfed coated print behavior is simply false because it is based on an actual press run. We can debate its value in specific situations all we want but I do know of instances where it has worked for printing on #2 stock at 175+lpi  printing CTP. As a matter of fact I just had a postcard printed, and the printer requested that I use this profile. (Which I'll point out while it seems to have made an acceptable separation, it seriously overestimated the ability of the press to produce saturated blues.)

Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (TM)
www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor
 ____________________________________________________________________________

Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 13:41:23 -0600
   From: Chris Murphy
Subject: Re: Re: Subject: Photoshop SWOP and sheetfed reversed?
 
On Saturday, August 2, 2003, at 07:36  AM, john c. wrote:

I recently heard that Kodak has a plugin to accomplish just that. I  
have no reports, pro or con, about it yet.

Despite their web site suggesting that the latest version of Photoshop  is 5.0, the current version does still work in Photoshop 7 when running  on OS 9.x or in Classic on OS X. But it will not work in Photoshop 7  running natively in X, and will break entirely with the next version of  Photoshop which will be Mac OS X only.

Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (TM)
www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor
____________________________________________________________________________

Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 19:59:33 -0400
   From: John Castronovo
Subject: Re: Re: Subject: Photoshop SWOP and sheetfed reversed?

Well, all that is fixable. Did it work well enough to be ported over to OS
X? I think a beta is in the works.

john castronovo
____________________________________________________________________________

Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 20:21:28 -0400
   From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Re: Re: Subject: Photoshop SWOP and sheetfed reversed?

John Castronovo writes,

Have you heard of it?

Yes, I have it, but it's creakier than I am--it antedates Photoshop 5 and hasn't been updated AFAIK. It consists of two pieces, one very expensive and perhaps no longer available, being a full-fledged profile editor, the other being a plug-in that allows Photoshop users to generate a new profile by means of applying curves and such to an image until it looks good, whereupon the plug-in figures out and generates whatever profile is needed to implement those changes. The plug-in, as I recall, can in effect change dot gain settings, but it can't effectively change black generation, which is one of the main reasons one would want to use it. For that, the expensive product is needed.

I preferred to work with the expensive product but for some people the plug-in might be better. I have no problem with it, but obviously I'm not going to write or teach about a third-party product in any depth.

Dan Margulis
____________________________________________________________________________

Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 22:30:55 -0600
   From: Chris Murphy
Subject: Re: Re: Subject: Photoshop SWOP and sheetfed reversed?

  On Saturday, August 2, 2003, at 05:59  PM, john c. wrote:  

Well, all that is fixable. Did it work well enough to be ported over to OS
X? I think a beta is in the works.

I still use it. But this is the first I've heard there is any color management product development going on at Kodak, let alone something in beta. Do you have more information or a contact person?

Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (TM)
www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor
____________________________________________________________________________

Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 03:21:07 -0400
   From: Michael O'Connor
Subject: Re: Re: Subject: Photoshop SWOP and sheetfed reversed?

I'm curious. Has anyone actually run films of an image converted to each profile and then read the films? Absolute colorimetric doesn't seem to me to really alleviate this, sheetfed still reads lighter, especially where most gain should be expected. I still think something else is going on here, and I don't think, at root, its a mistake, or at least not a simple one.

Also, are you sure the TAC on sheetfed 2 is 350%? It seemed to me to be 330%, and that would relate perfectly to the ShOPS proposal from GATF. From the apparent timing of the release of the proposal I'd think that Adobe probably referenced it while developing the sheetfed 2 profile, and its also interesting in that the mean variations in sheetfed printing aren't as great as you might think.

Michael O'Connor
____________________________________________________________________________

Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 10:37:53 -0600
   From: Chris Murphy
Subject: Re: Re: Subject: Photoshop SWOP and sheetfed reversed?  

On Monday, August 4, 2003, at 01:21  AM, Michael O'Connor wrote:

I'm curious. Has anyone actually run films of an image converted to
each profile and then read the films? Absolute
colorimetric doesn't seem to me to really alleviate this, sheetfed
still reads lighter, especially where most gain
should be expected. I still think something else is going on here, and
I don't think, at root, its a mistake, or at
least not a simple one.

The mistake is not in the data in the profile. That's based on an actual press run. It's legitimate to complain that the behavior defined in the U.S. Sheetfed Coated v2 profile is "unique" and that more common behaviors for sheetfed printing exist. It's legitimate to complain about the naming of this profile that implies it's suitable for "printing on a coated sheetfed litho press in the U.S." and that there appears to be no documentation for the actual behavior of this press.

Also, are you sure the TAC on sheetfed 2 is 350%?

Yes. RGB 0,0,0 and LAB 0,0,0 both produce a 350% TAC with this profile.

It seemed to me to be 330%, and that would relate perfectly to the
ShOPS proposal from GATF. From the apparent timing of the release of
the proposal I'd think that Adobe probably
referenced it while developing the sheetfed 2 profile, and its also
interesting in that the mean variations in
sheetfed printing aren't as great as you might think.

I disagree. There's a reason why there are many printers who can't match a Matchprint to save their life, and other printers who don't like Waterproofs or Color Arts or Pressmatches and the increasing use of digital proofing systems. Presses don't have the same behavior. A couple of years ago, the last time I had checked, there were more than 30 different Matchprints that could be produced just in terms of the different laminates and standard base materials, NOT accounting for differences in exposure. There are at least two commonly used magenta ink hues used in the U.S. as well.

Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (TM)
www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor

Adobe Photoshop training classes are taught in the US by Sterling Ledet & Associates, Inc.