Date   

Where is the monitor calibration profile taken into account in PS 6.0

Christine Holzmann <tekila@...>
 

Hi all,
This may sound like a dumb question, but this is my first day using Photoshop 6.0 (having upgraded from PS 5.02) and I am still busy going throught the manual.
I am just curious as to where the Monitor Calibration profile is taken into account. In PS 5, it was in the RGB setup dialogue box.
In PS 6, I cannot find it.....do I need to worry about this?? Is PS 6 set up so that the Monitor calibration profile is automatically taken into account somehow?? (I really feel dumb asking this so please bear with me...:)

By the way Dan, thank you for your explanation and help about the PS 6 color settings in your column "99 Layers and counting" in Electronic Publishing. It was VERY HELPFUL and made me that much more confident when that first screen appeared concerning the color settings straight after installing PS 6...:)


Crissi
_____________________________________
--
DESIGN EDITOR @ The Citizen News
http://www.thecitizennews.com

DIGITAL/GRAPHIC ARTIST
http://www.crissi.com


Re: The Wide Wide World of Color

jsweengatf@...
 

In a message dated 01/08/2001 4:15:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,
kbrecken@... writes:


Its simply what the individual that pays the bill sees no plotted target
within any color model described with a numeric breakdown, be it LAB.,
RGB, CMYK or otherwise will change that interpretation


HOWEVER,

Once a physical sample (typical in a auto manufacturing, textile, paint,
plastic industries...) is agreed upon, measurement and color data take over,
especially when push comes to shove --

In printing, we have TR-001 colorimetric characterization of web offset
printing,
for example, and ISO 2856, standard method of measuring ink color and
strength....
CGATS.4 and .5 have been around for some time now -- our standards for
MEASURING (densitometric and colorimeric).

SWOP Certified Proofing Systems are proven capaple of making "SWOP" proofs,
form properly prepared files or films (www.swop.org).

In or digital, ditribute then print, short-run world, "print by numbers" and
"color by numbers" is needed more than ever.

My $ .02,

John Sweeney
Director color measurement systems
Graphics Microsystems, Inc.


Re: Is it really worth it?? THANKS GUYS!!

They Call Me Ping!
 

Thanks SO much to Terry and Chirs for taking time to answer my post! I
know that most of these are things that cannot be resolved in this
group or via email, but I do appreciate the tips...

I am a believer (in Color Management), I just have to sell it to the
management here. At least now I have a "game plan", Thanks again for
the excellent advice! :)


Re: The Wide Wide World of Color

Gordon Pritchard <gordon_pritchard@...>
 

If color can be measured then why can't it be "argued, predicted or
directed"?

gordon pritchard

----------
From: KAB
Sent: Sunday, January 7, 2001 3:55 PM
To: colortheory@egroups.com
Subject: [colortheory] The Wide Wide World of Color

Hi to all,

As a new member I'll be interested and at times no doubt entertained by
all opinions and comments pertaining to color theory, color correction,
scanning, ICC profiles, color management, workflow and the like....

I'm interested because I can gain knowledge and hopefully share a bit as
well, I 'll be entertained because like many of you, my opinions may
fuel a few passionate threads.

The way I see it, color can't be argued, predicted or directed, it is
not so much a science as it is personal expression, and gut instinct.
The science is often a crutch, a cold document of technical explanations
for "how to" rather than the bold exploration of "why not"


Kevin


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
colortheory-unsubscribe@egroups.com




Re: The Wide Wide World of Color

KAB <kbrecken@...>
 

Gorton Pritchard wrote:

If color can be measured then why can't it be "argued, predicted or directed"?

gordon pritchard
_________________

Gord,

good question,

I think it cant be argued because of visual perception & personal preference,
outside of the math and numeric's who's to say the sky is blue?, it
might be
purple to some, is the grass green ? and that pumpkin is it red or orange.?

Its simply what the individual that pays the bill sees no plotted target
within any color model described with a numeric breakdown, be it LAB.,
RGB, CMYK or otherwise will change that interpretation

I think it cant be predicted because of that influence and all the other
influences ..day t o day ink set to ink set, device to device pressmen to
pressmen its all a "best guess" "shot in the dark" and "I hope it runs well"
scenario anyone that thinks they have a recipe for perfect color is simply
just not humbled by experience.

It cant be directed because the impacts can't be predicted,

I don't dismiss the technology or the science but with out knowledge and
experience a canned solution be it CM or otherwise is just a lazy shortcut,
just one more buffer behind the real issue surrounding color accuracy and
consistency.


respectfully

Kevin


ICC(K)

gowens01@...
 

On Saturday I talked with the owner of the photo lab I use. I asked if
the new Noritsu 2711 was using ICC profiles. the answer was, "What is a
ICC profile." I asked if they were using Kodak ColorFlow. I was told
there are five programs working in the background. I've been asking
what is the output resolution of this equipment. Didn't know. Got the
answer off my Electronic Publishing calender, 400 dpi. I asked if they
could take a Genuine Fractals file. No.

I went then went over to the printer and asked him if he was using ICC
profiles. He gave me a flat NO! I asked for pricing on 4X6 mailers. He
got out a third party Catalog. There information said could send a
picture but nothing about sending my own file.

On Friday I had a customer call and order some pictures for
publication. She wondered if she was purchasing the correct size. When
she read the photo guidelines ther was nothing about image size and the
information indicated that "no digital file would be accepted." (I
could have scanned and e-mailed those negs in 15 minutes).

Think of this in terms of communication, education, and training.

Gary Owens


The Wide Wide World of Color

KAB <kbrecken@...>
 

Hi to all,

As a new member I'll be interested and at times no doubt entertained by
all opinions and comments pertaining to color theory, color correction,
scanning, ICC profiles, color management, workflow and the like....

I'm interested because I can gain knowledge and hopefully share a bit as
well, I 'll be entertained because like many of you, my opinions may
fuel a few passionate threads.

The way I see it, color can't be argued, predicted or directed, it is
not so much a science as it is personal expression, and gut instinct.
The science is often a crutch, a cold document of technical explanations
for "how to" rather than the bold exploration of "why not"


Kevin


Re: Thanks...Dot Gain & ICC Profiles

samarsh@...
 

Thank you Bob, Chris & Dan (and any future posts).

We only upgraded to 5.5 from 4 about five months ago, and the
insanities of day to day work do not let me test everything as well
as I would like before it is put into use. I have been 'reasearching'
the upgrade since version 5 was first available as a demo - and this
is the first time I have heard about this issue! I guess I've been
looking in the wrong places.

Once again, I would like to thank the list for their time and shared
knowledge.

Regards,

Stephen Marsh.


Re: untagged tiff image

Chris Murphy <lists@...>
 

(Just be aware that my not using a profile, it very likely will LOOK
different between Photoshop 5 and 6, and therefore will separately
differently between 5 and 6.)
What are the differences in how PS5 and PS6 handles an untagged image? I
thought they both used the working RGB space to display the image.
You might also ask if I speak English - geez, I wonder if it's possible
for me to make MORE typos than that. my=by, separately=separate

Photoshop 5 only differentiates between tagged and untagged images when
you OPEN them. Once they are opened, they are handled identically. That's
part of the problem with Photoshop 5. The working space (RGB or CMYK)
applies to *all* open documents.

The working space concept does NOT apply to all open documents in
Photoshop 6. It applies only to: 1.) New documents that you create using
the File:New command. 2.) Images that are untagged, i.e. they are marked
as "Do Not Color Manage." In all other cases, whatever the Assigned
Profile is for a document is the basis for display and conversion (the
Assigned Profile is the source profile for an open document).

So this means that 10 RGB images can have 10 *different* profiles
assigned to them and they can be opened and displayed at the same time,
and the RGB working space will not apply to them.

Plus: You don't have to worry as much about managing embedded profiles.
When you open an image that has a ColorMatch RGB profile in it, that
profile is preserved even if it conflicts with your RGB working space of
Adobe RGB (for example). The embedded profile is used for preview and
conversion and reembedding when you save the image. This is great because
those who don't care *don't* get undocumented conversions. Those who *do*
care, get to use the embedded profile without having to think about it.

Minus: In order to accomodate many workflows, there are three color
management policies that change this behavior of Photoshop 6, making it a
little more complicated to understand (at least initially).


Also, say I open an image from a non-ICC scanner, convert it to my RGB
working space (i.e ColorMatch RGB), edit it to my satisfaction and then
embed that profile when saving. Is that profile of any use to the next
person who opens it? IOW, is it now an accurate description of that images'
color space?
Short answer:
If you are working on a calibrated and profiled monitor while doing your
editing work, yes that is an accuracte description of that image's color
space. Someone else with a calibrated & profiled monitor who chooses to
recognize and use that embedded profile will see it substantially the
same as you did.

The catch:
It is of use to other people who open it *if* they are aware of how to
take advantage of it. The idea of automatic color management that baby
sits people to the nth degree I think is a long ways off and is not
represented by ICC based color management.

The problem with answering this question is that how helpful it is
depends GREATLY on the individual receiving the file, and what program
they open it in, and the settings of that program. For example:

Photoshop 4: this person has a version of Photoshop that has no idea what
an embedded profile is and therefore it will ignore it. So for this
person it neither helps nor hinders.

Photoshop 5: Photoshop knows what embedded profiles are, but it can be
configured to ignore them. So whether it helps the person depends on
their settings, and how much knowledge they have about Photoshop 5's
rather convoluted color management. Again, the vast majority of the time
it neither helps nor hinders.

If they are interested in seeing what you saw on your monitor, then they
will make an effort to determine what the embedded profile is, and ensure
that they use it. Their monitor also being calibrated and profiled will
allow them to display your image and see it on their monitor the same way
you did. Here there is a clear benefit even if it occurs a minority of
the time.

Photoshop 6: Pretty much the same as with Photoshop 5 except there is
practically no potential for danger (i.e. Photoshop 5 made it second
nature to embed incorrect profiles). It's possible to configure it to
ignore embedded profiles. It's possible to configure it to preserve
embedded profiles (which is actually an easier, more automated way to
deal with embedded profiles instead of having to be really involved like
with Photoshop 5).


Chris Murphy


Re: untagged tiff image

Dave Badger <dbadge@...>
 

Chris Murphy Wrote:
I would
try saving out a new copy of the 300ppi TIFF in Photoshop 5.5 without a
profile attached, then reopen in Photoshop 6.

(Just be aware that my not using a profile, it very likely will LOOK
different between Photoshop 5 and 6, and therefore will separately
differently between 5 and 6.)
What are the differences in how PS5 and PS6 handles an untagged image? I
thought they both used the working RGB space to display the image.

Also, say I open an image from a non-ICC scanner, convert it to my RGB
working space (i.e ColorMatch RGB), edit it to my satisfaction and then
embed that profile when saving. Is that profile of any use to the next
person who opens it? IOW, is it now an accurate description of that images'
color space?


Dave Badger


Dot Gain & ICC Profiles

Dan Margulis <76270.1033@...>
 

Stephen writes,

To take advantage of different rendering intents during conversion,
we use the "ICC" section of APS5.5 CMYK setup to convert from RGB to
CMYK. This also simplifies things for the designers.>>

Profiles built with Photoshop's built-in settings don't support rendering
intents. They'll give the same result no matter what.

So how does an ICC profile treat a "curve" dot gain value differently
from a "standard" one...if both their actual curves describe exactly
the same data? I would say in this case they don't, but the article
seems to say that the "curve" option is a requirement for ICC profile
generation.>>

The article is wrong. "Standard" just has preloaded curves with a single
adjustment at the midpoint, increasing 50% by whatever percentage you have
indicated in your dot gain setting, plus an incorrect extra four percent
for cyan.

By default the cyan curve is usually higher to allow for more dot
gain in this plate...would this be reset so that all plates have
equal curves, so it is really a "standard" curve masquerading as a
custom "curve"...or would it be left running higher in the cyan?>>

The cyan curve should *not* be higher than the others. The one that should
be higher is the black. That the cyan curve is higher by default is an old
kludge that Adobe put in ten years ago. There are no printing conditions on
this planet AFAIK that feature higher dot gains in cyan than in the other
three. Plenty of people obviously get adequate seps despite this error, but
they'll be better if they interchange the cyan and black curves.

I thought the "curves" dot gain option gives APS5.x users a similar
option as in APS4, where you could change the mid tones of any C, M, Y
or K ink (but now you can adjust many more curve points, not just
mid tones).>>

No, this was a major improvement in PS5. Photoshop 4, as you said, only had
a midpoint adjustment. That isn't that accurate for many printing
conditions.

With PSNow it seems that there is also an "ICC" specific use for
this option...so is this issue about grey balance or ICC profile
creation as the author states?>>

There is no ICC issue here. Most people who adjust dot gain curves simply
leave Built-in as the separation method, to give them the ability to edit
the curves from time to time or to change black generation. The only reason
I can think of to save and reload as an ICC profile is if there are a lot
of ignorant users and you want to *stop* them from doing any editing.

Of course RTFM does not help in this case - unless I missed something!>>
The article you cited is a model of clarity, accuracy, and precision on
this topic in comparison to the FM. The FM is a thing devoutly to be
avoided if you are trying to learn something about this particular subject.

Dan Margulis


Re: Dot Gain & ICC Profiles

Chris Murphy <lists@...>
 

So how does an ICC profile treat a "curve" dot gain value differently
from a "standard" one...if both their actual curves describe exactly
the same data?
You need to contact the author and ask him this question. I just built a
profile in Photoshop 5.5 using SWOP (Coated) STandard Curve 20%; and then
another doing nothing but clicking on Curves and saying OK. They appear
to be identical and contain identical information. I don't see what the
difference is or could be unless there is a bug.


The author gives the impression that even if you don't actually
change any curve setting for each ink, just saving the profile with
"curves" instead of "standard" is the way to make a "correct" profile.
Yes it does imply this, so again I'd contact the author and find out what
they mean. Seems bogus to me, but perhaps there's something he knows that
we don't.

But simply changing standard to curves DOES make the plates uneven.
No. Standard assumes cyan has higher gain than the other channels. By
clicking on Curves, you only see this information. The Gray Ramp grid
does not change just by changing the pop-up to curves.

Now it seems that there is also an "ICC" specific use for
this option...so is this issue about grey balance or ICC profile
creation as the author states? I would think that these are two
separate issues...is this a Photoshop issue? Is this an "ICC" issue?
It's just a way to get more data into Photoshop so it can built a better
separation table. So it's a Photoshop issue.


Am I making sense? Is John Dudak?
I understand your questions. I don't understand his assertions because he
doesn't elaborate or give a reason for his suggestion.

Further on down he recommends setting the RGB Assumed Profile to that of
your monitor. This is going to cause an undocumented conversion every
time you open an RGB image that does not have a profile embedded. If it's
small enough, you won't even get a status bar dialog telling you that
Photoshop is CONVERTING the document. In other words, his recommendation
is guaranteeing all RGB images without embedded profiles you open will
have their contents modified without your knowlege. I think this is
potentially very bad advice.

His second option has you converting data yet again by setting RGB
Profile Mismatch handling to Convert to RGB Color. Again, this means that
RGB images with an embedded profile OTHER than the RGB Working Space
profile is going to get converted on open.

He only suggests changing from these when you encounter a "terrible"
image. I personally don't like this method of working. I do not want RGB
values changed without my explicit knowledge and desire. I want to click
a button that says CONVERT and know that's the ONLY way a conversion is
going to happen.


Chris Murphy


Dot Gain & ICC Profiles

samarsh@...
 

Hello, I have had some questions bugging me for a while - and now
that I have found this excellent list I am hoping to become more
knowledgeable.

To take advantage of different rendering intents during conversion,
we use the "ICC" section of APS5.5 CMYK setup to convert from RGB to
CMYK. This also simplifies things for the designers.

I use the "built in" settings to enter the separation info, then save
this out as an ICC profile from the "tables" section. This is done
using STANDARD dot gain settings (same value for all plates, judged
at the 50% tone).

I have recently read an article which raises the question of how
these dot gain settings are applied to a ICC profile (in theory it
should work the same as a sep table). It's a shame that answers were
not given to the questions raised, though.

In an article at Apogee Photo Magazine (www.apogeephoto.com/may2000/
color_management.shtml), author John Dudak writes about saving a ICC
profile using the tables option, with a note about the "built in" dot
gain settings:

"If you do, though, you should set your dot gain as a curve in the
"Built-in" option, even if you're using a Standard Dot Gain
percentage. You make the Standard Dot Gain a curve simply by setting
the "Standard Dot Gain" percentage and then switching to "Curves."
You would be able to use that profile in ICC-aware applications such
as QuarkXpress 4 or PageMaker 6.5.".

Later, John writes:

"Just remember to switch your Standard Dot Gain to Curves if you want
to use it in the ICC option."

So how does an ICC profile treat a "curve" dot gain value differently
from a "standard" one...if both their actual curves describe exactly
the same data? I would say in this case they don't, but the article
seems to say that the "curve" option is a requirement for ICC profile
generation.

The author gives the impression that even if you don't actually
change any curve setting for each ink, just saving the profile with
"curves" instead of "standard" is the way to make a "correct" profile.

But simply changing standard to curves DOES make the plates uneven.

By default the cyan curve is usually higher to allow for more dot
gain in this plate...would this be reset so that all plates have
equal curves, so it is really a "standard" curve masquerading as a
custom "curve"...or would it be left running higher in the cyan?

This "standard" vs. "curves" dot gain setting seems more press
specific to me than a "golden rule" for generating ICC files in
Photoshop...

I thought the "curves" dot gain option gives APS5.x users a similar
option as in APS4, where you could change the mid tones of any C, M, Y
or K ink (but now you can adjust many more curve points, not just
mid tones). Now it seems that there is also an "ICC" specific use for
this option...so is this issue about grey balance or ICC profile
creation as the author states? I would think that these are two
separate issues...is this a Photoshop issue? Is this an "ICC" issue?

We could go back to using the "built in" CMYK section, instead of
"ICC", if this is indeed a bug/behaviour issue...but at this point I'm
skeptical.

Am I making sense? Is John Dudak?

This is not a "pressing question", it is more food for thought and
for general knowledge...any ideas?

Of course RTFM does not help in this case - unless I missed something!

Sincerely,

Stephen Marsh.


Re: untagged tiff image 300 ppi, Opens at 72 ppi on p.s.6 (John Opitz)

Héctor Antonio Roldán Catalán
 

John Opitz:
 
As I recall I think it can bee one of these problems:
 
1. I'm sure youre working on a mac. The Mac OS recognizes the files by reading a hidden extension of 4 letters, To know wich app to choose to open the file it reades another 4 letters " code"  that describes the "creator". Maybe these codes are wrong.
 
2. When the OS doesn't know how to handle these files it takes a look at some prefferences on the system and somethimes it ask you to choose from a list. Somethimes it does'nt do this and it does a little conversion and the tiff document "roses" it is opened on photoshop as "untitled-1".
 
3. Maybe the files came from a pc. In this case they don't have a "creator code" or file "type code". It uses the extension of the file (roses.tif) to create a copy on your mac disk with propper codes. Maybe your table is wrong, you can check it on control panels > pc exchange OR control panels > file exchange on newer OS.
 
Somethimes Photoshop opens the preview of the file just as Dan Said, to know if this is happening just check on image size and you will see that the file size is maybe 32 pixels at 72 dpi (I don't remember well)
 
Solutions:
 
You can download from www.download.com or www.macdownload.com a small app called creator changer. Whenever you have this kind of problem with your files youst drag them to the "creator change" icon and on the window choose "make like". Then choose a tiff document that behaves well on your system. OR, you can enter the codes yourself. You can even create a list of preffered file types and when you drag the files on the app just select from the list.
 
I hope this could help!!!!
 
Héctor Antonio Roldán Catalán
hectorantonio@...
Tel.: (502) 254.04.15 / Telefax: (502) 254.02.48
ICQ: 69835949
-----------------------------------------------

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 11:19 PM
Subject: [colortheory] untagged tiff image 300 ppi, Opens at 72 ppi on p.s.6 (John Opitz)

To Andrew or Chris.
                                When I open an untagged tiff in p.s.5.5 it opens at 300. When it opened on p.s.6, I said "What da h... !" It opened it at 72.
                                  I found I have to embed a profile(from5.5) for it to open at 300 in p.s.6. When did color management have anything to do with resolution.  Or m..i.. missin somethin here !
                                   In the mean time, I'm reading your article on p.s.6 color management.
                                   John Opitz


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
colortheory-unsubscribe@...



Re: untagged tiff image 300 ppi, Opens at 72 ppi on p.s.6 (John Opitz)

Chris Murphy <lists@...>
 

When I open an untagged tiff in p.s.5.5 it
opens at 300. When it opened on p.s.6, I said "What da h... !" It opened
it at 72.
I found I have to embed a
profile(from5.5) for it to open at 300 in p.s.6. When did color management
have anything to do with resolution. Or m..i.. missin somethin here !
Hmm, I'll have to try it myself. I've never seen this happen. There is
nothing about ICC profiles that includes resolution information. I would
try saving out a new copy of the 300ppi TIFF in Photoshop 5.5 without a
profile attached, then reopen in Photoshop 6.

(Just be aware that my not using a profile, it very likely will LOOK
different between Photoshop 5 and 6, and therefore will separately
differently between 5 and 6.)

In the mean time, I'm reading your article on p.s.6 color management.
Be aware that this might be dangerous for two reasons. 1.) It was
intended for geeks who wanted to know nearly everything about what
Photoshop 6 does regarding color management. 2.) It's not updated for the
final release. The current version is accurate only as of a late beta. I
haven't gotten around to updating it. I'm not exactly sure how much
difference there is until I go through and edit it and rewrite it. Maybe
I'll get this done by the end of January :) we'll see. Plus I want to
write a more simplified version. Maybe that will be written by the end of
January. (Note that I'm not saying what year.)


Chris Murphy


untagged tiff image 300 ppi, Opens at 72 ppi on p.s.6 (John Opitz)

Dan Margulis <76270.1033@...>
 

John Ovitz writes,

When I open an untagged tiff in p.s.5.5 it opens at 300. When it opened
on p.s.6, I said "What da h... !" It opened it at 72. I found I have to
embed a profile(from5.5) for it to open at 300 in p.s.6. When did color
management have anything to do with resolution. Or m..i.. missin somethin
here !>>

Color management doesn't have anything to do with this. I believe you are
encountering a known problem that has afflicted certain users. The symptom
affects TIFFs only. When you attempt to open TIFFs by double-clicking on
them or by dragging them onto the Photoshop icon, what opens is the screen
preview, not the actual data, and this is indeed at 72 ppi.

If you suffer from this problem, the temporary workaround is to open the
TIFFs thru the File: Open command. The permanent solution (as I recall,
don't bet your life on this) is to delete System Folder: Preferences>File
Exchange Preferences, and then rebuild the desktop file.

Dan Margulis


Re: untagged tiff image 300 ppi, Opens at 72 ppi on p.s.6 (John Opitz)

Andrew Rodney <andrew@...>
 

on 1/6/01 12:19 AM, susan opitz at jas10286@... wrote:

To Andrew or Chris.
                                When I open an untagged tiff in p.s.5.5 it opens at 300. When it opened on p.s.6, I said "What da h... !" It opened it at 72.
                                  I found I have to embed a profile(from5.5) for it to open at 300 in p.s.6. When did color management have anything to do with resolution.  Or m..i.. missin somethin here !
                                   In the mean time, I'm reading your article on p.s.6 color management.
                                   John Opitz

eGroups Sponsor

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
colortheory-unsubscribe@...





The color settings have absolutely no effect on the resolution of a file. I can’t repeat nor I have even seen the behavior you describe.

Andrew Rodney


untagged tiff image 300 ppi, Opens at 72 ppi on p.s.6 (John Opitz)

susan opitz <jas10286@...>
 

To Andrew or Chris.
                                When I open an untagged tiff in p.s.5.5 it opens at 300. When it opened on p.s.6, I said "What da h... !" It opened it at 72.
                                  I found I have to embed a profile(from5.5) for it to open at 300 in p.s.6. When did color management have anything to do with resolution.  Or m..i.. missin somethin here !
                                   In the mean time, I'm reading your article on p.s.6 color management.
                                   John Opitz


Re: Is it really worth it??

Chris Murphy <lists@...>
 

Now, if you're
going direct-to-plate, all bets are off!

Well no you just have to make some decisions in the right order. If they
are going to force it to match an existing proofing system, it can be
done within certain limits. If they are going to optimize with the idea
of getting a new digital proofing system they can also go that route. The
key is process control. CTP or DTP makes no difference. The issue is
consistency or the lack thereof. If there is no consistency then all bets
are off.


Chris Murphy


Re: Is it really worth it??

Chris Murphy <lists@...>
 

We currently have a Speedmaster 72 and 52, and many smaller
presses.We are looking at expanding into CTP and digital proofing and
printing very soon also.
Check out www.ctpp.com which is a CTP specific forum and will be quite
helpful to you during this transition.


I am in a unique situation, the Service Bureau I used to work for was
bought out by our major client, a PRINTING company. So now, it has
fallen upon my shoulders to CALIBRATE everything, all the way to the
Press.
The only thing I would make sure of is that before you go down the road
of characterization of a press is that you ensure it's optimized and
consistent. If you're planning on going CTP soon, then I would get other
ducks in a row that aren't dependant on simulating the press; get CTP
implemented, then optimize that press situation, then characterize the
press in its optimized condition.

If your pressmen are already up to snuff on excellent process control
(and know what it takes to optimize a press), then it's just a matter of
orchestrating this event. Otherwise I would hire someone who can provide
specifically pressroom training, to get the presses optimized and keep
them running consistenty. If you need a referral for such a person let me
know.

I did get a (meager) budget for this project,
and without mentiong numbers, it looks like quite an investment.
However management here wants me to research IF indeed the expense is
really worth the promised benefits of implementing a Color Managed
workflow(?) Basically, is it really necessary for a medium size (and
growing) print shop?
This is an impossible question to answer without knowing the specifics of
your workflow. Existing problems. And what the goals are. In my opinion,
this is really out of scope for any list, and actually is out of scope
for email.

What is certain:

1.) Optimized presses are a good thing and whatever it takes to get them
optimized and running consistently with GOOD process control in place is
worth every penny.

2.) Characterizing a press is a more complicated question because there
are two ways to do this. Press optimization can target specific contract
proofs which means there really isn't a need to profile the press itself.
Press optimization can also mean making a given press or series of
presses have their own ideal behavior. From here you need to profile the
press (traditionally referred to as fingerprinting) in order to know how
it behaves and to develop a contract proofing system that will simulate
it.

So even question #2 starts to go beyond the scope of this list. It really
depends on what you're printing as to whether you optimize presses to
target specific kinds of pre-existing proofing systems; or if you
optimize presses to some ideal and then develop a proofing system.

3.) Separations: After you answer #2 you can figure this one out. It's
absolutely important and worthwhile to have some means for making
separations. This will mean at a minimum creating a Custom CMYK setting
in Photoshop (which will allow you to save them out as ICC profiles).
Either you are making seps, or the pre-press department is making seps,
or a customer is making seps. Someone is making the separation and you
need to give them accurate separation information. It's worth the money,
it needs to be done. To get started doesn't take a massive budget and
depending on tolerances you may or may not want to move up to a full
blown profiling package. Again this now starts to go beyond the scope of
this list.

4.) Workflow: This is definitely beyond the scope of this list. Do you
need to be embedding profiles or not? Who knows. I can tell you the
benefits but only those intimately familiar with your workflow will be
able to determine if it's worth more trouble in time and potential
mistakes than benefit; or if it's going to save you a lot of time. It's
very workflow specific. What about monitor calibration and profiling?
Again it depends on the people who would be using it. Some won't care.
Some won't do it. Some will realy enjoy actually trusting their monitor.

5.) Proofing: while there are a lot of choices and products (which again
is beyond the scope of the list to get into even a few of them let alone
all of them); proofing is a necessity. That much is certain. Once you
know more about 1, 2 and 3, then you can work on how to go about getting
lower cost proofing. First you need a stable press condition otherwise
you're chasing your tail. Once you have that, you can profile it, or
profile the contract proofer (as the case may be), then get an inkjet
proofer to simulate that condition. Is it worth it? Yes. They are cheap,
they are reasonably quick, and they are as color accurate as the profiles
and process control being used (which is why you want to figure that
stuff out first).


Currently, I am using a SPLASH color copier for intermediate proofing
(to save $$$ on Fuji Color art laminates, am I wasting my time?),
Well you should already be able to answer this question for yourself. Is
it saving you time? Or are those color copier proofs so far off from
Color Arts that it's misleading and causing customers to spend more time
futzing with color on color copier proofs instead of just getting the
real thing from the get go? I mean this is a question you need to be
asking your customers. For plenty of people color lasers and copiers is
sufficient. I find them a real pain in the butt and a waste of time
because they aren't very consistent. Those products that are really high
end do have better consistency, and have a means for daily manual
calibration and minute by minute automatic calibration (built into the
device). There are a bunch of really simple tests you can do to determine
how consistent this is and it can all be done visually if you want. But
this is something that is specific to your customers and your workflow.
Asking people here what they think is going to get you only their opinion
- for example mine is "I think color copier and color laser technology is
a total waste of time if you want anything other than really rudimentary
color". To me they are FPO type proofs at best.

Despite this, there is an ad agency in Boulder that I literally begged
and pleaded not to get a color laser because they wouldn't be happy with
it and they got one anyway and some of the designers think it's great and
others think it's not good enough. So there's that.



but
we are looking at more accurate wide format options also that would
interface with our imagesetters Harlequin RIP. From what I gathered of
the "Digital Proofing" dilemma, a major problem seems to be what is
termed "HUE error", that is colors being displayed or proofed, that do
not match inks used in offset printing. And we thought Dot gain was
hard to measure (!)
Building an ICC profile for what you want to simulate and the wide format
inkjet will mitigate the differences between the inksets being used.
*BUT* this brings up the issue of standard lighting conditions. If you
don't have standard lighting, be prepared to edit these profiles manually
(either yourself or your consultant).


I know there are limitations to the technology, but there are so many
options available, it's hard to know where to start!?
That's the problem. There are tons of options and there is no such thing
as standard workflow which means there is no standard color management
implementation that applies. That's why in the previous thread on "ICC
color managed workflow" not existing I was having such a cow. By
definition you will graft only certain aspects of color management onto
your existing workflow. It's not a workflow replacement. And the problem
is that in order to know what to get and use and how to do it requires a
LOT of knowledge about a LOT of different products. Only then can you
make the right recommendations.


Chris Murphy