I wrote:-
>It's an issue that we've looked long and hard at on
>the DIG committee. It comes back to the old conundrum of should the press
>match the proof or the proof match the press.
Richard Kenward wrote :-
>I think that perhaps I may be accused of rocking the boat, but I do have
>to ask match what press? Match what proofer, running on what
> >substrate?
Hi Richard ,
It's not so much a matter of rocking the boat as getting to grips with
the navigation. The question you pose above is exactly the reason for my
questions to Philip regarding contract proofs.
If you are providing contract proofs , the proof should reflect both the
press and the media in a form that is acceptable to all parties.
In orther words , the proof is specific to the job in question. So in the
case of the IDEA awards , the proofer was an IRIS ,the paper was gloss
coated and the printer was Faculty. The profile and proofs provided
reflected these parameters.
>In an ideal world , the proof would accurately represent the specific
>press running at its optimum.
See Bob Croxfords latest mail regarding press capabilities.
>With IDEA being a labour of love and not a profit making book , we could
>not afford he luxury of wet proofs.
>Was it such a short run that this was out of the question?
See below.
>
>However the proofs were of good quality , matching our validation prints.
>So we signed them off , they matched the proofs and everybody was happy.
>Were you there to do a press check, and did the run match the proofs >>
and
>the press sheet you signed off on?
See below.
>We are talking about showing off photographer's images as well as
>possible surely ......why then is cost being used as a reason I wonder?
>I would have expected this to have been an exercise in printing
>excellence and one in which the printer would have had an investment.
A brief history of the IDEA catalogue.
The IDEA awards are with us thanks to the continued efforts of Adam
Woolfitt. The original idea was to produce a show that celebrated the
digital workflow , and produced a small profit that would fund the aims
and ideals of the DIG group ( not income ,not even expenses... just money
to do all the testing,like paying for paper,inks, proprietary proofs
etc.)
The funding for the show is made up of entry fees and sponsorship . Guess
who has to find the sponsors ?
In addition , we do the CMYK seperations free of charge ( over several
days )
The small profit that we thought we might have made in the past years
has been swallowed up in administration charges by the AOP , although to
be fair the Association. did pay for the commission of the CMYK generic
files by Phil green at CIG.
This year , we were short of sponsors. Part of this was due to the
overall economic climate , and part was due to administrative c***-*ps at
the Association.
At one stage it loked as if the catalogue wouldn't be produced , so DIG
committee members offered to subsidise it's production.
To add to our woes , the ads appearing in the book were late arriving at
the printers. I and other committee members had put time aside for the
press run , but it was postponed.
In order to subsidise the voluntary work ( and support our families....
....to the sound of wailing violins :-) ) we have to run businesses (I
must admit though , the good news is that after all the years voluntary
research , at least we've got a new string to our bow with the training
and consultancy side of the company ). The date for the press run
coincided with commissions , so we didn't see it run.
We had signed off the proofs , we trusted the printers , so we let them
monitor the run.
Haven't had any complaints ( yet! ).
And after all that waffle , I bet you wish you hadn't asked now :-) ?
>I do not understand why given the above expertise, and given the
> >support
>of the various interested organisations, why the scheme has not been
>rolled out to a fanfare of trumpet blasts and much clinking of
>glasses...yet!
Where would you like to start ?
Critics would like to think that the scheme ( Pro-File ) is fatally
flawed. The reality is a mix of mundane realities , research into areas
previously considered outside the remit of the scheme and to some extent
the vested interests of part the industry .
And ,of course , a little more support from those whose interests are
being represented would also have helped action this project a little
earlier.
And of course we've had to deal with those , some on this list , who
think that there is only one , proprietary , solution for proofing. The
fact that this system doesn't employ softproofing but relies on print
output before colour correction seems to have been overlooked here. And
we all know what a powerful tool softproofing can be , both at image
capture and conversion.
There have been the usual legal contractual agreements and
representations , most of which have now been resolved apart from the
minor matters ,such as credits on the test file where considered
necessary. And of course budgetary constraints ( see above ) .
And of course there is the small matter of finance for the packs that
accompany this scheme. However the major stumbling block has been the
whole RGB/CMYK argument.
The Pro-File scheme was initially designed to support the traditional
method of file supply....RGB.
Both obsession and circumstance led to the pursuit of a CMYK
solution.Obsession because we wanted ultimate control , and circumstance
because many clients wouldn't accept RGB.
As we've discussed at length , defining the CMYK target is the biggest
problem. Previously we have looked at 'averaging' out proofing
standards or targetting 'generic' presses.Neither solution has proven to
be a success so far with our commissioners.
At least a year later , we have finally achieved what we thought at first
an impossible task. It's a small step but an important one.
After much lobbying on DIGs part , and a demand from the publishers to
rationalise digital file supply , the PPA has decided to adopt a
proofing standard for all of its magazines. Whereas this will not
fulfill Bob Croxfords admirable desire for better press standards , it
will at least provide us with a far more accurate target than those
previously available in the magazine sector ( although DIG wanted
profiles posted on a website for each individual publication).
I'm working with the relevant technical committee on this one.We intend
to be able to produce the relevant CMYK profile for inclusion in the
Pro-File pack.
Possibly more importantly , this project wiil emphasise the need and
feasability of ICC profiling and colour management to the agencies and
design groups , and the ultimate commissioning clients.
So Pro-File is alive ,but not yet kicking .
>How come when most print shops have their own ideas or fly by the seat
>of their pants, when there is so much potential for and actual variation
>between these presses and their proofing systems etc.?
I think that given all of our experiences to date that this is self
evident in some cases ... it's a mixture of ignorance,apathy and vested
interests.
However , I'm not so sure that 'most 'print houses are flying by the seat
of their pants. There is a massive amount of expertise out there , and
it's a matter of getting the dialogue going between us all in order to
establish a workable solution . We've been lucky enough to meet some
extremely knowledgable pre press and press types .They are also not only
friendly , but also enthusiastic about the future of colour management.
BTW , what about all those smudgers that continue to supply dodgy digital
files ? We need to look at our side of the industry too.
>Any idea when everything will be up and running, checked out and agreed
>by all the powers that be, and given an industry wide blessing?
Early 2003
>I wish you luck...no honestly<G>
We need more than luck .We need support.
I wrote :-
>And one of the main reasons they accept the existing standards is that
>even if they may be (slightly?) flawed , at least they are consistent in
>their output (which also enables remote proofing). And of course that
>they represent (albeit sometimes a lower common denominator target) a
>standard to which all parties can agree......a contract proof.
Richard wrote
>Ah, but which contract proof some sceptics would perhaps unkindly ask?
Nowadays , usually the Digital Cromalin, but this can be simulated.
>I am sure we all wish the scheme a safe journey across these uncharted
>waters and hope that as a sailor you are holding the sextant up to the
>right light source Bob. (Marchant)<BG>
I'm back at the studio on the 2nd of January. Dedication?.......Well more
like the fact that the studio is a stones throw away from the Boat Show
at Earls Court , and I've got free parking at the studio. I live in hope
......
And if all the above sounds pompous , patronising , bitter , twisted ,
ignorant , misguided , insulting ,longwinded ,selfserving , etc ,etc (
nothing changes :-) ! ) I apologise humbly and profusely in advance .
'Specially as Richard is a list mom.
T'is the season of goodwill.
Have a little mercy.
Merry Christmas to all.
Have a good one.
Bob Marchant. (DIG Chair )
------------------------- Colour Therapy Ltd -------------------------
------------- Digital Imaging / Consultancy / Training
-------------
----------------------- 44 (0)207 381 3337
-----------------------
===============================================================
GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
