Thanks for your patience Neil, I've finally got around to this. I hope that list mom will not object to me leaving the bulk of this mail intact as it is self explanatory.
on 15/01/2003 11:39 pm, Neil Barstow: > > The Iris iProofers I've seen have been set up with a <device link> > profile and drop folder workflow set up to simulate a press condition > somewhat lesser than Euroscale. Yes, your original conversion is to > Euroscale coated and that's what the device link conversion apparently > expects, but you'll perhaps have noticed that what comes out of the > printer [if you use it the way I've seen them set up] is somewhat lower > gamut than the screen image? > Yes it's a drag and drop workflow that simulates the output of it's big brother the Iris proofer. My understanding of the process, and I am by no means a technie, is that you convert to your target profile, Euroscale in this case, drop the file into the relevant hot folder that then simulates the data to print onto a specific Iris paper type. I can't say that I have noticed major differences between what we preview on screen and what we are able to print, it is very close and more than acceptable within our commercial environment. My original request for assistance was based on not being able to produce an acceptable on screen conversion in PS6 of certain saturated colours, we are in fact printing what we see on screen. So the problem is presumably with the initial conversion rather than its interpretation by the iProof. > In that scenario it's pretty difficult to use Photoshop's tools to > tweak the colours to destination gamut, using gamut warning etc. this > is because Euroscale Ctd. is actually not the destination colourspace. > > Is that right? You can see colours onthe screen you can't see on the > prints? [ignoring, of course, the usual differences of luminance > typical of a screen and print <match>. > No, we can print what we see on screen, it's what we see on screen that isn't good enough. > The iProof set up as above apparently provides a print which resembles > press output and Cromalins [have you found that?] but ti's not ideal > for pritning portfolio prints. A Canon inkjet like that has a quite > large gamut, but not when it's used the device link way. No I believe that it is designed to simulate a full blown Iris output but at a fraction of the cost for the hardware. I present my work to existing and potential clients as commercial CMYK outputs, or as a simulation of such, rather than art prints and opted for this system as a method of producing images that best displayed my work in that environment. On a whole it has been a success until now. > It can work right for you, but I'm afraid it's a profiling issue. [and > how the profiles are used]. > It is possible that I would benefit from the use of a different profile for certain images and maybe for portfolio work on a whole, we have discussed this in the past, but I am not convinced that it is the issue here. > [listmom, IMHO this is an interesting question, to save reiterating the > points Sam made I wanted to leave the original post in it's entirity, > don't worry though, I'm flinching now in anticiaption of the clipping > mail]. > > > On 14/1/03 at , Sam Moxon wrote: > >> >> Can anyone offer any pointers to improve the saturation of a few >> images that I am printing in CMYK for my book. I'm not wishing to >> open the profiling debate again as I am fully aware of the benefits >> of this as I am sure are most of the list, however, although my >> knowledge of CMYK is improving on a day by day basis there are always >> certain prints that I produce that leave me scratching my head for an >> answer. In this case high colour saturation in blues that I am unable >> to get anywhere near in print, that is both in a sky and in clothes. >> We are producing Euroscale V2 conversions in PS6 having sometime ago >> gone down the route of adding the Binuscan CeMagYK separations >> package to our Sinar Captureshop software (hence the profiling >> comment). > but if it doesn't work to your satisfaction? No it doesn't but that does not mean that it is not capable of working better. We have a combination of a lack of knowledge on our behalf and a lack of back up that is just not getting us there, we are still working on it, however it does not help when the Binuscan provided colourspace you think you are working in proves to be incorrect. But as they say "knowledge is everything" we just don't have enough at this time. >> Unfortunately the conversations in CeMagYK have prooved somewhat >> disapointing and so we have on a whole reverted to PS6 conversions > > that's disapppointing isn't it. the Binuscan SW must have something > going for it? It's expensive isn't it? > You know it is, what's your point? >> which print well on our Iris iProof printer but not in this case. > >> So any knowledge on improving or tweeking the conversions to improve >> colour saturation that anyone is prepared to share would be welcome. > tweaking RGB destined for CMYK is pretty straightforward if somewhat > time consuming, but without a profile that really represents the > destination [is with a good screen preview] you can use up a lot of > paper and enthusiasm. > > Hey, Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree? How is the iProof match to the > profiled screen? > Yep you are, they match. So how about a few tips on preserving the colour saturation with on screen conversions:) > Regards > > NeilB > =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
