Hello Sam
Complex business isn't it, I took this offlist as I start to give away
secrets and I now have some competitors here!
I've spent a fair bit of time talking to Mark at Slicon imaging about
this and we agree mostly, but I've not heard for a while. I know others
were trying to get in there, perhaps they did. That's business for you,
I was interested on behalf of my clients, not trying to build an income
from them, others have a different viewpoint.
Seems a shame to me that the machine has a hardware linearisation
capability but it's never used, [expensive, needs DTP41]. And I'm told
that the icc (Canon with RIP ) device profile used as a basis for the
device links was made from a single machine an age ago at Creo.
That's not to say it doesn't do the job it's intended to. But it could
be used differently to do portfolio prints - see below.
I hope you're up for making a testprint for me? see below. I've never
seen an iProof printing full density.
It's a shame I didn't drive to IPEX last year so we could meet, but I
guess things have altered for both of us - technology moves on doesn't it.
Still using that Silicon Graphics system?
On Wednesday, January 22, 2003 at 6:57 pm,
Sam Moxon, starphoto-at-ukonline.co.uk, wrote:
> 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.
OK, my earlier comments were based on the fact that every iris iProof
I've seen printed from a Euroscale conversion has been somewhat
desaturated, 10-= 15% I'd say. This compared to a reference print and a
profiled screen image]. Are you confident of your screen saturation??
How do you set that up?
I'm not talking of matching presses here - but of absolute colour
management standards. [Of course matching the Iris [big one] is very
important, but in your portfolio printing process there is no need to go
via Euroscale then a device link profile [destructive] to print on a
printer which can be used in a much more simple way].
Would you perhaps drag our testimage [ProFile RGB testimage ] down from
my website - convert to Euroscale and print using your normal
procedure? I have a certified reference of that image so could compare
your print to it and let you know the result?
> 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.
OK, but Euroscale is not the profile of your iProof and the device link
is potentially destructive for final output work [like portfolio
prints].
>
> > 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.
OK
see above
let's find out how "accurate" in real terms your Iris is?
>
> > 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.
and worth it for the confidence that gives, of course.
> 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.
I'm pleased it's working well for you, of course.
>
> > 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,
indeed.
> we have discussed
> this in the past, but I am not convinced that it is the issue here.
a different workflow for portfolio images may well be advantageous.
>
> > [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.
right.
> 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.
that's an interesting statement.
if you are working in a colourspace that categorically becomes the
colourspace of that image, of course, though, it may not properly
relate to the input data.
> But as they say "knowledge is everything" we just don't have enough
> at this time.
I think we all feel like that
>
> >> 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?
that it's a lot of monay to pay for something which doesn't do what you
want. Doesn't it have anything going for it?
>
> >> 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:)
I think you're using the wrong protocol (and wrong conversion) to make
those prints. Thus the disappointing preview, of course there are
always limitations in some colours on paper - small adjustments to hue
can sometimes work wonders in the right circumstances.
Regards
NeilB
- - - - Consulting in Imaging & Colour Management - - - -
custom scanner and printer profiles, training on Trident & Imacon Scanning
- - - - - we supply Gretag and eyeOne, also XRite & OptiCal - - - - - -
p:44 (0)1273 774704 m:44 (0)7778 160201 http://www.neilbarstow.co.uk/
http://www.apple.com/uk/creative/neilbarstow/
===============================================================
GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
