On 31 Jul 2004, at 10:44, Neil Barstow wrote:
Everyone blames everyone else.
Pretty much par for the course until a relationship is established and trust ensues.
Next problem:
what's the target
Precisely.
this is what the FOGRA and the ECI have been working on with ISO for a few
years. It seems they are doing pretty well and anyone interested should
look at www.eci.org and go to
http://www.eci.org/eci/de/060_downloads.php where they can get the 2004
ECI profiles <ECI_offest_2004.sit>. Interesting stuff.
Good info on a good site , but there are a few niggling issues that crop up in the present workflow(see below).
As against another Proofer based standard, like Chromalin, I find this initiative interesting since it allows pressmen to run their press to a FOGRA standard, then, those submiting files can use one of the ECI profiles and get a good [Photoshop] softproof and accurate gamut boundaries. It's what photographers need, we can all learn to throw the dart if we can see the dartboard. There is quite a groundswell of opinion in favour of standardisation in the US (among those I've heard speak anyway).
A noble cause and one we are all working towards.
We, even now, have the ability to make a humble Epson inkjet into an ISO
proofer with the right RIP, and - if required - the wherewithal for client to
measure each proof and produce an ISO standard pass or fail label.
The basis of the existing PPA Proof4Press launched last November) scheme is similar , albeit with a different control strip (see below).Been working on the Proof4Press committee for over a year now and it's thrown up a lot of interesting info (see below again).
This is pretty much what Thomas and I were trying to do in our involvement with Pro-File.
Neil and Thomas worked long and hard on the aim print / proof print evaluation of the ProFile scheme , and although ProFile as we new it didn't fly, I feel that the photographic community as a whole have still benefited enormously from this work.
I'm really hoping that Bob's initiative to continue with Pic4press, Digital Ad lab etc. will end up in the same area. Let's all hope so.
Well........where to start ? Probably with a little history.
Back in the days when ProFile still had wings and we'd seen the limitations of only suggesting an RGB workflow , we had to look seriously at the subject of CMYK targets ( and also, of course, the subject of cross rendering images to simulate proof output. As mentioned before on this list , this became the subject of much debate, polarising along the lines of should we profile the press or profile the proofing device to provide a CMYK target. One school of thought was to measure a number of digital Cromalins from several sources average the readings to produce one generic CMYK target. This was a laudable suggestion that would enable us to separate our RGB files and produce an average result that in wouldn't be too far off the result produced by any one Cromalin proofing device, and , assuming that the Cromalin device accurately reflected the press, would give a good press ready file. However there were a few reservations here. First of all ,the digital Cromalin is not set up to mimic the output of just one press characterisation.It can ,and often is ,being programmed to simulate many different press destinations. Even if we assumed that all of our test Cromalins were to be set to the generic Eurostandard DP10 (which wasn't assumed at the time, the Data used for this press definition was not FOGRA based.And you have to add to this little mixing pot , you have to take into the account that as with most (all? ) proofing devices , there are inherent flaws / artifacts inherent to the device itself . In profiling the proofing device you introduce these anomalies into the press workflow , often with detrimental results.However at this stage , I have to say that this is standard practice in many pre press scenarios .
Some of us f thought it might be a better idea to profile the press , a huge task . The shortcut approach to this was to commission a "respected" third party ( therefore independent of ProFile) who had "prior" in this area and get them to produce a set of profiles based on FOGRA data that would represent a small number of press definitions ( web, sheetfed etc) . This third party was supposed to have access to a rigorously controlled press on which we could view our results. Once again a laudable exercise, but as it proved not without its limitations . I'm sure that Thomas Holm could (if he wished ) write a lengthy mail on this subject , but I would like to say , lest Thomas himself is too modest , that, despite his reservations on the whole exercise , he put in a shedload of work to sort out results . The resulting profiles however were met with a chorus of apathy from the industry at the time. I'm sure that Neil and Thomas will be able to correct me , but it was also at about this time that the wheels started to fall off of the ProFile scheme ( although there were of course other reasons for its ultimate stagnation). It's also the time at which we decided to bite the bullet and buy our own profiling kit to get to grips with the entire process.
Anyways , fast forward to now.As always ,with the benefit of time,progress and hindsight we care all coming to some agreement.As Neil has pointed out , we now have the ability to use our 'ever so 'umble' Epson printers and the like to be used with ISO certification, and in the (hopefully soon to be! ) ideal world will be able to separate to profiles built using FOGRA data ( see above) and proof on the relevant devices. We may even be able to use the existing ECI profiles.
However , there are still a few hurdles to overcome. Like it or not , the majority of the industry still relies heavily on the Digital Cromalin (usually in the Eurostandard DP10 setting ) as the ultimate device for producing pukka contract proofs . Contrary to some wild suggestions , we are not part of DuPonts machine , but we still have to realise the importance of this status quo within the industry. It holds such sway that many (most?) presses within the UK are set up to work with the digital Cromalin device in mind and not to ISO standards. The PPA , having used it for so many years with predictable and repeatable results , have set the colour space for all of the accredited Proof4Press proofing vendors as the Cromalin Eurostandard DP10.
So what we're doing is this . We are right now t testing a number of profiles for CMYK separation for the Pic4Press initiative. Some are based on the digital Cromalin , some are based on FOGRA data , and we are also looking at the existing FOGRA ECI profiles. I'll forward the resulting info as soon as I'm able to.
Until then , a few interesting facts to mull over.
a) To get the very best results , it's best to use profiles generated for specific image types.
b)The ECI profiles were produced using Heidelberg software and are well rounded or averaged to produce a 'smooth' profile . There is some debate to be had on the pros and cons of this rounding within certain workflows.The ECI web coated ICC profile assumes 100% maximum black , which although not insurmountable, is not standard practice with most of the PPA printers.
Possibly more importantly, Heidelberg have given their consent to allow the resulting profiles to be used in the public domain , which leads us to point c.
c) If you use different software , there are more than the anomalies produced in measurement and calculation to deal with. For instance , with the present licensing conditions , Gretag Macbeth , for instance , forbids (as in illegal) the distribution of profiles generated with their software to third parties where any form of gain is involved. Now , in addition to the limitations imposed on the Pic4Press initiative , this is of course a much wider concern for anybody providing a profiling service using ProfileMaker (scary or what! )
Regards,
Bob Marchant.
=============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
