Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: michaelbiondo on July 28, 2018, 07:54:26 pm
-
Just starting to shoot a big book project, publisher is in Japan and the printer is in Singapore.
I am supper psyched about it and for this project I would like to improve my color workflow.
In the past I would get my images to where I would like them on a calibrated Eizo monitor and then send them off as flattened adobe RGB Tiffs.
Results are mixed and I would like to do everything I can on my end to get them files that match what's on my screen.
Is a RIP necessary in order to send a CMYK file to an Epson 9880? If so which RIP? all I need is to proof, no need to create photo packages or anything like that
Thanks!
-
First things first: can you get the actual ICC press profile?
No, you don’t necessarily need a RIP depending on if you wish to proof (cross rende) only images as opposed to the entire composed page. You can covert from output CMYK back to RGB and use the Epson RGB profiles with its native driver. The key to all this however, is the recipe for output CMYK the press expects and sometimes that’s difficult to get.
-
I would also consider printing the images at your end and submitting as proofs for comparison
-
Thanks for the help, I will request an ICC profile and hopefully I will get one.
I am only interested in proofing the photographs and not the entire spread with text.
Let me see if I understand this correctly. First, I convert the photo from RGB to CMYK then back to RGB. The second step, CMYK back to RGB works because the CMYK color space is smaller and fits into the RGB colorspace?
Thanks,
MB
-
I am considering sending prints to use for reference. Does it make any sense to use the epson "proofing" paper?
Thanks,
MB
-
Let me see if I understand this correctly. First, I convert the photo from RGB to CMYK then back to RGB. The second step, CMYK back to RGB works because the CMYK color space is smaller and fits into the RGB colorspace?
Yes, in a nutshell. This goes into far more detail about what is known as cross rendering: http://digitaldog.net/files/05Rendering%20Intents%20and%20ICC%20profiles.pdf
Yes, you want a proofing paper that matches as closely as possible, the paper white used on press.
-
Confused. Is it a 'big book project' or a 'large magazine editorial'? You'll have more leverage if it's the former.
-
There is more than just the conversion and soft-proofing. You need to know and deal with, among other stuff, screen frequency (and sharpening for that), the paper - coated, uncoated, etc. - that will be used, whether or not there will be a varnish applied.
You can prepare you files as best as you can, then get the printing house to send you a proof from their system, it is usually considered that such a proof is at least 90% accurate and is fine for printing “pleasing colour”. For accurate colour, you will need press proofs, and maybe be at the printing house to check and approve the actual press run. Not a cheap process!
Your best friends in this case are the pre-press people at the printing house. They are the best people to guide you in this process.
-
There is more than just the conversion and soft-proofing. You need to know and deal with, among other stuff, screen frequency (and sharpening for that), the paper - coated, uncoated, etc. - that will be used, whether or not there will be a varnish applied.
No need to deal with screen frequency on his end. Sharpening indeed, to some degree; output sharpening for halftone. Varnish is part of the process the ICC Profile HAS to account for in the conversion.
-
Not a cheap process!
I can only stress that.
Basically it all depends on the budget you have for quality printing. Probably best you can do is get in touch with the printing house. Maybe (!) they have the time to give you profiles and some tips. If it's not a very high budget you can forget about hard proofing either way round (that is: You send them prints for reference how you want it or they print proofs and send them to you). Unfortunately the reality of printing on a budget means a lot of compromise. I sometimes have to deal with artists and illustrators who seem not to have an idea how much (read: little) money is in books theses days.
But maybe it's another matter with your project (ads/commercial?), than it is indeed the job of the publisher and print house to provide information how you should handle the photos and how they should be processed from your side.
-
This idea of expecting the printer to match supplied 'proof's' is largely fantasy. You need a contract proof! That doesn't mean with proper and ideal color management, one can't cross render on an Epson or even find an Epson being used, by the printer as a contract proof. The key idea here is CONTACT! That means the printer has to agree to match their proofs and press (within reason, certainly within say an average deltaE of 6 or less).
See:
http://digitaldog.net/files/CMYKPart1.pdf
http://digitaldog.net/files/CMYKPart2.pdf
-
Thank you everyone for the advice, this project is a hybrid magazine / book. It is a Japanese Architecture Magazine, soft cover and only has one AD per issue, has a high newsstand price so as you can see it is very unusual. I am fortunate in that they have asked me to shoot the entire issue, 190 pages. Soft proofing on my calibrated monitor is ok, I just want to take it one step further. I have worked with all kinds of proofs and I have worked closely will pre-press houses in the past. As you all have guessed, there are budget issues and I would like to handle as much of the color/contrast work in house. It is a six month project so I have time and I hope to find someone at the magazine who can provide a printers profile. In the past, when I have asked for profiles I get a range of responses from ok to what is a profile? We shall see. Thanks for the links Andy, I will read them with interest.
MB
-
It sounds like a great project — and the sort of project where you could open up a dialogue with the printers (re. profiles).
In the past, I did many shoots for Japanese magazines. I also shot a limited edition book for a Japanese client, somewhat similar to the one your embarking on (but smaller in scale - only 60 pages).
I was never disappointed with the quality of Japanese printing. I just sent them AdobeRGB tiffs and let them do their best. (Sometimes I would soft-proof to CMYK, just to check whether any bright colours were going to be butchered in the process, and then tone them down.)
-
(Sometimes I would soft-proof to CMYK, just to check whether any bright colours were going to be butchered in the process, and then tone them down.)
With the actual press profile and with the rendering intent that press will use for conversions?
-
With the actual press profile and with the rendering intent that press will use for conversions?
No nothing as fine-tuned as that. Just to a generic CMYK profile. Obviously not the best way to do it, but satisfactory for my needs. (On rare occasions, I have proofed to a specific press profile, but it's often not easy to get hold of these profiles. And a couple of times I've done the CMYK conversions myself (in liaison with the printers, and with their press profiles).)
-
No nothing as fine-tuned as that. Just to a generic CMYK profile. Obviously not the best way to do it, but satisfactory for my needs. (On rare occasions, I have proofed to a specific press profile, but it's often not easy to get hold of these profiles. And a couple of times I've done the CMYK conversions myself (in liaison with the printers, and with their press profiles).)
My advise to the OP (since that's the topic) is to avoid that as it's fraught with potential hurt-me issues and results.
Soft proofing CMYK (where you can't see the effect of dot gain or black Gen), then editing based on a view and numbers and a RI that don't specifically reflect what's going on within the press isn't a good idea IMHO. If you can't get the actual output profile and control the conversions yourself, skip anything CMYK and send tagged RGB. Probably ColorMatch RGB due to the gamma encoding, certainly if the shop/printer isn't sure what an ICC profile is!
-
But to be honest, many traditional offset company does not have an ICC profile because what they usually look at are the curves. So sending them a hard copy would be more ideal.
Aaron
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
But to be honest, many traditional offset company does not have an ICC profile because what they usually look at are the curves. So sending them a hard copy would be more ideal.
Curves? What are they using to convert from RGB to CMYK? It may not be an ICC Profile if they really operate in the late 20th century but they still need to define a conversion. Could be the old 'classic' CMYK engine in Photoshop (doubt that, it's really hardly a production environment to do so).
I suspect the reality is many traditional off set companies have an ICC profile but simply do not want to supply it. Some incorrectly believe it contains some proprietary data their competitors might use which is really hogwash.
IF they can't define then supply a CMYK method of conversion, then it's kind of pointless and often painful to attempt any CMYK work outside their environments. Send them tagged RGB and hope for the best, get a contract proof, go to the press check (which isn't always possible and alone can cause problems).
-
Here's a visual of how a soft proof, in fact separated CMYK files from the same RGB source appear the identical, but the underlying data, in this case, the black plate, vary based on simply the CMYK profile's Black Generation settings. They all appear the same in the composite. But they are vastly different and would print differently.
-
One more example. Same image and same CMYK profile, but the only difference is Perceptual vs. Relative Colorimetric. Subtract the black channels from each and the difference is shown below using Calculations command/subtract to show the differences in just this one critical channel.
There's a lot going on here, under the hood you can't see that can hugely impact what's going to happen on press. At least with the proper CMYK output profile, that black generation should be correctly configured for the output. Without the proper profile, you're soft proofing the composite and (ugh) editing the data and of course that black channel too. Kind of dangerous. :'(
-
So best to avoid soft-proofing altogether?
-
So best to avoid soft-proofing altogether?
When using the correct an actual profile for the outpur process and you control the RI then no, you can and should soft proof.
-
I think I'm misunderstanding your test chart example. You show a situation where soft-proofing is not working (all the soft proofs look the same, but all will print differently). If the file is in RGB, not CMYK, will the soft proofs all look different?
-
I think I'm misunderstanding your test chart example. You show a situation where soft-proofing is not working (all the soft proofs look the same, but all will print differently). If the file is in RGB, not CMYK, will the soft proofs all look different?
Yes RGB/CMYK would look different from each other. In the CMYK example however, the three look the same but are different and would print differently due to black Gen which doesn’t “soft proof”.
-
One more question, and then I'll get off the OP's thread. What exactly is a CMYK profile? It's not specific to one paper is it? It's for a type of paper (coated or uncoated)? A printing company will run hundreds of different paper stocks, and it's very possible that the stock I want to print on is a stock they've never used. They can't be expected to profile all available papers, can they? After all, it's not like loading a couple of A4 sheets into an inkjet printer to make patches. Last time I asked a printer for a profile they made a big song and dance about it, but when I googled the profile they emailed me, it was just a generic profile (the top one on this page - http://www.colormanagement.org/en/isoprofile2009.html ). I was on press for that job, and at the end of the day it came down to the printer tweaking his sliders. I was happy with the final output, but it didn't feel like a properly colour-managed workflow.
-
One more question, and then I'll get off the OP's thread. What exactly is a CMYK profile? It's not specific to one paper is it? It's for a type of paper (coated or uncoated)? A printing company will run hundreds of different paper stocks, and it's very possible that the stock I want to print on is a stock they've never used. They can't be expected to profile all available papers, can they? After all, it's not like loading a couple of A4 sheets into an inkjet printer to make patches. Last time I asked a printer for a profile they made a big song and dance about it, but when I googled the profile they emailed me, it was just a generic profile (the top one on this page - http://www.colormanagement.org/en/isoprofile2009.html (http://www.colormanagement.org/en/isoprofile2009.html) ). I was on press for that job, and at the end of the day it came down to the printer tweaking his sliders. I was happy with the final output, but it didn't feel like a properly colour-managed workflow.
It's a profile of the print process, no different than what I suspect (?) you might use when printing from a desktop printer but RGB rather than CMYK.
Yes, they can be expected to have some process to convert RGB to CMYK for any/all output types. Or something similar, a device link profile to convert CMYK to CMYK.
A 'generic profile' of ANYTHING is basically useless! If you were printing on an Epson 3880 on Luster Paper and I suggested you use a profile for an Epson 9800 and Matt paper, would you use it for soft proofing let alone converting to the output color space? I hope you wouldn’t. A press is NO different.
A non generic profile that targets a defined print process like TR001 or GRACoL2006 Coated1 if and when sent to a press that absolutely is set to produce those defined conditions isn't a 'generic' profile.
Got a 'generic profile' for a display? Equally useless.
-
It's a profile of the print process, no different than what I suspect (?) you might use when printing from a desktop printer but RGB rather than CMYK.
But the profiles I use when I print with my Epson 3880, are custom profiles that I've had made for the specific paper that I'm printing on. I don't use a generic 'Epson 3880 resin-coated paper' profile or a generic 'Epson 3880 matte paper' profile.
Yes, they can be expected to have some process to convert RGB to CMYK for any/all output types. Or something similar, a device link profile to convert CMYK to CMYK.
I'm curious how they go about that. If I've simply converted to their recommended 'coated' or 'uncoated' CMYK profile, how do they further fine-tune the process so that it prints correctly on the specific paper stock I've selected. Or should I be expecting the printer to supply specific profiles for specific paper stocks?
A 'generic profile' of ANYTHING is basically useless! If you were printing on an Epson 3880 on Luster Paper and I suggested you use a profile for an Epson 9800 and Matt paper, would you use it for soft proofing let alone converting to the output color space? I hope you wouldn’t.
No, I wouldn't.
A press is NO different. A non generic profile that targets a defined print process like TR001 or GRACoL2006 Coated1 if and when sent to a press that absolutely is set to produce those defined conditions isn't a 'generic' profile.
I'm only half-following you. Printing to an inkjet printer, I can use profiles which accurately describe (and soft-proof) the subtle qualities of all sorts of different papers. But my offset printing house (that offers a much more diverse range of papers), is only offering me two profiles, either 'coated' or 'uncoated'. It seems restrictive, no?
-
Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word 'generic' to describe a profile such as 'ISOcoated_v2_bas.ICC ' (or the CMYK profiles that come preloaded in Photoshop). But they are not profiles of a specific press are they? Rather, they're a standard that a specific press can be calibrated to (?)
-
But the profiles I use when I print with my Epson 3880, are custom profiles that I've had made for the specific paper that I'm printing on. I don't use a generic 'Epson 3880 resin-coated paper' profile or a generic 'Epson 3880 matte paper' profile.
That changed nothing I've written and more, begs the question why you'd consider a generic press profile at all useful. It's not.
I'm curious how they go about that.
Pretty much the same way you do to build an RGB profile but with a lot more settings to apply (Black Gen for one).
If I've simply converted to their recommended 'coated' or 'uncoated' CMYK profile, how do they further fine-tune the process so that it prints correctly on the specific paper stock I've selected. Or should I be expecting the printer to supply specific profiles for specific paper stocks?
You seem to be describing the use of a generic profile. I told you why, especially with CMYK that's far from ideal or useful. Descriptions with actual images too!
I'm only half-following you. Printing to an inkjet printer, I can use profiles which accurately describe (and soft-proof) the subtle qualities of all sorts of different papers.
IF you demand to use the term accuracy, I'm forced to ask you to provide an accuracy metric: average, max deltaE. Further, even if you suspect it's accurate, and it may be, what's your evidence that the profile you got from a print house that doesn't promise that profile actually defines press behavior is 'accurate'?
But my offset printing house (that offers a much more diverse range of papers), is only offering me two profiles, either 'coated' or 'uncoated'. It seems restrictive, no?
Of course it does unless they only have two stocks and have stated these are custom, not generic profiles. I have no way to tell you which it is of course.
-
Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word 'generic' to describe a profile such as 'ISOcoated_v2_bas.ICC ' (or the CMYK profiles that come preloaded in Photoshop). But they are not profiles of a specific press are they?
You're asking a question that is impossible for me to answer. I have zero idea who you're even using! Even if I did, I'd have to get the profile, then output a big pile of color patches, measure them, and run a series of colorimetric analysis which would produce real data on accuracy. Then I'd run that test in a week to see how well their process control is. That's another can of worms. EVEN with digital presses.
-
I'm getting increasingly confused. On the few occasions that I've dealt with offset printers directly, I've asked for their profiles and they've just offered me two - a coated profile and an uncoated profile. Often these profiles have familiar names - they are the profiles pre-installed in Photoshop (e.g. 'Coated GRACoL2006'). Is this a bad sign? Should I be looking for a printing company that offers hundreds of profiles, made for their specific press and for the hundreds of different papers that they print on?
-
I'm getting increasingly confused. On the few occasions that I've dealt with offset printers directly, I've asked for their profiles and they've just offered me two - a coated profile and an uncoated profile. Often these profiles have familiar names - they are the profiles pre-installed in Photoshop (e.g. 'Coated GRACoL2006'). Is this a bad sign? Should I be looking for a printing company that offers hundreds of profiles, made for their specific press and for the hundreds of different papers that they print on?
One more question, and then I'll get off the OP's thread.
I'm confused now too.... ???
-
Is it possible the press guys are giving you generic profiles that are intended to let them usefully soft proof on their equipment, so they can see what you're shooting for, and then they work their press magic to try to hit that?
My impression is that offset presses are somewhat tempermental and that in the end it often comes down to a guy looking at proofs coming off the thing now, and tweaking the press a little too hit the target.
-
No offence, but you are living in a very advanced world. In here China, 90% of the printing company still only accept cmyk files, only! If you supply a rgb pdf, they simply covert it to any cmyk file by whatever default setting they are using( us swop, Japan color...etc) A lot of these factory are G7 or Fogra certified, but trust me, they are not working in these workflows at all. As long as their customer pays the money, they don’t care! Unfortunately, China is still the biggest printing country in the world......
Curves? What are they using to convert from RGB to CMYK? It may not be an ICC Profile if they really operate in the late 20th century but they still need to define a conversion. Could be the old 'classic' CMYK engine in Photoshop (doubt that, it's really hardly a production environment to do so).
I suspect the reality is many traditional off set companies have an ICC profile but simply do not want to supply it. Some incorrectly believe it contains some proprietary data their competitors might use which is really hogwash.
IF they can't define then supply a CMYK method of conversion, then it's kind of pointless and often painful to attempt any CMYK work outside their environments. Send them tagged RGB and hope for the best, get a contract proof, go to the press check (which isn't always possible and alone can cause problems).
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Just starting to shoot a big book project, publisher is in Japan and the printer is in Singapore.
Hi Michael, I'm based in Singapore. Which printer is printing your work? Most of the better printers here are Fogra certified and they don't use custom profiles, just the generic Fogra39 profile. It actually works quite well if they use standard process inks, run up to the right SIDs and have the correct TVI across the tone scale. Of course it wojld be great if they had custom ICC profiles but they just dont. That's the state of things here. Some printers here dont even know what CMYK profile to use, and will tell you any CMYK is fine (no its not).
-
publisher is in Japan and the printer is in Singapore.
This is key. The printer is probably very qualified by the publisher. Lots of high quality fine art publication printing use this route from Japan to Singapore.
I would like to improve my color workflow.
You might familiarize yourself with the concepts of G7 methods for the printing process. (Largely based upon measuring and controlling neutral gray balance which, because you’re a photographer, should come very easy to you.)
In the past I would get my images to where I would like them on a calibrated Eizo monitor and then send them off as flattened adobe RGB Tiffs. Results are mixed and I would like to do everything I can on my end to get them files that match what's on my screen.
Just realize and remember your monitor is an emissive device using a wider color gamut than the reflective capability of the given paper. You will need to shift your expectations. Fortunately Adobe 98 is centered upon a neutral axis and some CMYK press standards are meant to be calibrated to aim points of neutral grays. Therefore, both you and the printer might have a common ground at least as far as neutrals, meaning no hue shifts. That leaves shadow and highlight detail along with color gamut. Try to be sure your images have data in those areas because your files will be radically transmogrified, hopefully skillfully, in the production process.
all I need is to proof
You are not actually “proofing” until your print becomes a “qualified” proof. You are merely printing a preview or a “go-by.”
Quoted from IDEAlliance (the G7 folks); “Individual proof verification requires printing the 2007 IDEAlliance ISO 12647-7 Control Strip on EVERY proof, measuring the strip with an automated spectrophotometer, and comparing the measurements to a "reference" set of CIELab values in suitable software.” Also available is a control strip to verify RGB proof prints and many Epson proofs are commonly evaluated only visually. Experienced operators know a practical proof print or go-by from something inferior or unattainable.
I hope this helps.
-
I'm confused now too.... ???
I'm sorry to have confused you. I wonder if anyone else could help? My question, again: Previously, where I've requested CMYK profiles from printing companies they have offered me just two profiles: one for coated paper stocks, the other for uncoated paper stock. Is this problematic? Am I right to hope for a profile for the specific paper stock I am printing on? If this is the desired scenario, does anyone have any real-world experience of it actually happening?
-
Thanks,
I will see if I can find out the name of the printer.
MB
-
Hi Michael, I'm based in Singapore. Which printer is printing your work? Most of the better printers here are Fogra certified and they don't use custom profiles, just the generic Fogra39 profile. It actually works quite well if they use standard process inks, run up to the right SIDs and have the correct TVI across the tone scale. Of course it wojld be great if they had custom ICC profiles but they just dont. That's the state of things here. Some printers here dont even know what CMYK profile to use, and will tell you any CMYK is fine (no its not).
Thanks,
I will see if I can find out the name of the printer.
MB
-
This is key. The printer is probably very qualified by the publisher. Lots of high quality fine art publication printing use this route from Japan to Singapore.
You might familiarize yourself with the concepts of G7 methods for the printing process. (Largely based upon measuring and controlling neutral gray balance which, because you’re a photographer, should come very easy to you.)
Just realize and remember your monitor is an emissive device using a wider color gamut than the reflective capability of the given paper. You will need to shift your expectations. Fortunately Adobe 98 is centered upon a neutral axis and some CMYK press standards are meant to be calibrated to aim points of neutral grays. Therefore, both you and the printer might have a common ground at least as far as neutrals, meaning no hue shifts. That leaves shadow and highlight detail along with color gamut. Try to be sure your images have data in those areas because your files will be radically transmogrified, hopefully skillfully, in the production process.
You are not actually “proofing” until your print becomes a “qualified” proof. You are merely printing a preview or a “go-by.”
Quoted from IDEAlliance (the G7 folks); “Individual proof verification requires printing the 2007 IDEAlliance ISO 12647-7 Control Strip on EVERY proof, measuring the strip with an automated spectrophotometer, and comparing the measurements to a "reference" set of CIELab values in suitable software.” Also available is a control strip to verify RGB proof prints and many Epson proofs are commonly evaluated only visually. Experienced operators know a practical proof print or go-by from something inferior or unattainable.
I hope this helps.
Thanks Stephen,
A lot of great information here and a lot to study
-
OK, This is what I have gathered so far.
Get a profile from the printer, if that is not possible then submit a RGB file and let the printer do the rest.
I think Stephen has a point and that my issue may be in visualizing the difference between viewing an emissive image on a monitor and a viewing a reflective image on paper.
I know this is basic stuff but 80% of the work I am now doing is for web view only, when I recently printed a project for a client I saw in the prints certain color tints and contrast values that were in the original file but I really did not pick up on until I looked carefully at the print.
There is something for me in the process of making and viewing a print where I am able to fine tune and refine the image.
The only problem with process is that it is time consuming and expensive, but for this particular project I think that I will have to find the money and make the time (or is it make the money and find the time?).
My preferred printing paper is Canson infinity baryta satin on an epson 9880 with a canned profile (monitor is very close to the print)
Maybe there is a lesser expensive paper I could use??
Damn, 38 years of being a photographer and I am still learning and having to re-learn stuff.
Thanks everyone!
MB
-
I print all of my editorial images before sending the digital files to the client. I print for the reasons you state (picking up on details which, for whatever reason, are not apparent on the monitor). Once I've made any additional corrections to the digital files, the prints go straight in the bin. The process is neither time-consuming nor particularly expensive. I print with an Epson 3880 using Epson Premium Semi Gloss paper (no need to use a more expensive 'fine art' paper). I use a custom profile, but it's very close to the Epson canned profile. I make A4 prints for single pages, and A3 prints for double page spreads. [Note - this is nothing to do with CMYK conversions or CMYK proofing. It's just part of my process for retouching RGB files.]
-
G7, the old TR001 etc are colorimetric definitions of output with specifics for the printer to actually achieve. IF (big if but absolutely possible) a print house conforms to such standards, all one needs is to find the associated ICC profile for conversions to CMYK and soft proofing. Just as if you owned say an Epson 3880 and wanted to print on Exhibition Fiber paper, you could download Epson's profile for that printer and paper and off you go. Yes, not all ICC profiles (even from Epson) are equal due to attributes such as the software used to build the profile and many other factors. But the point is this: you need an ICC profile that correctly defines the output for soft proofing and conversions. If you don't have such a profile, don't consider soft proofing with a profile that doesn't define the output and absolutely do not convert that data to that CMYK output color space. It's that simple.
If you can't do this, you can't cross render to proof the data. You don't have the recipe for CMYK!
So for the OP, you need to contact the printer and ask about an output profile. They may provide one. They may state their output conforms to an output standard like G7. That may or may not be true but it's a good start (and there are ways to confirm if this is true or not).
Lastly, you really want the print shop to provide contract proofs! And if possible, you want to take those contract proofs to the press run!