Question about Digital Proofing workflow with an inkjet printer

[aaronchan]

Hi guys,

I am trying to setup a printer for one of my client who does 2D design.
His purpose is to make hard proofs for the final output company.
I just want to ask to make sure my settings before I go tomorrow.

So there will be 2 ways to do it:
1 -  Get a RIP such as EFI and setup it up for digital proofing (I know how to do this one, just a "bit" more money which my client may consider about it)

2 - Use Photoshop CC:
First of all, calibrate and profile monitor and printer.
Then, go to Photoshop CC print window.
Setup the Printer Driver with No color management and others.
Select the proper icc profile for the current printer.
Relative Colorimetric with BPC on
Switch from Normal Print to Hard Proofing

Custom Setup Window:
Select the destination ICC profile (for example Gracol2006_Coated1v2) <within the custom setup window>
Rendering Intent (Relative Colorimetric?) <within the custom setup window>
BPC on <within the custom setup window>
Simulate Paper Color OFF <within the custom setup window>
Simulate Black Ink ON <within the custom setup window>

Back to the Print Settings Window:
There are 2 check box,
Simulate Paper Color & Simulate Black Ink
Should I check the "Simulate Black Ink" here again?
I think just check the "Simulate Black Ink"

Hit PRINT!

Am I doing it right?
Couldn't find too much infomation about this section on google.

Thank You
Aaron

[PeterAit]

If you don't know all this, why are you taking on this job?

[digitaldog]

You don't need a RIP per se IF you're dealing with rasterized data. That's what a RIP really does; rasterize postscript or vector data. What you may need is a 3rd party print driver IF again, you're going to be dealing with CMYK. The native Quickdraw/GDI drivers from Epson and Canon as an example, do not deal with CMYK correctly. You can stick to RGB for such proofing in some cases and avoid another driver with good output profiles; one for the proofer (Canon/Epson) and one that defines the process you are proofing towards. A press? A contract proof?

[aaronchan]

If you don't know all this, why are you taking on this job?

You can always learn from a job.

You don't need a RIP per se IF you're dealing with rasterized data. That's what a RIP really does; rasterize postscript or vector data. What you may need is a 3rd party print driver IF again, you're going to be dealing with CMYK. The native Quickdraw/GDI drivers from Epson and Canon as an example, do not deal with CMYK correctly. You can stick to RGB for such proofing in some cases and avoid another driver with good output profiles; one for the proofer (Canon/Epson) and one that defines the process you are proofing towards. A press? A contract proof?

I'm not sure if he needs a RIP or not so it is still under consideration.
I'll know a bit more after the meeting by tomorrow.
My situation is a bit complex since we are dealing with differnt parties. An actual company who knows nothing at all, a photo retoucher who knows a bit color managment, a print service provider who seems to know nothing about color managment but a close loop one.
I am actually hired by the retoucher who is complaining the printer always edit his final files because they cannot reproduce the right color for the company.
What I was thinking is to help the company to setup a printer, in-house, for their designers. Once the photo retoucher send them a new file, after their design within AI or Indesign, export it to a rasterized file, print it out from photoshop with CMYK simulation aka hard proofing. Send the hard proof to the printer and tell them to shut up and match the proof. A legal contract proof might be too much for them, not about money, but how you know what I mean. Sometimes client doesn't want too much.
I'm living in China and this is what we are dealing with everyday. Back in the day when I was working in a publishing company, I had to go down to the printer, look at every single round of fresh prints from the offset for 20 hours and tell them more M less C.....bla bla bla......

So, Mr. Rodney, am I using the correct setting for the hardproof function in Photoshop?

Thanks
Aaron

[digitaldog]

It can work in Photoshop. It can work in Photoshop if the profiles for both processes are defined. Then you'd convert using Absolute Colorimetric rendering in an attempt to match paper whites.

[Stephen Ray]

Hi guys,

I am trying to setup a printer for one of my client who does 2D design.
His purpose is to make hard proofs for the final output company.

What exactly will convince the press house your latest new fangled proof print should be accepted as a standard?

[aaronchan]

What exactly will convince the press house your latest new fangled proof print should be accepted as a standard?

Because we are in China!
Who pays the money, who is the king. 

[Pat Herold]

Just adding onto what Andrew is saying about the profiles being defined.  The accuracy of your results depends on how well the profiles you are using truly define your printer behavior.  In other words, if you are using generic profiles supplied by the paper manufacturer, you may not get as accurate a proof as you'll get using custom profiles made on the actual printers you're using.

[Doug Gray]

Also, do check the conditions where prints/hard proofs will be viewed. In particular whether they have D50 levels of uV. There's a lot in use that do not and it makes a big difference if OBAs are involved in the proof or end result.

Another problem is if the paper you are emulating with a proof has OBAs, you shouldn't use OBA free proofing paper since OBA free proofing paper's gamut is limited at high luminance. Very noticeable effect. This whole area of uV, no uV D50 proofing lights is a real mess.

See page 25 in this pdf for details.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjW8qyWq6fdAhUKM6wKHWzeD2cQFjALegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fogra.org%2Findex.php%3Fmenuid%3D239%26downloadid%3D994%26reporeid%3D184&usg=AOvVaw0gnRms1Wd_jLvIAjENslrf

[aaronchan]

Just adding onto what Andrew is saying about the profiles being defined.  The accuracy of your results depends on how well the profiles you are using truly define your printer behavior.  In other words, if you are using generic profiles supplied by the paper manufacturer, you may not get as accurate a proof as you'll get using custom profiles made on the actual printers you're using.

I'm pretty sure my P7000 is well profiled, this is something I've been doing many years now and I feel pretty confident about it. The thing is let's say I got a profile from a press company which I have no idea if that profile is well built or not...

Also, do check the conditions where prints/hard proofs will be viewed. In particular whether they have D50 levels of uV. There's a lot in use that do not and it makes a big difference if OBAs are involved in the proof or end result.

Another problem is if the paper you are emulating with a proof has OBAs, you shouldn't use OBA free proofing paper since OBA free proofing paper's gamut is limited at high luminance. Very noticeable effect. This whole area of uV, no uV D50 proofing lights is a real mess.

See page 25 in this pdf for details.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjW8qyWq6fdAhUKM6wKHWzeD2cQFjALegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fogra.org%2Findex.php%3Fmenuid%3D239%26downloadid%3D994%26reporeid%3D184&usg=AOvVaw0gnRms1Wd_jLvIAjENslrf

Thanks for you tips.
I think what I'm gonna do next is to try to find a way to prove my settings.
Such as to set my P7000 to only use CMYK ink and profile it. (For this part, I could only use a RIP I guess)

aaron