Help! CMYK

[situgrrl]

As part of my day-job (theatre producer) I have designed an invitation in Photoshop.  It contains a photograph and text to be printed A5.

They have asked for the document as a PDF in CMYK format.  They mentioned that, since it has been done in PS, it will be very low rez.  This is not what I want!  It has 300 dpi as I would normally output.

How do I successfully convert it to CMYK?

Since it is only a short run (75) I assume it is simply running through a colour laser.

All help greatly appreciated!

Many thanks

Charly

[digitaldog]

How do I successfully convert it to CMYK?

You need an ICC profile that defines the print process. Then its easy, Convert to Profile, select preferred rendering intent (visually). Getting that profile isn't always so easy!

[seangirard]

Andrew will probably give me a lashing for even thinking this, but:
Just take your Photoshop document and Image>Mode>CMYK. Then save your PDF.
Someday printers will get over their reluctance to accept RGB.

-sean

[digitaldog]

Andrew will probably give me a lashing for even thinking this, but:
Just take your Photoshop document and Image>Mode>CMYK.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206721\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Which will use what CMYK profile? Depends on your color settings. Is that the right one for the conversion? Maybe, probably not.

Making a CMYK conversion is easy. Using the right recipe is not so easy.

Its a bit like playing Russian roulette by selecting any RGB printer profile for your specific printer and paper, then wondering why the print looks like crap (answer, wrong profile).

[seangirard]

I'm not saying it's the right way to do things.

But honestly I don't think your average guy sitting in front of an Indigo or an Igen or whatever running this kind of a job has a clue what profile is actually being used. So he can either go back and forth with the printer (which is never fun) or just go with whatever the default setup is in Photoshop and send that file which the printer will probably proceed to color mismanage anyway   It ain't pretty but it happens every day.

On the other hand, if your printer actually knows what they are doing then by all means use their profile as Andrew describes. His is most definitely the right way.

[Jonathan Wienke]

I'm not saying it's the right way to do things.

Then isn't making the suggestion kind of stupid? Yes, you can use a fish to pound wood screws into concrete, but the results may leave something to be desired...

You are being part of the problem, not the solution.

[situgrrl]

I have emailed the printer and asked him which profile to use.

If someone can suggest where I can buy a herring and some wood scews, I'm going to set about the concrete downstairs....thanks for cheering me up Jonothan on a day where I think the rest of my hair turned grey (I can't see, thank god for hair dye!)

Why can't I get paid to do my job - as supposed to not get paid to do someone elses?

[seangirard]

First, apologies for steering this off topic... I really was just trying to point out the path of least resistance for getting these fliers printed knowing what a bear it can be to get meaningful information about color management from printers and also that Charly probably has other things to be working on. The original question wasn't about matching color; it was about getting a file the printer would take.

Then isn't making the suggestion kind of stupid?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206762\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

 

It might seem like a stupid suggestion. Maybe it is. All I'm saying is that if the printer is going to re-separate using the wrong profile anyway... which happens way more than anyone in the industry wants to admit... then you're gonna basically get what you're gonna get whether or not you go through the trouble to do the right thing up front. Like it or not short run digital is usually about "good enough". It's hang and bang only without the hang.

No question there's a problem. The entire industry would be better off if everyone would have the digitaldog or one of his colleagues into their shop for a few days. Unfortunately as a print buyer you often have to be satisfied with a less than ideal workflow or choose a different vendor. So go ahead and set your screw, but if the cement doesn't dry it won't hold anyway!

Here's a little story you guys might find interesting: The other day I was doing some proofing for a friend. She forwarded me an email from a very large book printer with a press profile attached. Neat. The first thing they suggested that she do in order to soft proof was to set her RGB working space in Photoshop to their monitor profile, which they also attached. It just makes you wonder if you're banging your head against the wall sometimes. Or screwing concrete with fish.

[Jonathan Wienke]

First, apologies for steering this off topic... I really was just trying to point out the path of least resistance for getting these fliers printed knowing what a bear it can be to get meaningful information about color management from printers and also that Charly probably has other things to be working on. The original question wasn't about matching color; it was about getting a file the printer would take.
 

It might seem like a stupid suggestion. Maybe it is. All I'm saying is that if the printer is going to re-separate using the wrong profile anyway... which happens way more than anyone in the industry wants to admit... then you're gonna basically get what you're gonna get whether or not you go through the trouble to do the right thing up front. Like it or not short run digital is usually about "good enough". It's hang and bang only without the hang.

True enough; I've experienced a bit of that myself. But just "going with the flow" doesn't solve the problem--it merely perpetuates the stupidity. If you poke the dung-pile with a stick, it may smell for a while, but sometimes that is the first step toward educating people and solving the problem. I'm almost done setting up a color-managed workflow at the photo lab for the US Capitol, and am preparing to do the same thing for a federal intelligence agency. If you can present a concrete solution to the problem that offers a benefit to everyone involved, instead of just bitching about the problem, sometimes you can solve the problem and make a few dollars too.

[juicy]

I have had bad presshouse/printshop experiences much more often than good. No color management, "we have profiles but we don't give them outside", "Indigo can't be profiled", "we only accept sRGB", the list goes on...
Fortunately I have found a print house that has things under control, they give good profiles for any paper that is used or the customer can use ISO-profiles. Everything works. It was an eye opener. Now I suggest this printer to my customers any time they need printing services.
But, with most small print shops doing flyers etc with digital presses it's really hit and miss and they may not be able to provide a profile for you. If they insist on CMYK but can't specify which profile you should use, I suggest you use the most common CMYK-profile (this depends where you are) if the printer does not give their own. If your screen is calibrated, make sure any images containing people look ok and the skin is not too dark or too cyan when softproofing for your chosen (hopefully printer given) profile. You can also check the numbers (palette-options-proof color) for a light caucasian skin tone under normal lighting and these should be something like C 5-10%, M 20-30%, Y 25-35%, K 0% (or AdobeRGB 220,190,165). Without the proper profile the end product won't match your screen in any case but at least you have tried to ensure the most obvious colors (where people will see hue errors first) should have a chance to reproduce well. The rest is up to the print shop.
If the colors are way off when printed, you may try to insist them to make needed corrections and print again, and base your argument on that they did not give you a profile.

Hope it's gonna be ok.
J

[seangirard]

That sounds like a cool project Jonathan.

Printers are a funny group and many of them see this whole issue as good way to waste a lot of money in a hurry. Like you say though, there's also a chance to make some. It is sort of a chicken and egg thing with printers saying there's no demand and customers saying there's no guidance. Obviously at the high end this isn't the case - some shops really get it.

The funny thing about these digital projects like the one we have been talking about here is that usually there's an onboard RIP that will gladly take an RGB file and make as good a conversion as anyone is likely to get in the undereducated environment we're talking about. Sure that rules out accurate soft proofing and final edits but I don't think that's really what people are looking for in this kind of work (and anyway it is so easy to kick out a hard proof for cases when you need to take it a little further). But instead what happens is what happened to Charly - the printer demands CMYK but gives no further information (i.e. a profile), basically forcing everyone to go through an intermediary separation which is pretty much guaranteed to be wrong.

Oh well. More work for you color guys!

[Mark Lindquist]

As part of my day-job (theatre producer) I have designed an invitation in Photoshop.  It contains a photograph and text to be printed A5.

They have asked for the document as a PDF in CMYK format.  They mentioned that, since it has been done in PS, it will be very low rez.  This is not what I want!  It has 300 dpi as I would normally output.

How do I successfully convert it to CMYK?

Since it is only a short run (75) I assume it is simply running through a colour laser.

All help greatly appreciated!

Many thanks

Charly
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206699\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

A good printer should supply an ICC profile, a color target and instructions.  We just completed an extensive catalog that will be printed in Hong Kong and the printer was very specific about what to do.  Not saying it is answering all the questions specifically, but at least it got us on the right track.

FYI, here is an excerpt from the instruction sheet:

"...Guidelines for Submitting Digital Picture Files for Printing in Hong Kong:
(Following these guidelines will guarantee a good quality print job).

The international printing color standard is Fogra ISO 27L, which conforms to the ISO 12647-2:2004 standard. The Hong Kong printer’s digital color proofing system uses the same Fogra ISO 27L color standard which allows the presses to easily match the color proofs supplied. Any proofs that do not match the Fogra ISO 27L color standard or any continuous tone, photographic or RGB created proofs will not be easily matched by the presses and therefore are unacceptable.

1.   Make sure all color and grayscale images are at least 300dpi, in CMYK not RGB format and either TIFF or EPS files.
2.   Have all color corrections done by the provider of the photographic files or other professional. Make sure all digital files have been “spotted” for dirt or other particles that will print unless removed.
3.   All images should be separated into Fogra ISO 27L CMYK color space. In order to have an optimal separation to the Fogra ISO 27L printing standard, please use the ICC profile (ISO coated.icc) in Photoshop or other separation application that can use ICC color management for separating RGB images into CMYK.
4.   Once all color work has been completed and approved by the artist and/or client, please have the digital file provider supply you with a complete set of color inkjet or laserjet proofs with appropriate color management on a good quality coated proofing stock. Using an uncoated, or poor quality stock, will turn out poor quality proofs. Please remember that these proofs will be used as guidelines while on press. Please make sure those proofs match the required Fogra ISO 27L color standard and match as close as possible to the original art work.
5.   Each digital proof (inkjet or lazerjet) should include the designated control strip (Fogra Media Wedge for X-Rite DTP20) for quality assurance and color verification.
6.   The digital proofs should match the following tolerance:
Average delta E: 4
Maximum delta E: 10
Delta E for primary colors (CMYK): 5
Paper while delta E: 3

We were still very much surprised that the printer  (service bureau) would not convert our RGB files, but required us to do it.  We insisted that color proofs printed on the exact paper being used be furnished, by the printer, so fair is fair I guess.  After inquiring about the specific paper being used, we found it indeed is an extremely high quality paper with very high white point.  We embedded the supplied profile and converted to CMYK, included the media wedge, but drew the line there.  Along with those files went exact size, 16 Bit RGB files @ 300 DPI as a backup, just in case.

I agree that printers live in a different world - photography these days is (can be) becoming more and more about the things service bureaus used to do, and it can be disconcerting.

Best wishes-  Mark

[Mussi_Spectraflow]

I love when control bars are used to verify the accuracy of a proof and the tolerances are the following.

Average delta E: 4
Maximum delta E: 10
An average DE of 4, and peak of 10 (assuming DE94)... is giving a pretty wide margin of error, you might as well just look at the proof and say "close enough." A bit off topic I suppose, but i think speaks to the often contrary nature of the printing industry.

[neil snape]

You did the right thing by asking what profile the printer could be using. For printers it can also be just a standards workflow color space such as SWOP, Gracol, Fogra.

If it is just on a laser printer, or hybrid like the Indigo, the probably feed it some type of SWOP assumed numbers.
Where they assume small file size, this is correct for vector artwork. Depending on settings for image compression, any PDF with images contained for 300 dpi file res, will not be necessarily any smaller than an image file format , certainly not if it is the same format type.
Yet you can save out a PDF in Photoshop which is a good way to put the image in the workflow. In that case make sure conserve Photoshop editing* is selected.
When you or if you hear back from the print shop, you'll know more on what to do. If they insist on CMYK without saying what they expect, then they are not serious about source image color ,nor have any idea what will be printed.
In that case they don't care, which points to the infamous lowest common denominator, SWOP.

[neil snape]

I love when control bars are used to verify the accuracy of a proof and the tolerances are the following.

Average delta E: 4
Maximum delta E: 10
An average DE of 4, and peak of 10 (assuming DE94)... is giving a pretty wide margin of error, you might as well just look at the proof and say "close enough." A bit off topic I suppose, but i think speaks to the often contrary nature of the printing industry.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207442\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yet those are their numbers seen as acceptable due to the users proofs, not what they may do on their own proofers.

Recently I made three proofs of my images with text from PDF X/3.

One was on Oris , one on my own lowly rgb driver , the other on a well maintained Kodak Approval.
The ORis was the lowest on dE, yet some colors not probable on press. The rgb driver had higher dE but still very good. With it the dE (2000) is over all total 1.23, best 90% 1.06, worst 10% 2.48, maximum 3.45 best of 90%=1.87 for a rgb driver it is good enough.
Yet the Approval is much more accurate on what the image will print like especially text, but color is closer to what numbers were posted here.
So that is why the HK printer may leave this much margin.

[jcote]

I have had bad presshouse/printshop experiences much more often than good. No color management, "we have profiles but we don't give them outside", "Indigo can't be profiled", "we only accept sRGB", the list goes on...
Fortunately I have found a print house that has things under control, they give good profiles for any paper that is used or the customer can use ISO-profiles. Everything works. It was an eye opener. Now I suggest this printer to my customers any time they need printing services.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206840\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Juicy,

As an offset printer, I thank you for your above comment. The problem with the offset and digital reproduction world is that we are all looking for that perfect compromise between quality, speed and price. In this age where you can go online and find places to buy 4c 2 side postcards 1,000 for fifty bucks, it is great to hear from a customer who values and is loyal to a printer who has developed a process that works.

You don't always get what you pay for but you usually have to pay for quality.

JohnC

[Mark Lindquist]

Yet those are their numbers seen as acceptable due to the users proofs, not what they may do on their own proofers.

Recently I made three proofs of my images with text from PDF X/3.

One was on Oris , one on my own lowly rgb driver , the other on a well maintained Kodak Approval.
The ORis was the lowest on dE, yet some colors not probable on press. The rgb driver had higher dE but still very good. With it the dE (2000) is over all total 1.23, best 90% 1.06, worst 10% 2.48, maximum 3.45 best of 90%=1.87 for a rgb driver it is good enough.
Yet the Approval is much more accurate on what the image will print like especially text, but color is closer to what numbers were posted here.
So that is why the HK printer may leave this much margin.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207541\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Nkeil -
Thanks for your comments and your help - Both you and John Cote are invaluable resources and it is  very kind of you both to give your information freely.  I'm particularly perturbed about the disconnect that seems to exist between printers and photographers and this chasm appears to be growing ever wider rather than coming together as the transition from film to digital proceeds.  On another (different) project, a catalog of artwork being printed, the organization requests simply "CMYK" images without offering any information at all.  When the ICC profile and paper question comes up, it's as though their cat was just killed, or they just go dumb.  It appears to be a disconnect between printing and photography, as though some line has been drawn in the sand.  It seems that it's a CYA issue for the printer, but nothing ever appears to be resolved satisfactorily.  Color workflow management is difficult enough getting good prints from say 4 printers using RGB, but factor in CMYK as a default color mode without profiling, it becomes a nightmare.  There seems to be  a lack of communication, a schism between camps....

Knowing what it takes to simply convert to CMYK (going from 16 Bit to profile, to CMYK mode, then to 8 bit) it is a simple and pedestrian task.  Why would a printer insist upon this, failing to specify a profile, when it is for the most part in their realm to make these decisions?  

To the uninitiated, this seems like a backlash or reaction to the digital conversion from film whereby service bureaus always made these choices and decisions.  

There is no end to the consternation regarding this issue, particularly when the aspect of color management is at stake.  It would be comforting to receive a clear explanation of what is going on.

This hegemony does not bring photographers and printers closer, in fact it adds to the divide.

Best-

Mark

[juicy]

Juicy,

As an offset printer, I thank you for your above comment. The problem with the offset and digital reproduction world is that we are all looking for that perfect compromise between quality, speed and price. In this age where you can go online and find places to buy 4c 2 side postcards 1,000 for fifty bucks, it is great to hear from a customer who values and is loyal to a printer who has developed a process that works.

You don't always get what you pay for but you usually have to pay for quality.

JohnC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207585\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi,

I believe that the traditional offset printing industry has been in crisis for several years now. Desktop publishing has made it easy for anyone to be a graphic designer and the amount of so called photographers with digital cameras (including myself) has exploded. The inevitable consequences: there has been a lot of poor material to be printed and loads of unsuitable, badly prepared and possibly uncorrectable files for the printer. At the same time it seems that printing industry has been very reluctant to accept the necessary changes to their workflows to be able to adapt to the completely new situation where there are no scanner operators and the already separated files come from the client as a pdf. When the client only sees the price and doesn't know the difference between good and bad print job, the result is a vicious circle.

From what I have gathered when talking to prepress in several print houses is that many of them still live in the eighties or in Photoshop 4 -CMYK world. That simply doesn't work anymore. There are printers who are able to print with very good results when they do the separations themselves from film originals but simply fail to get anything right when someone else has produced the files to the standard press profiles that the printer has requested. Everything is wrong starting from the ink limits etc despite the "correct" profile.

Then there are the printers who use proper color management and tight tolerances running their presses, who supply their customer with a proper profile with built-in ink limits and good soft-proof tables. A couple of months ago I made all the image processing to a book with more than 150 photos gathered from many different  sources ranging from cell-phone camera images to 4x5 scans and very good professional imagery. The book was printed on a very soft yellowish paper. It could have gone wrong except that there were no problems whatsoever after I managed to do the turd-polishing to the original images. Even when the final pdf was delivered late to the printer it was no problem bacause after making one round of hard proofs (Oris + inkjet) the only things in need of correction were a couple of typos and were immediately corrected and signed via pdf proofs. The book was printed on time and everyone was impressed at how good the images look when taking into account the nature of the paper and the mostly less than stellar quality of the originals.
This would have been a total disaster with some of the earlier printers I have come to know.

Before the project I told the client that I would do the the separations and image processing on the condition that the printer  conforms to the ISO-standards and I suggested using this particular printer. I'm happy they chose it despite it not being the cheapest on the first quote. But I believe the client saved a considerable amount of money when the process went through without 5 rounds of proofs, 200hours of billed prepress time (for in-house color correcting) etc. And I firmly believe that the printer is also saving money by doing the jobs correctly the first time.

Actually I think the only way to survive today is to get things calibrated and profiled because there is no time or money to do trial and error.

About loyalty: I hope that my clients remember when I have done my job properly.

I like books and I hope that youtube doesn't kill all the printers.

All the best,
J

[juicy]

I have emailed the printer and asked him which profile to use.


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206772\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

How did it go?

Cheers,
J

[neil snape]

Thanks for your comments and your help - Both you and John Cote are invaluable resources and it is  very kind of you both to give your information freely.  I'm particularly perturbed about the disconnect that seems to exist between printers and photographers and this chasm appears to be growing ever wider rather than coming together as the transition from film to digital proceeds.  On another (different) project, a catalog of artwork being printed, the organization requests simply "CMYK" images without offering any information at all.  When the ICC profile and paper question comes up, it's as though their cat was just killed, or they just go dumb.  It appears to be a disconnect between printing and photography, as though some line has been drawn in the sand.  It seems that it's a CYA issue for the printer, but nothing ever appears to be resolved satisfactorily.  Color workflow management is difficult enough getting good prints from say 4 printers using RGB, but factor in CMYK as a default color mode without profiling, it becomes a nightmare.  There seems to be  a lack of communication, a schism between camps....

Knowing what it takes to simply convert to CMYK (going from 16 Bit to profile, to CMYK mode, then to 8 bit) it is a simple and pedestrian task.  Why would a printer insist upon this, failing to specify a profile, when it is for the most part in their realm to make these decisions? 

To the uninitiated, this seems like a backlash or reaction to the digital conversion from film whereby service bureaus always made these choices and decisions. 

There is no end to the consternation regarding this issue, particularly when the aspect of color management is at stake.  It would be comforting to receive a clear explanation of what is going on.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207625\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not sure that we can generalise on where the meeting point or point where we stay in our own sides is.
I too am surpised at the way things are going. For many years I struggled with promoting good workflow for both prepress and image/content creation.
Adobe did and does the same, especially with Photoshop.

Then come system upgrades and application upgrades that throw a wrench in it. Printers have come to accept rgb but why practice what photographers do or need to for their presses best ability?

I thought , and Adobe and the others who made standards like PDF/X (X3a preferred), we would have reached a level of security and maturity in between our sides.
I see some printers forging ahead, and less and less not on the wagon. Those who aren't are really getting lost. What could easily be a common ground for printers and quick print shops could be had at a very reasonable cost of training, yet the resistance pertains.
Last week I delivered 4 pages in sRGB to a WEB printed magazine. Not only do they insist on sRGB for offset web  but also jpg compression at quality 6, and line resolution of 250!
No wonder their magazine is far from what it should be.