Hi Louis,
I worked with Linotype-Hell back then and we were there at the inception of ICC profiles. In fact, we had been generating proprietary profiles since my Hell days from the mid 80's (ever hear of PIXON for 3 dimensional color transformation. Or the CPR 403 Proof recorder? A 4up a proofer that only cost about $300,000 back in 1984). In the early 90’s, our Print Open program first started to generate profiles for Linocolor. These too were proprietary. It was launched to generate open ICC profiles once ICC was established (1994 or 1995). We first started profiling proofers with the Iris in the mid 90’s and about 7 years ago with standard inkjet, the HP 5000. I guess I look at standard ink jets technology as the start of industry acceptance, more and more, halftone dots were not needed and a closer color match to press was more important. So there were a few vendors (was Lino-Hell considered a big vendor?'
') that embraced this technology back then but the market was not quite ready for it. Remember the argument, I need a halftone dot, rarely hear it anymore but it was the main argument in the mid to late 90’s.
We are in agreement; the proof should match the press and not the other way around when ever practical. It is more cost effective.
Hi Stargate,
With multiple presses, it becomes more complex. You have several options. If practical, have different process curves for the presses that are quit a bit off to balance the press towards each other. Or you may have multiple profiles. Or you may do both. This requires knowing what presses the jobs will be on in advance for the proof and the plates.
If this not practical, they you could have one proof and plate curve and push the presses to the proof. Needless to say, if the presses are printing way off from each other, you may not be able to force them to match a single standard anyway and if so, then you achieved it by pushing densities via press makeready time instead of prepress time.
Regards,
Mark
