what to match?

[stargate]

What do you guys match?

Do you profile a press and match your proofing system (fuji Fp or approval or whatever you use) to the press sheet or do you profile your proofing system and try to match your proof on the press?

Derek

We profile/finger print our press, and match our proofers to the press sheet.
Vee

[MarkTonk]

stargate,

I agree with Vee. We have been using, implementing and promoting color managed ink jet proofing for about 7 years now. We run the press to a standard and then generate a ICC profile to have the proof match the press. This tends to reduce makeready at the press which is definitely a more expensive cost center then the proofer.

Regards,

Mark

[ICC_Color_Management]

I agree with Vee and Mark.

The proof must match the press. Not the inverse. What is more cost effective? Tweak one time the proofer OR tweak every job on press?
We’ve beeen promoting this since the begining of ICC in 1994-95. But at that time, big vendors were seeing us as "strange" guys who were playing with "toys".
Now, it is more common, but there is still a lot to do as far as education.

Louis Dery
TGLC inc.

Originally Posted by MarkTonk

stargate,

I agree with Vee. We have been using, implementing and promoting color managed ink jet proofing for about 7 years now. We run the press to a standard and then generate a ICC profile to have the proof match the press. This tends to reduce makeready at the press which is definitely a more expensive cost center then the proofer.

Regards,

Mark

[stargate]

It makes sense that proofer should match fingerprinted press.

What about if you have multiple presses (different age, wear, manufacturer etc) that may print different? What would you match in that situation? Does 2 years old press print better than 20 years old press? What to do than?

Make multiple icc profiles for the proofers, each for particular press?

Derek

[MarkTonk]

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

[jim_t]

We have setup our system that the presses hit the proofer and not the other way around. Initially I too had always worked the premise that your proofer should hit the press, however you have many more variables at the time of your profiling at press and in normal operations than you do with your proofing system.

I've employed a G7 standard that has it's difficulty compounded as we only print Stochastic so the latitude that you have with AM screening is gone. Gray balance, density and dot gain is the basis of our profiles. We essentially produce a profile for a Coated and Non-Coated sheet on 2 of our 40" presses. We first produce what we consider optimal results on our proofing system and then generate a 1st set of plates with no curves on them at all to see what the press will produce when all normal variables are met on the press. Once this press sheet is produced we evaluate the no curve sheet to our "master proof" and at that point begin building profiles as mentioned above to match our proofer. Once this has been established those values are recorded and when we then send our CIP data to the press per job we already have established our baseline and generally can hit color in as little as 10 sheets.

By using this method it is also able to determine before you go to press if your device (proofer) is also out of calibration obviously eliminating making plates, rolling up on press and then finding out that your proofer went out of calibration and now you can't hit your desired target. I have found it is much easier to keep a proofer in line than a pressroom from the standpoint of various operators, enviorment conditions, mechanical conditions etc etc.

As a redundancy to check that the proofer is also proofing correctly, we employ a certified proofing system that allows our operator to check a printed proof and should it fall outside of the delta range that we've deemed usable it fails the proof forcing a recalibration of the proofer.

I just got back from a GATF color management seminar and it was interesting having this same discussion but I was suprised at how many people are beginning to adopt to this method of calibration.

[seratne]

I agree, while it is possible to match a proof to a press sheet - isn't it a bit more practical to proof to a standard and then have the press match the standard. I know that there is a lot more flexibility in having the proof match a particular press, since inkjets can be manipulated a lot more easily and widely. But, how do you know the press sheet is correct, what if you have multiple presses, what if one unit has a bad blanket or is packed too much or too little when creating the press profile, etc. etc.

In this "new" approach that most vendors tout that your proof will match your press sheet your procedure is basically:

proof > press > proof > press > color ok

Where you create a proof that matches a press, then when you actually proof a live job the press then needs to match the proof, and then any final color oks.

Where the old school system is more:

proof > standard \
                    color ok
press > standard /

Where everything is trying to meet the standard, and then final color oks.

It might just be me but having the proof match the press is just chasing your tail around in circles.

[LoganBlade]

I am working to G7 standard, well not certifiied yet but it is the goal. My quick break down is this


G7 is the standard I m shooting for on the proofer and press

The proofer can be set up to meet this standard using profiling software too meet the standard.

The press is then set up using the same stndard and a goal of gray balance using profile software.

The idea is to treat the press like a proofer and manage output curves to match the G7 standard.

This give you a proofer that is meeting the same standard you are shooting for on press as well. The G7 standard is taking the same icc profileing ideas and aplying to a press. So in theory you are not matching proofer to press or press to proofer you atching a G7 standard on both devices.

Yes you would have mutliple curves for different presses and paper thus creating each individual signature that runs to the same standard on any device