I need to compare PrintOpen with other options...

[bgrubb7]

We currently have a QMDI and proof with a HP30, running on a Meta Rip. I have been looking at the Profile Toolbox (PrintOpen) from Hiedelberg, but wondered how it compared to other apps like Monoco and Profile maker. Currently we are using the standard profiles with the Hiedelberg proofing stock, but the color accuracy of the proofs is awful. I need to at least get the proofer profiled more closely to the press output.

I already have a DTP41 and will be using that for readings. I'm assuming that the PrintOpen software will work a little more seamlessly with the Meta Rip, but wonder if its worth the extra cost.

[ICC_Color_Management]

If you want to compare with PerfX Color management™, let me know!

regards,

Louis Dery
TGLC inc.
www.tglc.com

[bgrubb7]

Looking for Pros and Cons to PrintOpen, and whether or not you feel that Monoco or ProfileMaker are superior and why.

[TheBlueShadow]

I'm sorry I can't reply to your question about Monoco or ProfileMaker but I can speak from experience with PrintOpen.

PrintOpen is a very easy program to use if you don't get into the advanced sections. If you make sure your press is producing a consistent press sheet you can make your proof match it wonderfully. Use the small PrintOpen Standard Testchart with a hundred something patches for your press. Create the icc profile.

The trick with your system is to create a bpl (epl with the new Meta) that matches your paper. This is a paper linearization file that controls the amount of each ink to spray on the paper. After that is done you can print out an ECI2002 Visual testchart and make an icc profile for the HP30.

These two steps alone will get you really close. You may have to do one Visual Correction to dial it in.

In PrintOpen when generating the icc profiles be sure and use the default settings for "Offset Printing" or "Inkjet Proofer" depending on which one you're making.

As far as the question to "is it worth the cost?" How much are you loosing not having an accurate proof?

I hope this helps. Good luck.

[bgrubb7]

We have avoided the Print Open in the past due the the 3000 price tag. Were a small shop with a tight owner.

I am currently using a DTP41 to create a custom BPL in ColorProofPro. Then I use visual corrections to adjust it to a target sheet that was printed on the press. I can get it pretty damn close, but there are still certain colors, like Bright Blues, greens and Oranges, that are still way off. If the Print Open will keep the proof within the presses gamut, then it will be worth the cost. The pressman is spenfding way too much time on each job chasing the proofs color then having to settle for something that is less than a perfect match, because the proof color is usually brighter than what the press is capable of printing.

[TheBlueShadow]

After you create the BPL in ColorProofPro, are you printing out a testchart to make an icc from? This step should be done in the very last step of the BPL creation in ColorProofPro.

If you don't have an icc creating program, maybe you can find someone that can make it for you. Just send them the testcharts.

[bgrubb7]

I can't print or read the testchart on that last step, since I don't have Print Open. I can only link the BPL to a default SWOP profile. That gets it ballpark close, and with 3-4 visual corrections I can get it a little closer. Actual photographs are very close, but certain colors like Blues, greens and tans, especially when used in a large solid like a background, are way off, and way to far out of the presses gamut to match on press.

I just need to convince our owner to shell out the cash on Print Open.

[TheBlueShadow]

Maybe try and link it to an isocoated.icc profile instead of the SWOP one. It may help a little.

[bgrubb7]

Will the ICC profiles created by Print Open be usable by 3rd party devices or rips or will it create a profile that is only readable by Meta or ColorProofPro?

We may be looking to add a digital device in the future, that would not run through Meta, and I need to know if I can use Print Open to create a profile for it also.

[bgrubb7]

Are MonocoProfiler and ProfileMaker the same thing? They are both sold through X-rite...

I'm starting to think that I'd be better off using a 3rd party program like the Profiler or PM, rather than than the proprietary Print Open...since I will probably need it for non Hiedelberg devices down the road.

Who's using either of the above in a meta environment?