Re: [PRODIG] Proofing 2

[Richard Kenward]

Bob Marchant writes

Bob Croxford wrote.

As a matter of interest how did you know whether the Iris proofs were the
best that could got from the press?

A valid point Bob . It's an issue that we've looked long and hard at on
the DIG committee. It comes back to the old conundrum of should the press
match the proof or the proof match the press.

Dear Bob

I think that perhaps I may be accused of rocking the boat, but I do have to ask match what press? Match what proofer, running on what substrate?

In an ideal world , the proof would accurately represent the specific
press running at its optimum.

Agreed with of course the additional rider of what paper...as I am sure you would agree it makes a heck of a lot of difference.

In the instance of the IDEA book , the printers assured us that they had
profiled their press at it's optimum over several days , and that this
was the profile that they sent to us.

Sounds promising. If they were using the stock you proposed printing on.

With IDEA being a labour of love and not a profit making book , we could
not afford he luxury of wet proofs.

Was it such a short run that this was out of the question?

However the proofs were of good quality , matching our validation prints.
So we signed  them off , they matched the proofs and everybody was happy.

Were you there to do a press check, and did the run match the proofs and the press sheet you signed off on?

Could the Iris proofs and the final
print
be compared to anything as a yardstick?

In this instance no.Except of course the validation prints and the
monitor images.In both cases they were fine.

Y  e   s .......

What if the press, paper and ink
combination could have achieved a better, wider gamut, result? Would
you
have
known?

See above

I have seen specially done machine proofs which were a lot better than an
in-house profiled Iris.

I've no doubt that you have.But unfortunately,we didn't have that luxury.

We are talking about showing off photographer's images as well as possible surely ......why then is cost being used as a reason I wonder? I would have expected this to have been an exercise in printing excellence and one in which the printer would have had an investment. I will display my ignorance in the production of this book and ask was it being run with FM screening?

Which brings us back to the proof/press/proof conundrum.

Some would argue (including pre press and press houses ) that many
industry wide accepted proofing colour spaces/devices are flawed in that
they don't match the true capabilities of the press.

Yes I understand the dilemma <G>

This is something that the DIG committee and myself along with Neil
Barstow and Thomas Holm have been looking at for a long time. As you may
know , the AOP commissioned a set of generic profiles CMYK from Phil
Green at the Colour Imaging Group of the LCP.These were based on FOGRA
data , and the aim was to produce a more specific set of CMYK targets
than those available in Photoshop.

I do not understand why given the above expertise, and given the support of the various interested organisations, why the scheme has not been rolled out to a fanfare of trumpet blasts and much clinking of glasses...yet!

One may be able to argue that these profiles are a more accurate
representation of presses than some of the present 'Golden Standard'
Eurostandard and Euroscale profiles available

How come when most print shops have their own ideas or fly by the seat of their pants, when there is so much potential for and actual variation between these presses and their proofing systems etc.?

.We are still testing these
(we are now testing some revised profiles produced by Thomas ) with some
prime repro houses.

Any idea when everything will be up and running, checked out and agreed by all the powers that be, and given an industry wide blessing?

But the bottom line is , that as long as the major part of our industry
believes that the press has to match the existing proofing methods , then
we have to find an acceptable method of providing files within tthat
framework .

I wish you luck...no honestly<G>

And one of the main reasons they accept the existing standards is that
even if they may be (slightly?) flawed , at least they  are consistent in
their output (which also enables remote proofing). And of course that
they represent (albeit sometimes a lower common denominator target) a
standard to which all parties can agree......a contract proof.

Ah, but which contract proof some sceptics would perhaps unkindly ask?

I'd like to write about this longer now ,but I've got an art director
arriving in about five minutes , so I'll catch up later.

In the meantime,the DIG committee are continuuing doing their very best
to keep standards as high as possible , so all positive suggestions as to
how we achieve our aims are of course gratefuly received.

I am sure we all wish the scheme a safe journey across these uncharted waters and hope that as a sailor you are holding the sextant up to the right light source Bob. (Marchant)<BG>

Best wishes

Richard
--
For quality scans that are really right...No Messing. Satisfaction Guaranteed.
New PDF on request. +44 (0)1873 890670 www.rkdi.co.uk
===============================================================
GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE