Archive for the 'GRACoL' Category

EXTREME Color Management Conference Update

Published
by
Jim Raffel
on September 17, 2008
in GRACoL, L*a*b*, blogging, color and conferences
. 0 Comments

It has really been too busy to write something each day.  I do have some topics rolling around in my head and will write more when I get back to the office.  So far it has been a good conference with many excellent speakers.

During lunches and other networking opportunities I did pick up a bit of frustration on the part of Ink Vendors and users of G7 related to repeatability of ink trap from press run to press run.  Achieving the ISO spec for the individual Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black is no problem but getting repeatable trapping (measured with L*a*b* of course) is often times very difficult.

The panel I was part of focused on press room process control.  I bring this up because part of the answer to the ink trapping problem is better utilization of process control techniques by printers.  I presented two case studies of printers who have successfully utilized our ProofPass.com product to see significant improvements in press room quality and consistency.

I will focus on these two topics and more when I have more time to write.

#69 IDEAlliance Proofing Summit in Review

Published
by
Jim Raffel
on March 18, 2008
in GRACoL, ISO, blogging, calibration, color, conferences, delta E and guidelines
. 0 Comments

Recently I attended the IDEAlliance Proofing Summit held in conjunction with the Publishing Business Conference and Expo at the Marriott Marquis in New York City. During the one day summit I managed to take three pages of notes focused on the meeting’s key topic of Virtual Proofing to the Numbers.

During the initial industry panel a question was raised about how to deal with virtual proofing systems from multiple vendors. Large publishers obviously deal with many printing companies and those companies make use of many of the different virtual proofing systems now available on the market. While it did not seem appropriate to make a comment during the meeting, I will remind my readers that ProofPass.com allows verification of ANY virtual proofing system with centralization of the results on a ProofPass.com internet server.

Bill Pope (of FTA) then spoke about the 2008 Virtual Proofing Systems Certification Program. Bill made a great point that sound color management is the key to successful virtual proofing. While ISO specs inks that most printers are now using, good color management is required to simulate those colorants on a monitor. Bill also made a great point about dealing with proofing disappointment up front. While I loved the comment, I think we all know that customers want what they expect x not necessarily what they see….

A fairly technical overview of the certification program was then provided. I found two items of particular interest during this portion; 1. A shift is being made to utilization of Delta E2000 for virtual proofing verification (already supported in ProofPass.com); 2. One of Bill’s key steps to verify that nothing has been “fudged” by the vendor is almost identical to the ProofPass.com verification procedure.

Some other comments I picked up throughout the day:

  • Pressroom monitors will need to be replaced approximately every 18 months.
  • Office/prepress monitors should last about three years
  • About 90% of the Pantone spot colors can be achieved with a high degree of accuracy on monitors costing about $5,000.
  • Grey balance uniformity corner to corner on a monitor is key
  • Color clipping on monitors might be overstated – it is localized to fully saturated colors and just results in a slightly duller rendition of the color.

All in all, it was a day well spent with the publishing and agency side of our business.

#66: How a New Media Writer Breaks Writers Block

Published
by
Jim Raffel
on November 13, 2007
in GRACoL and blogging
. 1 Comment

I am now two and a half years into the Jim Raffel’s Golden Nuggets / JimRaffel.com journey. I have gained a whole new appreciation for those who write on a regular basis and an especially great appreciation for those who write on deadline (I sort of slammed you deadline writers last week, but it’s a darn hard job and I am pleased you all keep doing it so we have printing trade journals to read.)

Writers block happens: Over the course of the last two and a half years, I have had more and less prolific periods of writing (the less of course we affectionately refer to as ‘writers block’). Some of my less prolific times have been caused by extreme busy cycles in my main stream business life (ColorMetrix Technologies, LLC). Other less prolific cycles have been caused by a simple lack of what I felt were quality topics worth taking my time to write and your time to read.

A tool to help me solve the less prolific cycles was in front of my nose the entire time……

I last wrote about New Media vs. Old Media and that got me thinking about other advantages we new media geeks have over the traditionalists. I periodically peek at my Google Analytics page which provides me with very detailed statistics about what content gets read at JimRaffel.com among other interesting things. (Yes, big brother is watching!)

The following is a list of the top 10 search terms utilized since Jan. 1, 2007 to get to JimRaffel.com as reported by Google Analytics. Next time I will present the top ten URL’s visited since Jan. 1, 2007. While most of the results are not really that surprising, they are quite interesting. In the balance of this post and in my next post I will simply present the information with a few broad overview comments. In the future I am going to address writers block by coming back to these lists (well, the up-to-date versions I will be able to find at Google Analytics).

Top 10 Search Terms:

  1. matamerism
  2. tvi printing
  3. grey balance
  4. jim raffel
  5. gracol 7
  6. “standard deviation” printing offset capabilities
  7. gracol
  8. grey balance brunner
  9. tvi dot gain
  10. tvi print

I am going to start with #4 on the list since it allows me to stroke my ever so delicate ego. Actually, I am humbled that people searching for my name have visited the JimRaffel.com site as often as they have. I honestly had no idea what to expect when I took Jeff Gitomer’s advice from his Little Red Book of Selling and began to publish this email newsletter. The combination of this #4 ranking and the number of positive comments I get when visiting customers and colleagues on this list is quite frankly the only reason I keep writing. I know I have said it before but I truly believe I would be unable to overstate my thanks to you my readers, colleagues, customers, and friends.

OK, back to what you all really care about. Matamerism is the number one topic that brings people to JimRaffel.com? You have to be kidding!?!?! It is the only real shocker that shows up on this list time and time again. It could simply be a search engine anomaly that places me high in the search list or it could be an under addressed topic in our industry. I believe the growth of virtual proofing may have reawakened this sleeping giant of the graphic arts industry. We are now trying (and quite successfully, I might add, in the case of ICS and Virtual MatchPrint/Insight ) to replicate what we do on paper with a subtractive printing process on additive process computer displays driven by crazy little unpredictable phosphors. Next time you see Franz from ICS or Chris Edge from Kodak take a moment to say thanks for what they have made possible. It is truly amazing.

I have left the best for last. This paragraph, like any paragraph with the word GRACoL in it, will generate more comments positive and negative than any other topic I write about. But hold on gang, this subject is finally starting to make some real sense to me. I was speaking with my good friend and colleagues Eric Magnusson of Left Dakota, last week about his session at the upcoming PIA/GATF Color Management Conference. While I do not know all the specifics of his talk (you should really attend if you want to know ;) ) we did discuss that the G7 gray balance technology fathered by Don Hutchinson is the cherry on top of the printing banana split. Huh, has Raffel gone off his rocker? Nope, Eric solidified it for me. We still need Density, TVI (Dot Gain), and Trap, etc. to make sure our press is in the ball park and running pretty darn near it’s sweet spot. Why? Because we have not yet determined how to interpret Neutral Print Density curves (at least I have not) to indicate when we have loose blankets and roller train problems like some real industry geniuses in my user base have. Take a look at my post about Gary Briney over at Hennegen.

This is getting quite long for a Golden Nugget so I am going to save the more in-depth analysis for future posts. Suffice it to say that my writers block has been cured for the short-term!

#52: GRACoL G7 Comments from the field

Published
by
Jim Raffel
on April 10, 2007
in GRACoL, blogging and specification
. 0 Comments

It has been an interesting couple weeks in the field for me. Color experts at four of the largest printing companies in the world have made almost exactly the same comments about the new GRACoL and SWOP data sets, and G7 methodology. I want to stress that the comments that follow are not mine, but are instead a summary of what I have heard from experts in the field who have to work with the data sets and methodology every day.

Data sets: The data sets are good and we will be using them. The data has clearly been massaged and is not wholly from press sheets, but good nonetheless.

G7 Methodology: The methodology is unnecessary for us. We have had our presses grey balanced for years.

It is good to have confirmation that the running to grey balance as many of us have been doing for years is validated. The G7 methodology is just one way of arriving at good grey balance with a specific set of inks. While it would be wonderful if everyone ran perfect G7 or SWOP ink sets those of us who are honest know this is not the case.

This explains why these very large and successful printers have chosen to achieve pressroom grey balance in their own way, and then run to match the proof created with the data sets mentioned above.

The experts mentioned above also validate that having quality “standard” data sets is critical to being able to print the same job in multiple plants control by multiple owners all over the world. It does not appear, however, to be critical that each vendor use exactly the same process to achieve grey balance on press as long as grey balance has been achieved. (More than one kind of mouse trap can be used, and G7 may or may not be a better mouse trap.)

#48: Make Proofs That Match Your Press

Published
by
Jim Raffel
on February 16, 2007
in GRACoL, L*C*h*, L*a*b*, TVI (Dot Gain), color, color bars, delta E, measurement, process capability and proofing
. 0 Comments

Since #45 in December we have been discussing resolutions to improve the quality of your proofs. In order to gain the full benefit of this installment one should have read and implemented the suggestions in #46 & #47.

Proceeding forward it does not matter if you are utilizing a methodology like GRACoL G7, or a more traditional color management approach. In either case you will include a target on each print job with the same color bar swatches that you output on the proof (#46). This will allow you to measure the press ok sheets and compare them to the proofs, thus building even a larger statistical database to call upon.

When utilizing software like our ColorMetrix and ProofPass.com products for process control and print certification purposes it does not matter if you are using a methodology like G7 or traditional color management. While there are some new formulas out there to run the collected data through the tried and true colorimetric data (L*a*b* and derivatives along with some version of Delta E), do a great job comparing two similar or dissimilar imaging systems.

Unlike density and dot gain values which must be used with pigment sets designed for 4/color process printing, L*a*b* values allow the comparison of an inkjet proof and an offset press sheet. This is possible because we are looking at the actual colors, not values derived from a formula which assumes a certain pigment set.

Not only will you be comparing the measurements of the proof to the press sheet, but you will be building a history of what is a “normal” print condition of each press and paper combination. Some refer to this as finding the “sweet spot” of the printing press.

Overall, as your volume of collected data grows you will be able to refine the system in small steps by reviewing the proofing and press information both independently and together. Using numeric results, charts, and graphs you will be able to see small differences in color that can be adjusted for over time. No system is stable over time, so continuous monitoring is a must in order to maintain stable color.

GRACoL Tid-Bits

Published
by
Jim Raffel
on June 5, 2006
in GRACoL and blogging
. 0 Comments

Imagine spending your Sunday morning catching up on reading Printing across boards posts. Imagine also, that this was the “quote of the day” that popped up on your computer first thing this morning:

If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.
- A. Maslow

You now have a pretty good understanding of my state of mind when I cam across this post from David McDowell which I am re-posting with his permission.

pab Digest, Vol 15, Issue 3

Message: 6
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 14:32:37 -0400
From: david.mcdowell@kodak.com
Subject: Re: Re(3): [pab] Confusion about GRACoL, GRACoL 7 and G7
To: Printing Across Borders ? open discussion forum

Peter

1. You said “in the UK its the British Standards Institute (BSI) who must appoint someone - but I have no idea how . and it is far from representing the printing and publishing industry.”

If you care enough get involved. It is open to anyone who is willing to participate. Contact Brian Sunderland who is the coordinator of the UK shadow group to TC130. .

2. You said ” is allowing every man and his dog to promote their own standard.” ISO is not a police agency. It’s function is to provide a world wide forum for the establishment of standards that can be developed and used world wide. It is the many local and/or special-interest industry groups (who are trying to make money from standards activities or build membership) that are encouraging and enabling every man and his dog to promote their own standard rather than work through ISO.

As has been shown time and time again it is the time required to make good decisions that dictates how long it takes to create a standard not the ISO process.

Remember ISO Committees are people from the industry involved NOT some anonymous bureaucrats. For the printing and publishing industry, ISO is the members of the industry who are willing to GET INVOLVED - it is us. Yes, in each country there is one coordinating body, usually the national standards body, but involvement is open to all affected parties.

Believe me - it works

David Q. McDowell
Chair of USTAG to ISO TC130
Chair of TC130/WG2
51 Parkwood Lane
Penfield, NY 14526
Tel: 585-383-1706, Cel: 585-281-8429
E-mails: mcdowell@kodak.com
mcdowell@npes.org
dmcdowel@rochester.rr.com

#33: Thoughts on GRACoL 7 and Standards in General

Published
by
Jim Raffel
on May 4, 2006
in CGATS, GRACoL, blogging, conferences, flexography, guidelines and specification
. 1 Comment

Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday of this week I was in Louisville at the FFTA Annual Forum & INFO*FLEX exhibition.  It was my first time attending this event and I was impressed.  We even got to spend Tuesday evening at the Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom theme park in Louisville.  I must say it was fun not having to wait in line for any of the rides (the park was closed to the public).

I was busy assisting one of our distributors (ColorManagement.com) with booth duty Sunday and Monday, but I did manage to attend several technical sessions focused on Color Management Tuesday.  One of these sessions was about the still fairly new Printing Across Boarders (PAB) initiative.  At the urging of Adam Dewitz over at Printmode.net I resumed receiving e-mail from the [pab] forum several weeks ago, so was interested to hear what was happening.

The primary focus of the presentation by Gerald Gerlach of Integrity Graphics was the GRACoL 7 (G7) methodology.  It was during this presentation, and over the subsequent 24 hours that I began to solidify my current overall feelings about G7 and more importantly about graphic arts standards in general.

For my entire career in the graphic arts (more than 20 years now) I have nibbled at the edges of the standards community.  I have always found it fascinating and have felt I had something to contribute.  While my main role in life is now selling, I am still a pretty fair graphic arts technician when I need to be.  I have not been more involved in the standards community for one reason; time.  Those who carry the vast majority of the standards load in this industry do so as volunteers.  While they may be on a company payroll somewhere I assure that only a very small percentage are paid to do only standards work.

These people give up evenings, weekends, and other valuable personal time so we can have graphic arts standards.  I wish to say to all of you (and you know who you are) THANK YOU!  So, perhaps instead of standing on the sidelines and criticizing (constructive or otherwise) all of us should be saying “how can we help you.”

While I do not completely agree with the G7 methodology, I do agree it is a step forward.  I believe this because our competition in the Graphic Arts industry is not other printers.  It is other communication mediums.   Can you imagine television succeeding without any standards?  Can you imagine the internet succeeding without any standards?

We as an industry need the ability to print an image consistently anywhere in the world.  This is the true goal of G7 as far as I can tell.  While I feel in the case of many printers this means you must “dumb down “ your press, the trade off for regional, national, or international print buyer makes this consequence of the methodology worth while.  Any printer can still apply their “secret sauce” technology to specialty jobs.  Just because you can print to G7 does not mean you must print to G7.

In conclusion, I want to ask the working members of BRIDGS, CGATS, FIRST, GRACoL, SNAP, & SWOP….How can I help?

On Standards, Dues, and Barriers to Entry

Published
by
Jim Raffel
on April 12, 2006
in CGATS, GRACoL, ISO, blogging and guidelines
. 11 Comments

I have been getting a good deal of pressure to post my position on GRACoL G7, and have been holding off for one very simple reason. My comments will “go against the grain” as one fellow blogger put it. As one who was not involved in the process I feel that it would be somewhat counterproductive to take such a position. Which brings me to my point, why was I not involved in the process?

As a life long (adult life) student of marketing, I am very familiar with the concept of barriers to entry, and try to set them very high for anyone who chooses to play in my game (color measurement software). I think that in the professional world where one company is trying to win and to a certain extent must do so at the expense of another barriers to entry are a great thing.

Where I feel barriers to entry have no place is in the creation of industry wide standards. Let me illustrate with two examples. ColorMetrix is a dues paying member of NEPS (excellent organization providing exceptional benefits to members). As a small company our dues are a very reasonable and affordable $295/year. Payment of these dues gets us several high quality research reports each year AND membership on any CGATS group we wish to participate in. CGATS by extension provides access to ISO. It seems to me even a start-up company can afford $295/year.

Idealliance on the other hand, appears to have a minimum annual dues cost of $2,500. For a small company like ours, folks, this is a barrier to entry. Remember, this is like admission to the club; it just gets you in the front door. You still need to pay for all your own drinks. Or in the case of GRACoL all your own travel, etc. to the pressruns and any meetings being held. It is also not a one time fee, but an annual fee. I can maintain my membership in NPES for almost 10 years for that same $2,500.

This is a bit of a rant (which I have tried not to do here), but I can’t help but wonder if this barrier to entry is intentional. If you have never commented on a JimRaffel.com post…this would be the one.

TVI Notebook (part 2 of 5) GRACoL & TVI

Published
by
Jim Raffel
on February 14, 2006
in GRACoL, TVI (Dot Gain) and density
. 0 Comments

Part 2: GRACoL 7 appears to be taking our pressrooms in a direction where TVI will be significantly less importance in monitoring production run stability. Instead GRACoL 7 is based on maintaining gray balance utilizing density and L*a*b* values. Over all, I feel this is the right direction to go and from what I have heard and seen several test press runs have proven this to date. Even GRACoL 7, however, recommends taking a look at CMYK TVI values when the system does not seem to be working as intended. TVI and TVI variation are still incredibly powerful and simple measures of press stability. I have watched real pressroom experts track down loose blankets and other press problems by first taking a look at TVI numbers, then looking for the actual mechanical problems. (NOTE: If you have not read the GRACoL 7 draft quite frankly you must. This methodology will become a barrier to entry very quickly.)

Coming next…Part 3: TVI is not a bad thing.

#23: TVI is a better term than Dot Gain

Published
by
Jim Raffel
on February 7, 2006
in GRACoL, TVI (Dot Gain) and density
. 0 Comments

This is Part 1 of a 5 part series from Jim Raffel’s TVI notebook.

Part 1: Tone Value Increase (TVI) really is a better term than Dot Gain: My short answer for this is that a densitometer (or spectrophotometer acting as a densitometer) does not actually measure dots, so how can we really call it Dot Gain? Add to this the fact that some systems being used for proofing result in continuous tone images with no dots and my position becomes a bit clearer. Those on the SWOP committee that spearheaded the initiative to change this misleading term (which I resisted early one) should be commended. After all, when a 50% patch of a color increases to an apparent 65% patch of that color the tone value has in fact increased regardless of whether that patch is made up of dots or not.

Coming next…Part 2: GRACoL 7 & TVI