Archive for the 'proofing' Category

Virtual Proofing - Oh Boy!

Published
by
Jim Raffel
on April 17, 2008
in blogging, calibration, color, inkjet, measurement, monitors and proofing
. 1 Comment

I believe virtual proofing is at the same cross roads ink jet proofing was around 2001.  I am both hearing and observing information that provides growing support in my own mind for this position.  First, I am not going to name any names in this post.  Why?  Because gut feelings and intuition are not fact.

Think back to 2001 and earlier as it relates to ink jet proofing.  For a frame of reference think Print ‘01 in Chicago, just try not to remember that 9/11 fell right in the middle of the show :(   We finally had a good stable pigment based printer.  We had a few good RIPs emerging from the pack, but you still really needed 3rd party color management software to make the whole thing work.  Of course there was the nightmare of the day which was trying to find a suitable media for Graphic Arts proofing purposes.

The reality was if you understood all the steps involved (or hired a good color management consultant) you could make decent ink jet proofs that rivaled the standard analog and digital proofs of the day.

Now think about virtual proofing today.  While I believe there are at least two (and quite likely more) solid products capable of producing virtual proofs rivaling the ink jet proofs now carrying the standards flag; getting even those two systems to work in multiple locations can and does prove tricky at best.  This is no knock on the virtual proofing software vendors, but instead really an issue of hardware.

Putting together a solid ink jet proofing system requires an end-user to source a printer, media, a RIP, a computer to run the RIP, and probably a good color management consultant as well.  Putting together a solid virtual proofing system requires sourcing a display…let’s stop right there.  There is more to it, but the display is proving (at least my gut tells me this) to be a huge thorn in the side of virtual proofing working in multiple locations.

I am hearing some crazy numbers like less than 1 in 10 “qualified” displays can be used in a 2 or more location virtual proofing set-up.  If this is true (and I am starting to think it is), than it is no wonder virtual proofing is being used more and more for intermediate color (as I predicted in a previous post) and good old reliable ink jet proofs are still being produced as a final contract proof.

I still believe virtual proofing will continue to make gains over hard copy proofing.  I just think it may be a little slower than we thought until this display issues gets worked out.  Part of the problem is that measuring displays is not the easiest thing in the world to do….but that could be a whole post or even a complete white paper.

65-2: New Media vs. Old Media at a Trade Show

Published
by
Jim Raffel
on October 30, 2007
in blogging, color, conferences, measurement, proofing and wide format
. 1 Comment

As a member of the new media I would like to thank the SGIA show management for their recognition of the shift that is occurring in the way people gather news and information. While JimRaffel.com is not listed among the 22 most popular blogs in the world we do a pretty good job reaching those interested in color measurement and process control. After a review of the site, SGIA show management was enlightened enough to grant me press credentials for the show.

What do new media writers have to offer a show like SGIA? When I planned my trip to SGIA I had two meetings planned as Jim Raffel, the CEO of ColorMetrix. Thus, I decided to make good use of my “spare” time at the show learning more about the specialty graphic market and sharing that knowledge with you, my readers. I think the key item that differentiates me from a traditional media writer is that I have no deadlines and no publisher demanding that I put out a specific number of words or posts each day, week, month, etc. I write only when there is sufficient copy to write about something, and by and large only as it relates to color measurement and color process control.

I do not visit the press room and pick up press releases. I observed most of the traditional media representatives picking up press releases at the press room. Then, they all make the rounds of the booths with the most compelling releases and speak with the marketing people there for the benefit of the company with the press release. I am not saying this is a bad thing, well maybe I am… We have a journalism graduate speaking to a marketing graduate, neither of which has probably ever worked an image in Photoshop, made a plate, run a press, etc… It is, however, a great way for those companies’ issuing press releases to get the information out.

Take a look at my previous post. Do you think the average trade magazine author in our industry could explain to you why Canon’s move back to an 8 color printer is significant? Would they understand that none of the RIP manufacturers could figure out how to properly render the RGB inks in the Canon’s 12 color printer? In this industry we just seem to do better with 8 color CMYK printers to render images. As a result it is difficult to hit a lot of the spot colors, but if the spot color looks great and the photograph of the kids eating the chips next to it looks awful, that is a problem.

If you do not believe me take a look at the redesigned Graphic Arts Monthly website and notice how prominent the blogs are. WhatTheyThink.com is another a good example of a new media site even if one does have to pay for the content that really matters. WhatTheyThink.com provided very significant coverage of GraphExpo (A printing industry trade show) all in digital form.

As for SGIA show coverage I had planned on more, but the Jim Raffel CEO guy got busy with many unplanned meetings. Many of my contacts from the more traditional side of graphic arts turned out at the SGIA show and are expressing a greater interest in bringing color measurement and color process control to the Specialty Graphic market.

#57: On Virtual Proofing Thoughts after IPA

Published
by
Jim Raffel
on June 20, 2007
in blogging, color, conferences, monitors and proofing
. 1 Comment

While at the IPA Technical Conference earlier this month, I had the opportunity to run through the evaluation of the five virtual proofing systems on display. The combination of the evaluation experience and the release of our ProofPass.com [Virtual] product have solidified my thoughts on virtual proofing at this moment in time.

Virtual proofing will continue to replace hard copy proofing in the perishable weekly printing market. In this very specific market which includes weekly news magazines, Sunday newspaper supplements, and weekly sales mailers virtual proofing will replace hard copy proofing over a relatively short period of time. While the obvious reason (and a good one at that) is cost, I feel the real reason for a rapid move to virtual proofing in this market is time compression of the production cycle. The Sunday supplement market competes almost exclusively on price and the weekly news magazines compete almost exclusively on up to the minute in depth coverage of the week’s big news stories.

In other printing markets such as packaging, specialty products, and high end coffee table work virtual proofing will make significant gains as the intermediate proof. I do not, however, feel that the contract press side proof will become a virtual proof in this market anytime soon. I truly think it will take a full work generation to see virtual proofs replace physical hard copy samples in this market. I pick the full work generation, because we will need individuals in charge who have “grown up” looking a critical color on an LCD monitor.

Another factor to consider in the virtual proofing world is that those $2,000 to $5,000 LCD’s are the new proofing consumable. As you plan your virtual proofing strategy remember to factor in monitor replacement every 12-24 months depending upon the number of hours the monitor is actually turned on each day. Also, watch high end monitor prices drop like rocks just as flat panel televisions have.

So, what did I think of the IPA soft proofing evaluation? While the evaluation was blind I saw two of the systems stand out head and shoulders above the rest of the pack. You need to do your homework before investing in any of these systems. Even with the best two I would not replace hard proofs except for perishable weekly work.

Thoughts on PMA Show

Published
by
Jim Raffel
on March 10, 2007
in blogging, conferences, monitors, proofing and wide format
. 0 Comments

As I mentioned in my last post, my primary reason for attending PMA was to conduct meetings with key ColorMetrix business partners.  I did, however, have a few hours to roam the show floor yesterday afternoon and came away with a few observations.

While I am still impressed with the caliber of this show, it has made a shift to the consumer market.  Most of the wide format ink jet vendors had a presence, but it was really just part of a booth dedicated to consumer photographic equipment.  Some pro equipment could be found but the overall emphasis as I observed it was on point and shoot consumer cameras.

GE has entered the photographic market with both cameras and photo printers http://www.general-imaging.com/  They even baked cookies in the booth in a GE oven.

In the desktop and wide format ink jet market, very few RIP vendors showed up.  This leads me to believe that the vast majority of photo printing is happening through the print drivers provided by the print vendors.  I still see the photographic market as a growth one for ink jet RIP manufactures.  As more and more proofing moves from hard copy to virtual (monitor based) graphic arts RIP sales will continue to flatten and maybe even decrease.

I believe that photo printers (professionals and Labs) who are used to tight process controls for processors will look at ink jet proofing and ask how can we ensure that this device is stable and producing color the same as when we set it up months or years ago.  (There’s a little clue as to why I was at the show).

#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.

#30: Print Oasis ‘06 Wrap-up

Published
by
Jim Raffel
on April 9, 2006
in blogging, conferences and proofing
. 4 Comments

First, I will be delaying my thoughts on GRACoL 7 for a week or two so that I can address more timely topics like a wrap-up of my thoughts and observations at Print Oasis last week in Las Vegas. Let me begin by saying that the conference was very well attended; 500+ corporate print buyers, agencies, and creative people. Most of the other exhibitors were printers, web-to-print portal providers, and one other RIP manufacturer besides AbsoluteProof who shared a booth with us.

Print Oasis Booth

(Opening night of Print Oasis features a “hat party” in the exhibit area. Our hat theme was beer.)

By sharing a booth with AbsoluteProof, I expanded upon the insight I have been gaining about how corporate print buyers, ad agencies, and creative types view color. Trust me when I tell you that by and large they truly do work in a world of pleasing color which causes “our” side of the fence nightmares as the creative idea enters the print space. While at the show I heard the words “proof” and “color laser” in the same sentence way too many times. The gamut and color consistency of a “color laser” will cause nothing but problems for those of us who operate in the print space.

At the very least the conference organizers recognize this situation. Two of the education sessions focused specifically on Color Proofing. Rod Rogge of ColorMetrix attended these two sessions, and reported back to me that there was a high desire on the part of the session attendees to understand color managed proofing. The session leader even suggested that the very first thing all of the attendees needed to do was purchase a spectrophotometer. (note: not one instrument manufacturer attended the show, and I believe we had the only instrument on the show floor in our booth.)

I also observed a high degree of interest in the AbsoluteProof hardcopy inkjet proofing solution. I believe that the interest of the attendees focused around several key features of the AbsoluteProof solution;

  • Expanded gamut with unique orange and green ink set that allows 90% of the Pantone colors to be produced within 2 Delta E. (Pleasing color or not, the attendees know what color they want)
  • Ability to run on a Mac (many agencies have only Macs)
  • Inexpensive remote proof option
  • True dot proof or contone

AbsoluteProof USA has been bundling the ColorMetrix ProofPass.com solution with almost every RIP install for over a year. During the show they stressed the ability to do remote diagnostics of print/color related problems with the ProofPass.com solution to be invaluable.

Coming next(probably)…Jim Raffel‚Äôs thoughts on GRACoL 7

#29: Inkjet proofing on the exact paper you print on

Published
by
Jim Raffel
on March 29, 2006
in Print 05, inkjet, paper and proofing
. 0 Comments

During Print ’05 in Chicago ColorMetrix shared a booth with AbsoluteProof, who also invited Pierre Ferland from The Whole Proof. The Whole Proof has developed an innovative new technology which allows virtually any printing paper to be specially coated and then utilized on an inkjet printer for proofing purposes. In last week’s Golden Nugget I discussed the importance of gloss being the same for two printed samples to appear the same. What I found interesting when I requested “bullet points” from Pierre to prepare this week’s e-mail is that he addressed gloss better than I could have while explaining the importance of his product. So, the rest of this week’s e-mail is provided by >Pierre Ferland of The Whole Proof (pierre@twproof.com)

For the cup manufacturer’s story: They were proofing on Epson matte heavyweight paper, but the characteristics of that paper were not consistent with what they were using on the press. The branded inkjet paper was much brighter and smoother than the food grade SBS that they were printing on. When they tried to emulate the SBS’s brightness using the plotter’s ink, it made the paper glossy (typical with pigment-based inks). Even if that hadn’t been the case, very smooth paper reflects light more directly than “fuzzy” paper, which diffuses light. The print buyer and pressman were getting proofs that were much more vibrant than what could actually be accomplished on the “beverage cup” SBS using a flexographic press. Proofing on the same paper they use on the press not only gives their pressman a more realistic target, but it also allows them to set the right expectations with the print buyer, and supply fully functional, full color prototypes made from the actual press stock the whole proof, and nothing but the proof! - Pierre Ferland (TWP International)

Coming next…Jim Raffel’s thoughts on GRACoL 7

#28: The difference between satin-gloss & high-gloss

Published
by
Jim Raffel
on March 21, 2006
in gloss, inkjet, paper and proofing
. 0 Comments

– FREE pass to Monday Night Expo and Paper Show at Print Oasis: ColorMetrix will be exhibiting at Print Oasis (April 2-5Las Vegas) a www.printbuyersonline.com show. The ticket at the link below will get you into the Monday night Expo for FREE.

http://www.colormetrix.com/docs/Paper_Show_Ticket.pdf

*** Golden Nugget #28: The difference between satin-gloss & high-gloss ***

…Everyone has an idea of what the terms “glossy” and “matte” mean. In case of terms like “satin-gloss”, “high-gloss” or “satin-matte”, however, which are often used in the printing industry, different observers may reach different conclusions… (Source: http://www.qipglossmeters.com/glossmeters )

For many years ColorMetrix has quietly developed keyboard wedge software for a line of gloss meters manufactured by Quality Imaging Products. As a result I have had the opportunity to test and work with the Gloss Meters and have also developed a pretty good understanding of why one would want to measure gloss in the printing industry (even though very few of us do).

In the last few weeks I have been assisting clients in understanding why their inkjet proofs do not match press sheets even though they have gone through the entire color management process. The problem in more than one case has been the inkjet paper selection. For sake of argument, we are printing on a semi matte sheet and proofing on a semi-matte inkjet proofing paper. Even if both the inkjet proofing device and the press have been profiled, these two papers are not the same and probably do not have exactly the same gloss. While a paper simulation is nice, it does not adjust for the difference in paper coating which is best quantified by gloss measurement.

Gloss has a great deal to do with how our eye and measuring instruments see images printed on paper. If for some reason you do not believe this, compare an identical advertisement printed in a newspaper versus weekly news magazine.

If anyone would like this quantified, please feel free to send me samples of your proofing paper and the papers you are using this sample to represent. I would be happy to measure the gloss of both and get the results to you.

Coming next…Inkjet proofing on the exact paper you print on.

Golden Nugget #7…Ink Jet Proofing Dry Time Prior to Measurement

Published
by
Jim Raffel
on July 27, 2005
in inkjet, measurement and proofing
. 0 Comments

*** User’s Group Conference News ***

Even though the date to receive our guaranteed pricing on rooms at the Mirage has passed it is not too late to attend the 2005 user’s group conference. If you are still interested in attending, we may be able to assist attendees in getting our hotel rates ($129/night for Sun, Mon, Tue, and only $199 for Sat. night!) Complete conference information can be found at (http://www.colormetrix.com/cmug05/). Before calling the hotel for a room, please give us a call to see if we can assist you with a room at the guaranteed conference rates.

*** Jim Raffel’s Week 7 Golden Nugget…How long do I have to let my ink jet proof dry before I measure it? ***

While there is not single correct answer to the question above, we have some basic guidelines from the field. Obviously, before following our suggestions it is very important to check with the manufacturer of the paper and ink that you are utilizing to print your proofs. They should know how long a dwell time is necessary before the proof is sufficiently dry that no more color shifting is occurring.

So, our general rule of thumb when we go in the field and assist our customers in setting a baseline or gold standard is to wait 30 minutes after the proof has finished printing before measuring it. We vary this a bit depending on the ink technology, pigment vs dye, but it seems to be a pretty good rule of thumb.

Now, we recognize that waiting 30 minutes to measure every proof may not be practical, but we are talking about the baseline or gold standard proofs right now. Once you have that down, it’s time to make another proof, to test for the optimum dry time for measurement of production proofs. Starting five minutes after the proof has finished printing measure the control strip every 5 minutes for half an hour.

Using the software you utilized to measure the proof take a look at the trend line analysis of the Delta E shift over the 30 minutes. You should be able to see a clear place where the shift levels off. Again, depending upon your environment (temperature and humidity), and proof type (pigment vs. dye) this could be at 10 minutes or 20 minutes.

That’s it! You now know how long to wait in order to get accurate proof verification measurements. If by any chance you are having trouble getting the trend line analysis I mentioned above out of your software….I know a great little software company called ColorMetrix that will be able to assist you in fixing that problem!