SWOP V.2 vs SWOP 2006

[lchandra]

Hi,

I just recently started to work in a retouching agency. They have been outputting their proofs using SWOP Webcoated v.2 profile. I was told by one of the color consultant that we should switch to SWOP 2006. The problem was that our current proofer (CelebraNT to FinalProof) had to contaminate the ink + paper tint to qualify for SWOP 2006 certification. So we decided to stcik with SWOP Webcoated v.2

Is there anyone there who is still using SWOP Webcoated V.2 or has everyone made the switch to SWOP 2006 for their presses?

Thank you

[meddington]

Originally Posted by lchandra

Is there anyone there who is still using SWOP Webcoated V.2 or has everyone made the switch to SWOP 2006 for their presses?u

There are probably many still using the older SWOP Webcoated v2 profile, but many have switched to the SWOP2006_coated3 dataset/profile. The two actually compare fairly close when using a relative colorimetric intent (delta E76 around 2.15 as calculated by Colorthink Pro), but larger differences when using absolute colorimetric (4.06 dE76). Differences in the primary and overprint solids and the white point, which is much more yellow and lower L* with the older SWOP profile, are considerations, which is why a lot have updated to the newer SWOP profiles.

I would recommend moving toward the new data sets and profiles, however, it depends on how your proofs are used as to whether you'd see value in doing so. If you have a great proof to press comparison, well...if it ain't broke. On the other hand, if you commonly exchange proofs with other printers, or have clients requesting conformance to current SWOP specifications it might be in your best interest to update.

[juergenroesch]

Don't forget that SWOP are standards for WEB OFFSET printing, mainly on grade #3 or #5 stocks. So if you're printing sheetfed on coated white stock, you should adopt the GRACoL standards.

Using SWOP as a generic separation profile for all type of printing is just bad setup.

...and actually SWOP Webcoated v.2 as far as I remember uses even more contamination for paper and solids than the SWOP 2006 specs, unless you use it with a relative colorimetric or even perceptual profile setup which none would qualify as certifiable proof

[Werby]

You can hit SWOP2006_coated3 on a Finalproof without a paper tint if you use the right paper, like Fortune Gloss. You do have to contaminate the primaries if you want to get the right solid CMYK values, but if you are not concerned with "certification" you can build a device-link that keeps the pure inks pure and get your average delta-E under 2. It is a surprisingly close visual match to my inkjet proofing which has an average delta-E under 1, so I'm happy with it. if you don't care about contaminated primaries in your color bar (something that is becoming less and less of an issue), you can get an even better match.

Since both juergenroesch and Ichandra, refer to "certified" proofs, I guess I'm curious what exactly you think that is. There is a certification program run by SWOP that certifies that a given system can meet a fairly tight set of tolerances, but there are no published tolerances for individual proofs. Of course we are all shooting for the same target data set, and the closer the better, but I'd say moving a FinalProof to average dE<2 of SWOP2006 is WAY better than one that "certifies" to SWOP Webcoated v2.

-Todd Shirley

[juergenroesch]

Originally Posted by Werby

Since both juergenroesch and Ichandra, refer to "certified" proofs, I guess I'm curious what exactly you think that is. There is a certification program run by SWOP that certifies that a given system can meet a fairly tight set of tolerances, but there are no published tolerances for individual proofs. Of course we are all shooting for the same target data set, and the closer the better, but I'd say moving a FinalProof to average dE<2 of SWOP2006 is WAY better than one that "certifies" to SWOP Webcoated v2.

-Todd Shirley

Hi Todd,

if you look closely then you notice that I live in England and over here colour is spelled differently ;-)

Here in Europe many printers work not just to FOGRA standards, but FOGRA also has published quality criteria within which a proof is deemed conform and beyond that you can get individual certification by having proofs from your own proofing unit measured by FOGRA and get a certification number. Some print buyers actually demand that their printers provide this number (which is also online accessible on the FOGRA website).

So if you are a demanding print buyer and your printer has this certificate for both proofing and press, you know he'll match what you expect within 3 DeltaE average and 6 DeltaE max (additional tighter limits on primaries, substrate and gray balance).

So I guess this is a little tighter than "US Webcoated v2"


Also while I lived in the US, proofing systems were always required by their buyers to be "SWOP certified". But the first thing they then requested were either a custom made profile or to turn this strong paper tint off - as they are sheetfed printers and don't print on #5 ground wood - so much for any certification - or the ADS every proofing system supplier has to provide for a SWOP certified system

Cheers,
Juergen Roesch (nope, that's not English)