What do you think is the best proofing media?

[Scott Martin]

I like to poll users with this question about once a year. What do you think is the best proofing media for SWOP3 and GRACoL? Please list the papers that you've tested. I'm looking for responses from people that have come to their conclusions from testing a variety of recent paper media. Details appreciated.

[gordo]

An additional consideration regarding "best" media is discussed here (click on blog title to see the other parts of the article):
Quality In Print: The issues of Optical Brightening Agents in paper and ink - part 5

best, gordo

[Mike Strickler]

Hi Scott,

This is a bit like asking, "What is the best car?" It depends on the needs and the budget. After years of testing and using many different proofing papers the issue for me breaks down to a few criteria.

1. Color: must be bright enough and BLUE enough to simulate the brightest and bluest press substrate you need to simulate. Assuming we're discussing inkjet proofing, press substrate color can be simulated, but there are limits to this as the dot added to the background to adjust its hue will also darken it, and this can be a more visible error than the hue difference. Bluish proofing papers have an easier time matching warmer press stocks than vice versa as mostly yellow dot is added, which barely affects the L* value (warmer stocks are also generally darker, further easing the difficulty of the match). To match GRACoL or Fogra 39 (95 0 -2) you should start with a proofing paper that is at least 95 L* and at least -2 b* (a* is usually close to 0 in proofing papers) but can be as much as -4 b*. If you're using an HP Z31/3200 the Gloss Enhancer (very nice) will reduce paper brightness by about 1 L*, so with these printers start with a brighter paper, perhaps 96 L*. If you go higher than that you'll probably be using a paper with excessive levels of optical brighteners. I'd say the same with any paper bluer than about -4 b*. Avoid "photo" papers that are not specifically designated for proofing as they are often loaded with OBAs. You can test with a UV black light to be sure.

2. Ink limit: The paper needs to accept enough ink to achieve the target gamut on your printer.

3. Surface characteristics: Gloss differential should be minimal with the ink you're using.

4. General look and feel. This should bear some relationship to the press substrate, but only general. Satin proofing papers can be used for both coated and uncoated simulations and are thus the most versatile. For newsprint I would use a real newsprint proof paper.

5. Cost. Remember that only a few mills make proof papers and that many high-priced media sold by printer and RIP manufacturers are available in "plain vanilla" packaging from paper converters such as Mid States and Alameda. Compare specs and ask for samples for testing.

Be wary of recommendations made by anyone insisting that one particular paper is "the best." Remember that RIP and printer manufacturers are skillful at creating print environments (ink limits, linearizations, profiles) that exploit their own media's potential and may have no interest in making other papers look as good. The only way to judge a paper's quality and suitability is to calibrate the RIP and printer correctly for it, and few users have this knowledge and skill. Most find it easier to use the "recommended" paper and proclaim it "best," which for them is actually true.

Disclaimer: I myself sell EFI Validation Media and Mid States proofing papers, so these recommendations are not brand-neutral. I really like EFI Validation 250 Satin and Mid States White Satin 230 and Semi Matte DP for general-purpose proofing. The quality is high and the cost is reasonable. Alameda also has some attractive papers at a good price. Kodak, CGS, and GMG papers can be excellent but are expensive. Be sure that your paper supplier can provide the advice and/or complete print environments for your paper, printer, and RIP or that you have the skill to make such environments yourself. If your media reseller can't help find another one.

That's about it.

Mike Strickler
EFI Bestcolor certified implementer
Idealliance G7 Expert

[bmor]

We are looking for a media for our Epson 4800 that best simulates a Kodak Match Print proof. I am not sure if the kodak media will work with the Epson. The Epson Proofing Paper wasn't bright (blue) enough. We had the Epson calibrated and came within 95% accuracy when viewing the exact same file on a Match Print.

[Scott Martin]

"This is a bit like asking, "What is the best car?" It depends on the needs and the budget"

I know. :-] I thought it would be fun to leave this question open like this so that different people could reply with "This paper seems like the best choice for us because..." and get a variety of responses. "What's best for you and why?" is the question.

Like yourself, I'm certified in a large variety of RIPs, am a G7 integrator and have been a color management consultant for over 15 years now. I'm well aware of the variables and have favorite papers that I like to recommend but I thought it would be fun to see what other people's favorites are and why.

For example, I'm personally not a big fan of the Satin papers. I like a stock that looks and feels more like the stock a client might be using on press. If a client has a house stock with optical brighteners that is used for a high percentage of jobs, I'm not afraid of using a proofing stock with optical brighteners to match that. Different solutions and approaches for different people.

I've love to hear from more people about the proofing stock they like to use and why.

Scott Martin
www.on-sight.com

[Ian Mackenzie]

Scott -

we own and operate a new inkjet converting facility and we have a lab with about 25 inkjet printers. The OBA arguement is tricky. We ahve a white paper on this subject and I can also give you another reserach paper done by one of the largest mills in the world.

Dont listen to the hype.
OBAs are needed in most cases.

If you seek a paper for SWOP and GRACoL that is paper-based instead of RC-based, and is GRACoL/SWOP certified, I would be glad to point you in that direction.

And, yes, I do remeber you....;-)....and the Quato monitor.
Cheers,
Ian

[Scott Martin]

"Dont listen to the hype. OBAs are needed in most cases."

That's my take on it as well and what I'm seeing my clients prefer.

"If you seek a paper for SWOP and GRACoL that is paper-based instead of RC-based, and is GRACoL/SWOP certified, I would be glad to point you in that direction."

I'm always on the lookout for something better. But I'd like to hear from people as to what they find to be their current favorite, and why. A short poll if you will.

[gordo]

"Dont listen to the hype. OBAs are needed in most cases."
That's my take on it as well and what I'm seeing my clients prefer.

What is the "hype" about OBAs?

thx, gordon p

[Ian Mackenzie]

You really mean to say that you have not heard the "hype, hoopla and hooey" about the great OBA debate?

Pindg me offline and I can send you white papers, etc.
We did some extensive testing as did some of the major mills.

If OBAs were really that much of an issue with proofing, then the Kodak Approval would have died years ago and been replaced by over-priced CGS Pearlproof paper.

Caveats:

1. We own and operate an inkjet media converting facility
2. We have EVERY current inkjet printer in our lab
3. Our customers range from the top printers in the world to quick printers.
4. We have (almost) every inkjet RIP in our lab

ian@chromaticity.com

[gordo]

You really mean to say that you have not heard the "hype, hoopla and hooey" about the great OBA debate? [SNIP]If OBAs were really that much of an issue with proofing, then the Kodak Approval would have died years ago and been replaced by over-priced CGS Pearlproof paper.

I've heard about the issues of OBAs but not described so dramatically as "hype, hoopla and hooey"
Here's what Trish Wales of SAPPI papers said at a technical printer's conference: "OBAs are increasing in usage. They pose a measurement nightmare and can cause a visual matching challenge. On-line measurements give false readings." Larry Warter (formerly Fuji) who had a prime role in GRACoL and CGats, ISO, etc. has stated that the increased use of OBAs in the past few years has resulted in no papers remaining ISO qualified.

I've done a series of 5 posts on my blog on this topic based on my experience and the research that I've seen. The posts start on March 7, 2009 - the blog is here: Quality In Print

Years ago OBAs were not as much of a concern - however, today their increased use IMHO does cause issues for press and proof alignment. The general lack of awareness and understanding of the impact of OBAs in substrates (press side and proofing) IMHO often makes it difficult for printshops and print buyers/specifiers to figure out why they are having problems "matching" the proof.

If you have white papers on the subject then I would love to read them. You can send them to me at: pritchardgordon @ gmail (dot) com

best, gordon p