Search results

Whether or not this is successful is up to setting realistic expectations. The onus is on the printer/separator to convey the inherent limitations of the color gamut and the certainty of process variation in production. The level of variation may be acceptable. Other industries rely on different...

Einstein on misattribution: ‘I probably didn’t say that.’

Adrenaline got me running all over the room, knocking stuff over, until I realized I don't have a file to print.

GMG Colorproof has a means to apply sharpening to the proof. Check your settings…I can't remember what field allows this, but it is present.

Only thing I would recommend is that if the separation consistency is important, you may want to obtain the characterization data and generate your own profiles.

You may want to generate your own ICC profile selecting a more moderate level of GCR (or contact a vender/color consultant to generate one for you).

That is true, but separation characteristics may depend on the software that created the profile, its GCR/black generation characteristics, the CMM handling the conversion, the rendering intent, etc. The second thumbnail seems to show much more aggressive GCR than the first. This may have...

You may also want to watch The Hangover Part II.

I've heard that one night in Bangkok makes a hard man humble. apologies…couldn't resist.

Hmmm. Wondering if Colorport could take in the text files, and export an xml readable by i1Profiler?

There may be a more intuitive way, but I don't have access to i1Profiler. You could do it, albeit inelegantly, with Photoshop and Excel. Opent the ISO12647-7 control strip and assign the Fogra39L ICC profile (absolute colorimetric), then record the CIELab values for each patch. Enter those...

Sorry, I may have misunderstood you. So there is CMYK combinations in the ISO12647-7 control strip that do not exist in the Fogra39L reference, is that right. I think what you would need to do is to derive new target CIELab values for the ISO12647-7 control strip...essentially create a new...

Is it a format issue (are there gaps between the color patches)? Spectroproofer wedges aren't specifically formatted for offline/handheld measurement. Do you have the option of placing a differently formatted control strip on your proof, as well as the spectroproofer wedge?

Its manual yes, but with the Easytrax you have to align the sheet and press a button, no? This just adds a long, swipe...and then a misread error and several re-swipes ;). Not perfect, but cheaper. To your overall question of "why $14k"?, i can't say, as I've wondered the same question...

"Someone needs to come up with something like this to go with PressSign software." i1Pro with extended ruler?

I demo'd early versions of GMG's InkOptimizer and can confirm that there was more going on than GCR-like optimization. The intent of the software at that stage was to "improve" color, as well as apply "GCR" (for lack of a better term), hence the intent was not primarily to match the original...

Do the Colorthink guys have any input for you? Seems like this would be right up their alley.

I suppose this is somewhat dependent upon the definition of "critical", and I tend to agree that distance is not your friend when comparing color samples (and this would be one of the reasons that a monitor proof would be subservient to a hard copy). I do think, however, that a reasonable...

Although there are challenges in comparing an emissive to a reflective copy, I wouldn't say that there is no value here for color evaluation, or that its a myth. In a tightly controlled environment with competent hardware, a very good match between monitor and hard copy proof can be achieved...

I would opt for coated measurement assuming coated product, but as a metric of ink laydown, it shouldn't matter. Further on Alith7's point on dry back, note that industry touted densities/CIElab values are dry values, so it could be relevant to know how much shift occurs when measuring wet values.