Color Accurate Web Based Soft Proofing - Good Idea or Bad?

[ProperPixel]

Hi Everyone,

We are currently looking into replacing our hard-copy proof with color accurate soft proofing to reduce expenses and delivery time.

We've narrowed down our choices to the following three products, however we would like some honest feedback from real users of these softwares.

Kodak Insite
Dialogue ES
Remote Director

Thanks for your help!

 

[gordo]

Hi Everyone,

We are currently looking into replacing our hard-copy proof with color accurate soft proofing to reduce expenses and delivery time.

We've narrowed down our choices to the following three products, however we would like some honest feedback from real users of these softwares.

Kodak Insite
Dialogue ES
Remote Director

Thanks for your help!

Color accurate remote proofing means that you have to control the displays at the remote site(s).
Content remote proofing is a more typical method since there is no need to control the displays at the remote site(s)

best, gordo

 

[ProperPixel]

Thanks Gordo,

Very aware of this, we're looking for a bit more user information regarding each of the softwares.
Items like:
How's the support?
Learning Curve?
Color Accuracy?
Ease of Installation?

Or are you implying an answer without physically telling me?

 

[gordo]

Thanks Gordo,

Very aware of this, we're looking for a bit more user information regarding each of the softwares.
Items like:
How's the support?
Learning Curve?
Color Accuracy?
Ease of Installation?

Or are you implying an answer without physically telling me?

My intent was to help you set your expectations. My reading of the criteria in your question suggested that perhaps it wasn;t thought through completely - I'm probably wrong on that, my apologies if I was.

If you don't control the displays (and environment) at the remote site(s) then color "accuracy" is not possible. If that's your goal then you can give up now. If your criteria changes to who provides the best remote content proofing then it's a different story.

Since I've got one foot in it I might as well put the other foot in it.

In my experience remote accurate color proofing is not possible. You can have two monitors set up to match each other perfectly (by the numbers the same as same is possible). That does not mean that they can be used for anything other than "pleasing color" usage. I.e. that high degree of color accuracy (and associated complication) does not actually provide any tangible value in production.

It's not a technical issue - it's a human vision issue.

I've seen soft-proofing used at press at major publications to replace physical proofs and they are not used for checking color by the press operators. They are used to check content and individual CMYK image content (separations). Again, this is because of the mechanics of human vision.

So, if I were in your shoes I would concentrate more on issues related to remote content proofing.
Issues like how does the remote site view the proofs? I.e. do they have a dedicated website that they access to view their proofs?
Who controls access to the proofs.
What do you expect the customer to do when they view the proof.
Does it record customer access?
Who controls sign off?
Is the proofing site collaborative? Does it need to be?
How are the proofs marked up for changes, alterations, etc?
What's the user interface like? Is it intuitive or is there a learning curve.
Are update notifications automatic or manual?
How are update notifications sent (email, vmail, etc.)
Can proofing be done using tablets, cellphones, etc. or only on workstations?
Etc, etc.

I.e. Since all these remote system work from a mechanical point of view - I would concentrate on functionality and usability first.

best, gordo (wearing my asbestos suit)

 

[ProperPixel]

As I appreciate your input, I feel my explanation may have been unclear as to what I was looking for.
We have already reviewed these three product for all the items that you have listed.

What I was hoping for was to hear from actual users of these three products to learn more about their personal experiences with them.

Since you put both feet in....
In my experience remote accurate color proofing is not possible. You can have two monitors set up to match each other perfectly (by the numbers the same as same is possible). That does not mean that they can be used for anything other than "pleasing color" usage. I.e. that high degree of color accuracy (and associated complication) does not actually provide any tangible value in production.

It's not a technical issue - it's a human vision issue.

Isn't this true about hard-copy proofing also?

 

[akalaray]

My intent was to help you set your expectations. My reading of the criteria in your question suggested that perhaps it wasn;t thought through completely - I'm probably wrong on that, my apologies if I was.

If you don't control the displays (and environment) at the remote site(s) then color "accuracy" is not possible. If that's your goal then you can give up now. If your criteria changes to who provides the best remote content proofing then it's a different story.

Since I've got one foot in it I might as well put the other foot in it.

In my experience remote accurate color proofing is not possible. You can have two monitors set up to match each other perfectly (by the numbers the same as same is possible). That does not mean that they can be used for anything other than "pleasing color" usage. I.e. that high degree of color accuracy (and associated complication) does not actually provide any tangible value in production.

It's not a technical issue - it's a human vision issue.

I've seen soft-proofing used at press at major publications to replace physical proofs and they are not used for checking color by the press operators. They are used to check content and individual CMYK image content (separations). Again, this is because of the mechanics of human vision.

So, if I were in your shoes I would concentrate more on issues related to remote content proofing.
Issues like how does the remote site view the proofs? I.e. do they have a dedicated website that they access to view their proofs?
Who controls access to the proofs.
What do you expect the customer to do when they view the proof.
Does it record customer access?
Who controls sign off?
Is the proofing site collaborative? Does it need to be?
How are the proofs marked up for changes, alterations, etc?
What's the user interface like? Is it intuitive or is there a learning curve.
Are update notifications automatic or manual?
How are update notifications sent (email, vmail, etc.)
Can proofing be done using tablets, cellphones, etc. or only on workstations?
Etc, etc.

I.e. Since all these remote system work from a mechanical point of view - I would concentrate on functionality and usability first.

best, gordo (wearing my asbestos suit)

Excellent thoughts
We use remote content proofing {In house solution}
Your comments gave me reason to pause.
Thank you Gordo

 

[smileycolor]

I have worked with all the softproofing solutions mentioned in the thread. Just like with any proof you need to be in the correct enviroment. I have seen Remote Director in several printers used for contract proofing as well as content. I have customers that use RD for Photography, Design, Approval and Print. RD validates the proof just like using the color strip on a hard copy proof. Using FM100 hue tester to test users vision and align your production team is just good business. Where we print to # alignment for ink take off is always up to a visual assesment. From an ease of use, training and simplicity the RD system appears to me to be most stable and color accurate with oppotunity to align to the same process control strip used with hard copy.
SmileyColor

 

[Viki Solutions Rep]

I am curious to know if you had a chance to look at Viki Solutions' Vera product in your process. Our team came from Creo/Kodak where we originally designed Prinergy and InSite and focused on color accurate proofing. We have now redesigned from the ground up with the latest robust technology and offer full support and upgrades to all our customers which is included in pricing. Some of the products you listed are based in older technology (are Java issues a concern to you?) and I will leave it up to other commentators to discuss the cost, frequency, and functional improvement level of their upgrades.

Are you looking to host in the cloud to save hardware costs and reduce risk or do a traditional or highly secure installation? Vera can do all of these. It would be great to hear more responses and see if others know about the Viki Solutions team, our capabilities, and can give feedback on how our service and support for Vera and Vproof rank. Obviously this response promotes our company and product, but I just want the buyer to be able to consider all options and not be saddled with a purchase they regret.

Gordo's response is perfectly written with respect to the limitations of color soft proofing. Vproof embeds a color management engine to apply input and output ICC profiles for standards such as SWOP and GRACoL, custom press targets and display calibration profiles. Vproof provides control over an array of color management settings such as render intent, black point compensation and display resolution. As Gordo stated thought, the color capability is ultimately dependent on the end users' viewing environment. If there are no calibrated monitors or booths that control lighting etc. then color accuracy becomes color inaccuracy.

Finally, make sure the program works with the browsers and plug-ins your end customers have. Is it html, silverlight, or other plug-in technology and what happens if that technology is not supported by the popular browsers in the future?

Chris

 

[ProperPixel]

I have worked with all the softproofing solutions mentioned in the thread. Just like with any proof you need to be in the correct enviroment. I have seen Remote Director in several printers used for contract proofing as well as content. I have customers that use RD for Photography, Design, Approval and Print. RD validates the proof just like using the color strip on a hard copy proof. Using FM100 hue tester to test users vision and align your production team is just good business. Where we print to # alignment for ink take off is always up to a visual assesment. From an ease of use, training and simplicity the RD system appears to me to be most stable and color accurate with oppotunity to align to the same process control strip used with hard copy.
SmileyColor

Thanks for this SmileyColor,

A quick Google search and I'm now aware of what a FM100 hue tester is. X-rite actually had the test online. Though this now causes me to have more questions regarding the concern of the environment that you and Gordo mention... See I took the X-rite test on my uncalibrated monitor while sitting at my desk and I scored a 6.... According to X-rite the lower the number the better, 0 being perfect. I can only imagine how well I would have done in the proper lighting with a calibrated screen.

Thou after reviewing the X-rite test and relating these results to a press ok or the difference between hard-copy proofing solutions my conclusion is that these results would have been completely acceptable.

So this makes me question how much does the environment really effect what I see on the screen?

 

[Stephen Marsh]

I am not a user, I am a vendor. We sell Kodak InSite Creative Workflow and CGS ORIS Colour Tuner Web that performs both soft and hard copy proofing. Kodak InSite has very strict hardware requirements for colour. Most use it for content approval more than colour, due to the hardware requirements. CGS ORIS Colour Tuner Web has more modest requirements for hardware when it comes to colour approvals, however the end user still needs a very good monitor and profiling hardware.

I personally see soft proofing as a good way to cut down on the time and cost of generating interim proofs, while a final hard copy proof is still generated at the end of the proofing/approval cycle.

Assess each solution's requirements for the hardware, if your customer's do not have or are not willing to purchase a high end monitor and calibration hardware that will be accepted by the soft proofing system - then you have lost the race before leaving the start line. If a customer has to spend say four thousand dollars on hardware to be able to use your colour approval system, is this going to fly? Will your company purchase the hardware for a large customer if they are not willing to do so? How many customers will accept this new method of colour proofing that you are offering (content proofing is easily accepted, colour less so)? Large contract customers might see the ROI when comparing their current hard copy purchase pattern compared to the one off investment in soft proofing hardware...

Good soft proof systems will handle the checks for calibration and not allow approval for colour if the calibration/profiling is out of date. They will also know if the monitor is not qualified or acceptable. I am not aware of systems that also check for ambient lighting conditions as well during the approval process (approver viewing conditions are harder to handle and are usually taken of "faith").


Stephen Marsh

 

[Lukas Engqvist]

Don't forget that some monitors also have big variation in colour depending on view angle, even if calibration and characterisation is perfect.

 

[Colorblind]

I agree with Gordo, even with the best hardware/software/viewing condition, I don't see how a monitor image would ever be as color reliable as the equivalent hard proof. IMO, if you can convince your customer to invest thousands of dollars (the cost of a good monitor+spectro) to remotely approve a pleasing color proof, you're better off setting up a small proofer with in-line spectro at their location and get them to approve a much better proof.

 

[ProperPixel]

I greatly appreciate all the feedback however maybe I wasn't clear in what I was asking for... so I'm going to try asking a different way.

We are what you call a "customer"
We are not looking for a sales pitch as we have representatives of the respective products.
We've done our respective research regarding what monitors we believe will qualify to meet our standards.
We understand the potential issues with environmental lighting, however are not 100% convinced with the arguments that have been presented, here and by our reps.
We're looking to REPLACE all our hard-copy proofs, not compare hard-copy proofs to a monitor, the monitor is to become our NEW proof. Just like when we replaced our Kodak Approvals with inkjet proofs.

With that said, this string was meant to find out from actual users who's good and who's bad.

Sorry for the confusion, thanks again for all the feedback.

 

[gordo]

I greatly appreciate all the feedback however maybe I wasn't clear in what I was asking for... so I'm going to try asking a different way.

We are what you call a "customer"
We are not looking for a sales pitch as we have representatives of the respective products.
We've done our respective research regarding what monitors we believe will qualify to meet our standards.
We understand the potential issues with environmental lighting, however are not 100% convinced with the arguments that have been presented, here and by our reps.
We're looking to REPLACE all our hard-copy proofs, not compare hard-copy proofs to a monitor, the monitor is to become our NEW proof. Just like when we replaced our Kodak Approvals with inkjet proofs.

With that said, this string was meant to find out from actual users who's good and who's bad.

Sorry for the confusion, thanks again for all the feedback.

So, what you are looking for is to characterize and then calibrate your monitors. Then use an ICC profile to enable your monitors to represent a standard industry print characteristic.
You need to know which brand of monitors are the most stable and can be aligned to one another so that they all represent the standard print characteristic that you have identified. You need to know what software/hardware monitor characterization devices are best in terms of the list in your original post.
You also need to know about the environment best suited to viewing your soft proofing monitors.

It may have been the "remote proof" description and the vendor products listed in your OP that caused the confusion. Remote proofing and the functionality of those listed products are quite different than what you're asking for now. Or maybe you need to describe the workflow you want to achieve rather than list the evaluation criteria?

best, gordo

 

[Stephen Marsh]

We've done our respective research regarding what monitors we believe will qualify to meet our standards.

It is all about what the colour approval system regards as acceptable, depending on the system there may or may not be flexibility in the choice of the range of vendors and monitor models.


Stephen Marsh

 

[ProperPixel]

So, what you are looking for is to characterize and then calibrate your monitors. Then use an ICC profile to enable your monitors to represent a standard industry print characteristic.
You need to know which brand of monitors are the most stable and can be aligned to one another so that they all represent the standard print characteristic that you have identified. You need to know what software/hardware monitor characterization devices are best in terms of the list in your original post.
You also need to know about the environment best suited to viewing your soft proofing monitors.

It may have been the "remote proof" description and the vendor products listed in your OP that caused the confusion. Remote proofing and the functionality of those listed products are quite different than what you're asking for now. Or maybe you need to describe the workflow you want to achieve rather than list the evaluation criteria?

best, gordo

I'm sorry Gordo, I don't believe it was I that used the term "remote proof" as I do understand quite well the difference between color accurate soft proofing and remote (hard) proofing.

You may have been the one confused by the listed products as a couple of them do offer Remote Proofing also, however I was very specific in stating we were looking at these products for soft proofing.

Thanks again for your insights however I'm coming to the conclusion that there are more suppliers on this forum then actual users of products. I truly was hoping to hear from users of these solutions.

Thank you to all that did respond,

 

[gordo]

I'm sorry Gordo, I don't believe it was I that used the term "remote proof" as I do understand quite well the difference between color accurate soft proofing and remote (hard) proofing.

You may have been the one confused by the listed products as a couple of them do offer Remote Proofing also, however I was very specific in stating we were looking at these products for soft proofing.

Thanks again for your insights however I'm coming to the conclusion that there are more suppliers on this forum then actual users of products. I truly was hoping to hear from users of these solutions.

Thank you to all that did respond,

You are correct - I was the one that used the term "remote proofing." That's because the three software systems you listed are all (remote) soft proofing systems (not remote hard proofing. They are used for customer-side soft proofing for content, markup, and collaborative customer-side document approval. The files to be proofed are typically hosted by a printshop that gives their customers and customers associates access to the processed documents for review and mark up.

Is that what you are wanting to do? I.e. set up a collaborative web-based soft proofing environment where stakeholders can mark up the soft proofs for edits, comments, and approvals? (That's why I suggested that maybe you need to describe the workflow you want to achieve rather than list the evaluation criteria?)

If so, then the solutions that you listed would be appropriate. And as I wrote before, in practice (and in my experience), those solutions are not primarily used for color accurate soft proofing - which was one of your criteria.

However, if you are just wanting to be able to view documents on the screen and have some confidence that what you see is what you'll get - then those solutions are overkill.

Yes, there are many suppliers on this forum (some of which operate in "stealth" mode.) Suppliers can put you in touch with reference sites that will speak with you more openly in private than they will in a public forum like this. The key is in understanding what you are trying to do workflow-wise. That gives them, as well as users, the context in which to understand the priorities as you've listed them. Your intended workflow is still, at least to me, unclear, which makes it hard to comment on your criteria (although I have commented on the color accuracy issue).

best, gordo

 

[ProperPixel]

Thank you again Gordo,

It has become apparently clear to me that this was a poor forum to choose to ask my question... I understand that each of these suppliers have User Groups in which I could have had interaction with, in hopes to get honest opinions of each of the products, though from past experience I found that not to be true. User Group conversations are just that, conversations among users and don't typically contain ex users, thus offering a very one sided opinion. My hope for posting here was to hear about both sides of the specific products listed.

As to the workflow, our intended use for soft proofing is multi-faceted... We do currently create proofs in-house for our creative and collaboration with our marketing team. We also share proofs with our satellite offices, from there once our creative is submitted to our pre-media house proofs are passed between them, with the obvious last stop being the press.

So as to the workflow, the system needs to be an all access pass allowing anyone that needs to create a proof the ability to do so. In my research of these three solutions they all allow for that capability, some more effectively than others, then again those capabilities come with a price.

As to your concerns regarding color... the printing is G7 certified, our hard-copy proofs fall within GRACoL recommendations for most of our creative, with a few custom profiles for speciality work, however the same standards are required for all parties involved.

Again, what I was really looking for from this forum was honest feedback from current users and ex users of these products. I will say this, even with the conversations that were had, the choice has become clear.

Thanks.

 

[Nicolas]

...
We're looking to REPLACE all our hard-copy proofs, not compare hard-copy proofs to a monitor, the monitor is to become our NEW proof.
...

Hi Cheryl,
So you will not compare a final printed product on paper with the colours you see (or have seen) on the monitor? - just curious - what you would like to achieve and if the monitor proof shall be the "color target" for a press run.
Many other things has been said already. The most critical, vendor independent, factor in my option is the surrounding viewing environment.
br,
Nico

 

[Chief_1975]

Thank you again Gordo,

It has become apparently clear to me that this was a poor forum to choose to ask my question.

In all honesty your choice of forums to ask questions on such a niche subject are few and far between.

We are currently looking at the suitability of softproofing for our customers where we have come to conclusion that while it can help reduce interim colour amendments we don't think it suitable to replace a hard copy contract proof going to the printer.

I can see how softproofing can work in closed loop environment to recognise print standards for CMYK publishing, example newsprint but we are in packaging dealing with many different printers, process's, standards, spot colours, materials etc.