Converting to icc 'screen' profile

[marc3llo]

Hi all,

I have some images that are going to be printed on a flexo press. The flexo press was fingerprinted and a proofing profile was created and a ICC Photoshop profile was exported to share with third-parties.

Now these images I have look terrible when printed with this profile on the Epson...

So what I did was to open them in Photoshop and convert profile into the icc 'screen' profile. Now the image prints perfect with the flexo profile on but the channel separation looks shocking.. I don't really believe these channels can produce a proper job on the press.

What's your thoughts on this? What's the best way (without trial and error retouching) to output these files? By the way, we use esko workflow.

Thanks for your help
M

 

[Stephen Marsh]

Can you provide a link to the proofing profile or the characterisation/measurement data?

What exactly do you mean by “a ICC Photoshop profile was exported”?

How did you proof the files? Was the proofing profile used as a source simulation profile that was then converted into the proofer profile space?

What is this “screen” space that you converted to?

There are more questions than answers I am afraid, I would need to see the files and or have better info to provide an informed opinion.


Stephen Marsh

 

[marc3llo]

What exactly do you mean by “a ICC Photoshop profile was exported”?

To create an icc profile by exporting it from color pilot so one can use it in Photoshop to simulate the output device

How did you proof the files? Was the proofing profile used as a source simulation profile that was then converted into the proofer profile space?

File is fogra 39 and output with the press profile to simulate the press behavior

Can you provide a link to the proofing profile or the characterisation/measurement data?

What exactly do you mean by “a ICC Photoshop profile was exported”?

To create an icc profile by exporting it from color pilot so one can use it in Photoshop to simulate the output device

How did you proof the files? Was the proofing profile used as a source simulation profile that was then converted into the proofer profile space?

File is fogra 39 and output with the press profile to simulate the press behavior

There are more questions than answers I am afraid, I would need to see the files and or have better info to provide an informed opinion.


Stephen Marsh

 

[marc3llo]

Sorry, I am using my phone and it's a bit difficult to reply properly.

Thanks for your input Stephen
M

What exactly do you mean by “a ICC Photoshop profile was exported”?

To create an icc profile by exporting it from color pilot so one can use it in Photoshop to simulate the output device

How did you proof the files? Was the proofing profile used as a source simulation profile that was then converted into the proofer profile space?

File is fogra 39 and output with the press profile to simulate the press behavior

 

[marc3llo]

Hi all,

Any other input/ suggestion? Please?
Thanks!
M

 

[Stephen Marsh]

I think there are too many unknowns with your post/setup.

Convert from RGB to the Flexo press profile. You may have to set a minimum dot/bump as the profile may not have one set in it.

Run the converted image on the proofer using the proofing profile as a simulation.

Does the hardcopy output look similar to the converted image in Photoshop, when using the profile for softproofing and simulating paper and or black ink?

Again, I think that we would need to kick around a copy of a converted image with embedded ICC profile, or the measurement data or profile.

Anybody else?

Stephen Marsh

 

[Lukas Engqvist]

When printing on your Epson you must simulate your output profile (flexo) If you send your Flexo values to your EPSON you will get strange results.

 

[marc3llo]

Hi,

I have already a color strategy that simulates the behavior of the flexo press and I know that what I output through this strategy can be reproduced on press. I also have an ICC profile (screen profile, use to view the outcome of the file within Photoshop) that I exported from this color strategy.

The question is why can't I take the original RGB image and convert it into this flexo ICC profile (that represents the behavior of the press in Photoshop).. I did it and it looks amazing on screen but when I check the separations, they look really wrong..

What I want here is to avoid the task of retouching the images to make them look "good" (time consuming!!). I want them to look "good" by using some sort of conversion, device link (?) or any other trick in the color management arena.

Sorry if I am being messy but it's not an easy thing to explain

Thanks
Marcelo

 

[Stephen Marsh]

Sorry if I am being messy but it’s not an easy thing to explain

Marcelo, this is why I asked in my first post:

“Can you provide a link to the proofing profile or the characterisation/measurement data?”

Then in my next reply:

“Again, I think that we would need to kick around a copy of a converted image with embedded ICC profile, or the measurement data or profile.”

What type of flexo print condition did you profile? What type of substrate? What lpi screen? What was the minimum dot?

If you trust the press profile to represent the press conditions for making a conversion, then at a base level the conversion “is what it is”. Of course one can always do better, however the base conversion using the press profile is the start point.

If you don’t trust the results of the press profile for creating a separation, but you do trust that it provides a decent softproof, then the other option is to convert using a different profile for a similar condition, then assign the press profile and or softproof using the press profile and then edit the conversion to look good in the simulated condition. Then do a hardcopy proof, again verify that the hardcopy is similar to the softproof using the same profile (if you trust the profile).

The forum can help, however there is not much to go on at the moment, except that you don’t like the separations.


Stephen Marsh

 

[marc3llo]

Hi Stephen,

Thanks for confirming that one can use this profile for conversion purposes as well. I've been told once, while ago, that it was only to see the behavior of the press in Photoshop (hence my use of 'screen profile')

Regarding the separations, it's not that they don't look nice... They look as if 'maximum black generation' was used and therefore if you see only the CMY channels , look pretty bad and to be honest I don't want to send to press this sort of files with a heavy black.

Regards
Marcelo

 

[Stephen Marsh]

Hi Stephen,

Thanks for confirming that one can use this profile for conversion purposes as well. I've been told once, while ago, that it was only to see the behavior of the press in Photoshop (hence my use of 'screen profile')

Regarding the separations, it's not that they don't look nice... They look as if 'maximum black generation' was used and therefore if you see only the CMY channels , look pretty bad and to be honest I don't want to send to press this sort of files with a heavy black.

Regards
Marcelo

I don’t think that I did confirm that! :]

I said “if you trust the profile to make a conversion” - that is your call.

I also said “if you don’t trust the conversion, but do trust the softproof using this profile” - that is your call.

I am not familiar with the profiles created by your various software, so I don’t know if they are only for proofing, softproofing, separation etc. They may or may not be suitable for any given purpose.

Again, without seeing the profile or knowing the conditions, I don’t know all that much about what you are facing.


Stephen Marsh

 

[marc3llo]

Hi Stephen,

Yes I know you didn't confirm it 100% but in the end what I did was converting into this profile and then use apply image and channel mixer to fill some 'gaps'. It looks OK, printable..

Thanks for your help Stephen.

Marcelo