EskoArtworks, Equinox?

[Bradleyp]

As far as adopting some kind of standard ink set is concerned - that would severely restrict the potential for this process.

Agreed Gordo, "running CMYKRB then switch out the B for G makes sense." At least the 7 (base) process ink set is standardized. You also said, "As far as adopting some kind of standard ink set is concerned - that would severely restrict the potential for this process." It's actually the opposite; Brand owners are demanding global print consistency and repeatability. A 7-color ink set standard (just like SWOP is to 4-color) is the only way ONE (1) expanded gamut system will succeed.

Standardization doesn't allow for a 'choice'. Our industry needs to communicate the same 7-color 'voltage' otherwise we'll all get electrocuted! A Brand owner should be able to print the same 6/7-color job in Toronto or Paris and have it match. They don't want printers offering their own hybrid expanded gamut attempts.

Therefore, the only question that remains is what body or group will take the bull by the horns and:

a) decide on (1) CMYK + XYZ ink set standard?
b) help educate printers & ink suppliers comply to 'a'.
c) help educate prepress & proofing OEM's comply to 'a'.
d) help educate digital & inkjet OEM's comply 'a'.

Will G7 or FOGRA save the day?

Brad.

 

[Chief_1975]

Sadly, a monopoly (i.e. Danaher) only breeds further complacency and higher costs; not innovation. Sounds like the tail will be wagging the dog for many years to come...

And with Kodak pretty much out for the count that monopoly is becoming more unstoppable!

 

[Bradleyp]

And with Kodak pretty much out for the count that monopoly is becoming more unstoppable!

Kodak ...who were they? - LOL

 

[chevalier]

Generally, most printers who run this process use a standard 6 colour ink set but are set up for 7. That way they only do one wash-up i.e. they might run CMYKRB then switch out the B for G.

Out of curiosity I surmise this system is built around 6 color presses. What happens when you actually need all 7 colors and/or have a metallic to print?

 

[gordo]

Out of curiosity I surmise this system is built around 6 color presses. What happens when you actually need all 7 colors and/or have a metallic to print?

No, the reason they do 6 colors is because of how colors are specified in the original art. It doesn't make sense to have a press unit contain a 7th color if there is little or no need for that color in the flat that's being printed. For example, labels are ganged up according to the spot colors are being simulated. Labels within CMYKRB, then out comes the B which is replaced by G for the next run of ganged labels.
That being said, if a 7C process makes sense for your client base then that's the way to go. The implementation of the process usually starts with an audit which would identify the best way forward (how many colors, what hues should be selected, etc.).
There's one printer in Europe and another in Malaysia that do a lot of cosmetic packaging work using an S (Silver) CMYKRV/G process which also replaces all their metallic colors (similar to MetalFx).

Best, gordo

 

[Bradleyp]

The implementation of the process usually starts with an audit which would identify the best way forward (how many colors, what hues should be selected, etc.).

As Chevalier previously stated, The biggest problem with separators / prepress houses / third party prepress / premedia (whatever the hell they call themselves this month) companies defining expanded gamuts is color calibration processes for us printers. We aren't given the information, time or (most importantly) money to calibrate for these wildly varying gamuts/ink-sets.

What printer has the time to start 'with an audit' when all they're asking for is to implement/lock-down a 7-color ink set (and most importantly, the calibration system for it). Who pays for this said audit? The Color consultant gurus have been drinking too much of the cool aid. Time for them to get out of the bubble and into the realistic production world of the printer and his customers needs!

Brad.

 

[gordo]

What printer has the time to start 'with an audit' when all they're asking for is to implement/lock-down a 7-color ink set (and most importantly, the calibration system for it). Who pays for this said audit? The Color consultant gurus have been drinking too much of the cool aid. Time for them to get out of the bubble and into the realistic production world of the printer and his customers needs!

Brad.

I guess that attitude sums up the difference between the profit leaders and the printers who just scrape by.

You can guess at which hues you should use or you can wait and hope that some third party will decree the hues of an arbitrary extended process ink set. Or you can do an audit of the spot colors that are being specified by the brand owner and derive an optimal ink set based on that info.

The printer directly pays for the audit, the set up (calibration, etc.) and the workflow software - just as would happen with any other change they make to their process. Some vendors may include some aspects of implementation in their solution offering. Indirectly the cost is ultimately paid by the printer's customer and the printer's competition.

The reality of implementing this workflow is 100% about the realistic production world of the printer and meeting their customer needs. It is the printers who do not implement this type of solution that are in the bubble as you put it.

best, gordo

 

[Bradleyp]

You can guess at which hues you should use or you can wait and hope that some third party will decree the hues of an arbitrary extended process ink set. Or you can do an audit of the spot colors that are being specified by the brand owner and derive an optimal ink set based on that info.

Agreed, better to be proactive than reactive. It's survival. Innovative printers desperately want to burst out of Pantone's archaic spot color bubble to stay fast, efficient & competitive. No one has time to change inks anymore. Yesterdays news. Expanded gamut is the future.

Unfortunately, relying on the triamigos (Esko, Pantone & X-Rite) to define a standard 7-color ink set (and separation/proofing solutions for it), is way down their priority list. They're too busy selling a monopoly of complicated whistles & bells (so called 'workflows') and making a shit load of money doing it.

Who will be 'that some third party' to knock this lot off their perch?

Brad.

 

[Stephen Marsh]

Brad writes: "Who will be 'that some third party' to knock this lot off their perch?"

It is basically a two party system. There is the Esko solution and the Kodak solution. The Spotless solution started off under Creo, before Kodak. Who can say if Kodak or another party with vision will continue with Spotless? Why reinvent the wheel, it would have been done by now if it was practical, perhaps there is currently only room for two players in the market?


Stephen Marsh

 

[gordo]

Brad writes: "Who will be 'that some third party' to knock this lot off their perch?"

It is basically a two party system. There is the Esko solution and the Kodak solution. The Spotless solution started off under Creo, before Kodak. Who can say if Kodak or another party with vision will continue with Spotless? Why reinvent the wheel, it would have been done by now if it was practical, perhaps there is currently only room for two players in the market?


Stephen Marsh

Well, Kodak still promotes Spotless and just a few days ago hosted a webinar at FlexoGlobal on 4/C Spotless for flexo (simulating spot colors using 4/C process screen tint builds rather than 4+ colors though).
But most flexo printers (like their offset counterparts) don't bother learning about new methodologies let alone make the effort to implement them.

I'm amazed that even two vendors have bothered to invest the time and effort to bring such a solution to the market.

The process of simulating spot colors with extended process screen tint builds is practical, it works, it's proven, it has many benefits for both printer and brand owners. The barrier to adoption is not the technology. The barrier is the culture of the printers.

gordo

 

[Stephen Marsh]

Spotless for flexo leverages the increased density and highlight dots available with the Flexcel NX plate technology (an increase of around 0.25 greater SID). If I recall correctly, it is only geared around CMYK inks - so I would not expect the same coverage of possible Pantone colours as with an extended gamut system (not to mention that many flexo jobs may not even use all of the standard CMYK inks). I personally don't think that it is fair to Spotless for the flexo version of the product to share the same name...now if Spotless for Flexo also used spot inks, then that would be different.

Stephen Marsh

 

[gordo]

SNIP
I personally don't think that it is fair to Spotless for the flexo version of the product to share the same name...now if Spotless for Flexo also used spot inks, then that would be different.

Stephen Marsh

Spotless with extended process colors is being used in flexo and has been for years. I'm guessing that Kodak is only promoting the 4/c version for flexo due to other reasons - possibly a lack of customer technical support resources for that market (just my speculation).

Best gordo

 

[Bradleyp]

The Spotless solution started off under Creo, before Kodak. Who can say if Kodak or another party with vision will continue with Spotless? Why reinvent the wheel, it would have been done by now if it was practical, perhaps there is currently only room for two players in the market?

Having just watched Kodak's expanded gamut webinar http://tinyurl.com/d59tfuu posted by Gordo, it's more an ad for NX plates than actual expanded gamut technology? (apparently you only need to buy their plates to expand the gamut - LOL).

It didn't explain anything regarding actual color separation, particularly for Photoshop (raster) images. Same old sales/marketing rhetoric from Kodak I'm afraid. When I asked Emma Schlotthauer (Marketing Manager, Packaging Solutions), is there a Photoshop plug-in to separate raster images into: CMYK+OG, RB & OB? She replied, "NO for the current version of our n color Spotless solution."

Sorry Stephen, I guess that leaves Equinox as the default solution to convert both VECTOR spot colors and separate/enhance RASTER Photoshop images (to get maximum value & visual impact).

Brad.

 

[gordo]

Having just watched Kodak's expanded gamut webinar posted by Gordo, it's more an ad for NX plates than actual expanded gamut technology? (apparently you only need to buy their plates to expand the gamut - LOL).

Agreed, however they did mention a few of the business reasons why a printer might adopt the strategy of simulating spot colors with process builds. If you don't buy into the business value proposition for changing your process then discussions of the technicalities are pointless.

It didn't explain anything regarding actual color separation, particularly for Photoshop (raster) images.

Correct. With Spotless the spot color simulation screen tint builds are created by a look up table (LUT). Equinox, AFAIK, creates their builds using an ICC profile.

Same old sales/marketing rhetoric from Kodak I'm afraid. When I asked Emma Schlotthauer (Marketing Manager, Packaging Solutions), is there a Photoshop plug-in to separate raster images into: CMYK+OG, RB & OB? She replied, "NO for the current version of our n color Spotless solution."

Converting raster images to CMYK++ is not part of the Spotless solution (at least it wasn't when I worked at Creo/Kodak). If you want to do nColor separations in a Kodak workflow then RGB to CMYK++ can be done in Prinergy using a 6/C ICC profile. Or you can use other vendor's products to do the conversion within PShop (e.g. Visu's CoCo or Esko's plugin). In my experience, the majority of the companies converting raster images to CMYK++ do it manually in PShop.

Sorry Stephen, I guess that leaves Equinox as the default solution to convert both VECTOR spot colors and separate/enhance RASTER Photoshop images (to get maximum value & visual impact).

I'd rather have a solution that did what I needed it to (or at least performed as per the vendor's promise) than a solution that happened to come from the same vendor. When I was at Creo/Kodak, whenever we competed against Equinox - including printers who already had Equinox installed - Spotless would win the business. But your mileage may vary.

If you're serious about going the route of simulating spot colours with an extended process ink set (which I doubt) then the best thing is to do a proper test of Equinox vs Spotless since they are very different in how they work.

If all you want is to separate raster images into CMYK++ then you have several vendor offerings to try out.

best, gordo (I'm not a Kodak employee. I do not sell any products or services)

 

[Stephen Marsh]

AFAIK Spotless does convert both raster and vector, however this is in the PDF workflow refine process. For right or wrong, the original product from Creo and then Kodak treat this as an automated solution for production in a "lights out prepress" setting. It would be a nice extra for Spotless to offer image editing.

All things being equal, the Kodak Flexcel NX system does expand the gamut when compared to a standard LAMs plates and imaging, however not anywhere near to the same extent as using an extended ink system.

Stephen Marsh

 

[gordo]

AFAIK Spotless does convert both raster and vector, however this is in the PDF workflow refine process. For right or wrong, the original product from Creo and then Kodak treat this as an automated solution for production in a "lights out prepress" setting. It would be a nice extra for Spotless to offer image editing.

All things being equal, the Kodak Flexcel NX system does expand the gamut when compared to a standard LAMs plates and imaging, however not anywhere near to the same extent as using an extended ink system.

I think we answered at the same time LOL!

You are quite correct. The expanded gamut that Kodak was talking about comes from the higher solid ink densities possible with their plate and digicap screening compared with standard plates and no digicap. Kodak makes the claim that 80% of the Pantone Plus spot colours are within their expanded 4/C gamut. Frankly I don't believe it. For example, when I was at Creo/Kodak we measured 4/C process against Pantone's spot color library using offset and 20 micron FM (which has a larger gamut than 175-200 lpi AM/XM) we found that only 18% of Pantone's spot colors were within gamut. 32% were near (i.e. 3 DE '94 or less away) and 50% were out of gamut (i.e. >3 DE '94 or away). So, in an offset situation between 50% and 82% of colors were out of gamut for a 4/C process. I should think that flexo would do worse despite Kodak's claims. (This gamut info is published on the Kodak web site.) If I'm wrong then please show me the data.

With a 7 color process you can get a higher percentage of Pantone's spots in gamut. In our tests using one 7/C inkset we got 50% in gamut and 43% near (i.e. 3 DE '94 or less away). Of course we'd used a different inkset we would have gotten a different result. That's one of the limitations of using an arbitrary canned ink set. With a proper audit and implementation you would define the inkset that enabled you simulate the spot colours you need to hit rather than a library of colors that the brand owner never specifies

best, gordo

 

[Bradleyp]

Converting raster images to CMYK++ is not part of the Spotless solution

A dot is a dot and no printing process can disseminate between vector & raster. Therefore, one would assume Spotless (or any expanded solution) should logically separate/enhance ALL color areas on a given plate; not just vector? Maybe they should rename it the Spotless Partial Gamut Solution

Whoever invented Spotless; common sense isn't very common.

Brad.

 

[Stephen Marsh]

Again, AFAIK if the original raster or vector image data contains a spot colour, then that spot colour is converted into raster/vector of the extended inks used by the Spotless solution. Again, AFAIK, If the original CMYK raster image did not contain a spot colour, then it would not end up with a spot colour in the final PDF. We are talking of a PDF workflow implementation where the refined final PDF uses both vector and raster data, upstream of generating 1 bit TIFF files for plating.

Stephen Marsh

 

[gordo]

A dot is a dot and no printing process can disseminate between vector & raster. Therefore, one would assume Spotless (or any expanded solution) should logically separate/enhance ALL color areas on a given plate; not just vector? Maybe they should rename it the Spotless Partial Gamut Solution

Whoever invented Spotless; common sense isn't very common.

Brad.

It's not the printing process that descriminates between vector and raster - it's the workflow. Spot colors are named colors like PMS 123 or P&G 321. When the workflow sees a named color it converts it to a screen tint build based on the ink set being used. That is what Equinox and Spotless both do.

It is usually desired to maintain the raster images as conventional CMYK so that their colors conform to the appropriate ISO specification. That is why you have the option of doing the separations conventionally or with the extra colors. The extra colors are on the press so if it makes sense to do so you have the option. It is not imposed by either Equinox or Spotless. That is why there are separate applications from both Esko and Kodak to do n color separations.

Spotless does what it is designed to do - simulate spot colors with screen tint builds. That's why it's named the "Spotless printing solution". If that's not what you want to do then use something else.

BTW, I was on the Spotless development team.

Gordo

 

[Bradleyp]

Spotless does what it is designed to do - simulate spot colors with screen tint builds. That's why it's named "Spotless".

Too bad the design was incomplete. Ask any Brand Owner and they'll say the same thing, "Nice spot color matches, but why don't my images 'POP' as well?" Because CMYK images must 'conform to the appropriate ISO specification.' Yeah right...

Brad.