Extended Gamut for line colours

[Galvatron]

Hi all, this is my first post.

Is anyone out there using either Opaltone, FMsix or Kodak Spotless for printing line colours? If so, knowing that there are many variables inherent within print production, what would you advise is the most important consideration for success.

Thanks

 

[gordo]

Hi all, this is my first post.

Is anyone out there using either Opaltone, FMsix or Kodak Spotless for printing line colours? If so, knowing that there are many variables inherent within print production, what would you advise is the most important consideration for success.

These are very different products.

Opaltone is a proprietary 7 color (CMYKRGB) process that uses its own library of colors selectable in drop down menus in applications such as InDesign, and Illustrator.

FMsix is a propriatary 6 color (CMYKOG) process using FM screening to simulate spot colors within the gamut of CMYK plus their patented O and G hues. It is a subscription-based solution - i.e. there is a "click" fee to use it.

Spotless works with 4, 5, 6, or 7 colors to create recipes to simulate any spot color library that is within gamut. It can use any CMYK inkset as well as any "extended" process colors to expand the gamut. It is also screening agnostic.

So your application would be the place to start in order to choose which solution is the best fit.

best, gordo

Disclosure: I helped develop the Spotless printing solution and was its marketing manager at Creo/Kodak until Nov 2008.

 

[meddington]

Quick comment with regard to line elements... elements that may have previously been reproduced with a single spot channel would now be made up of a screen or 2 or more inks, potentially introducing screening/registration issues and artifacts where none existed before. For example, a large solid field of a single spot color with knock out text may now become quite challenging for a printer to hold during production when reproduced as a multicolor screen. Consideration would need to be given to the design of the entire product when opting for an extended gamut approach.

 

[gordo]

Quick comment with regard to line elements... elements that may have previously been reproduced with a single spot channel would now be made up of a screen or 2 or more inks, potentially introducing screening/registration issues and artifacts where none existed before. For example, a large solid field of a single spot color with knock out text may now become quite challenging for a printer to hold during production when reproduced as a multicolor screen. Consideration would need to be given to the design of the entire product when opting for an extended gamut approach.

No more so than with knock outs in 4/C process. The replacement of spot colors with extended process color screen tint builds is used in labling, and packaging (including metal decorating) markets with both offset and flexo world-wide with great success. Among other benefits, it's a tremendous profit maker for the printer and cost saver for the print buyer. As one example, most of the grocery store house brand product labels in the US are printed using this method.

Best, gordo

 

[meddington]

I totally agree with all your points Gordo, however my point is when giving up a dedicated single spot color for multi-ink screens there are some caveats to go along with the benefits. As you're no longer dealing with a single ink film, a printer must balance multiple ink films to reproduce the emulated spot color, while also balancing any other imagery using those inks. A screened element may not look as smooth with coarser line screens compared to a dedicated spot channel. A single spot channel vignette is now two or three colors...potentially problematic, especially in highlights area with Flexo. These are of course issues that would be present when using process colors, but one shouldn't expect to simply convert legacy CMYK+Spot to expanded gamut without some consideration. And yeah, cost savings trumps these caveats in most cases.

 

[gordo]

I totally agree with all your points Gordo, however my point is when giving up a dedicated single spot color for multi-ink screens there are some caveats to go along with the benefits. As you're no longer dealing with a single ink film, a printer must balance multiple ink films to reproduce the emulated spot color, while also balancing any other imagery using those inks. A screened element may not look as smooth with coarser line screens compared to a dedicated spot channel. A single spot channel vignette is now two or three colors...potentially problematic, especially in highlights area with Flexo. These are of course issues that would be present when using process colors, but one shouldn't expect to simply convert legacy CMYK+Spot to expanded gamut without some consideration. And yeah, cost savings trumps these caveats in most cases.

In principle you're right. In practice it's not so clear cut.

There was a study comparing multi screen color to spot color with flexo that found that there's actually virtually no difference in color variation through the run. I used this study when marketing Spotless but had to leave it with Kodak when I left. I'll try and find the source and post it. GCR recipe builds (with flexo and offset) and FM screening (with offset) add a tremendous level of color stability.
Yes, it's more than simply converting legacy CMYK+Spot to expanded gamut. There are a whole bunch of business issues to deal with.
But once sorted out it's amazing.

best, gordo

 

[Galvatron]

In principle you're right. In practice it's not so clear cut.
But once sorted out it's amazing.

I appreciate the feedback gentlemen. We are very eager to get started.
As you have speculated, we are in packaging and the product we selected is Spotless. Our decision was based in part by it's flexibility and the ability to taylor the extended set to the gamut of spots we use. It's fairly easy to setup, but my concern would be consistency on press. Are we going to see variation from run to run? Our screening is FM and we are diligent at monitoring our pressroom variables constantly i.e. PH/COND, pressures etc.

 

[meddington]

Are we going to see variation from run to run? Our screening is FM and we are diligent at monitoring our pressroom variables constantly i.e. PH/COND, pressures etc.

I would expect you'd get a similar level of variation with expanded gamut that you are currently getting with 4/c process printing from run to run (or within a run). I'd certainly be interested in seeing the study Gordo mentions, but Its my opinion that tints will vary more than solids (visually if not measurably). And as Gordo mentioned, FM screening and GCR will add to stability.

You might find this article relevant: Flexo Magazine

 

[gordo]

Are we going to see variation from run to run? Our screening is FM and we are diligent at monitoring our pressroom variables constantly i.e. PH/COND, pressures etc.

When Spotless was being developed we tested the stability of a few screen tint builds against the actual spot color on a sheet fed press and found that Spotless was as stable and sometimes more stable. Spotless recipes use the minimum number of chromatic inks (usually 2) to make the match. It also uses maximum GCR to increase color stability on press. Using FM screening will also add stability as SIDs change and slight misregistration oc cur on press. In my experience with customers, color consistency was never brought up as an issue.

Where you may run into difficulty is in the initial set up. The extended process color inks, FM screening implementation, workflow optimization, and customer understanding (unless they are the ones pushing you to go Spotless).

BTW you made the right product choice.

Best, gordo

 

[Galvatron]

You might find this article relevant: Flexo Magazine

Very good article, thank you. I like his perspective on the application of expanded gamut. I think I'm going to pass this along to sales!

 

[gordo]

Very good article, thank you. I like his perspective on the application of expanded gamut. I think I'm going to pass this along to sales!

The article has some good points but also some incorrect information and missing much of the benefits of using this type of solution.

For example, the author talks about the limitations of ICC profiles in creating accurate screen tint builds to simulate spot colors. That is true for his employer EskoArtworks' solution, however it is not true for Spotless printing. It is why Spotless, unlike EskoArtwork, does not use ICC profiles to create the screen tint builds. Spotless uses a LUT instead in order to build press optimized screen tint builds.

He also says that screen tint builds vary more than single color builds then uses the example of CMY grey vs K to prove his point. However, a well designed spot color replacement system would never simulate grey with a 3 color screen tint build if K was available. The screen tint builds of a proper spot color replacement system are, in my experience and testing, as consistent through the run as single spot colors. What he is describing are the issues and limitations of EskoArtworks' solution only.

He also goes on about "the message of this article. Visually, spot colors created by extended gamut are not as accurate, but images can be much better." Again, he's talking about EskoArtworks' issues - and implying that is true for everyone else's product. That is simply incorrect.

I could go on - but this is not an article that I would share with sales people. Sales will need to be trained - but not with misleading, incorrect, and inappropriate information.

best, gordo

 

[meddington]

I think you may have misconstrued some points of the article. Esko does indeed use profiles, but in a manner much differently than a typical N-color ICC profile (as is outlined in the article). As a result, one will most often end up with a spot simulation using as few chromatic inks as possible...in most cases 2. I wouldn't think Esko's 2 color build would be any less stable than a 2 color build from Spotless, and I still maintain that as density varies, one would likely see the difference in the tints foremost rather than the solids. More over, at courser linescreens, larger fields of color are simply more appealing (at least to my eye) as a solid rather than a multi-ink screen. I also found Esko's module for addressing continuous tone imagery to be quite intelligent when compared to using traditional N-color ICC profiles.

Sorry, not to take sides as I feel both are respectable solutions. And I am a proponent of expanded gamut printing, but I feel the driving force behind expanded gamut is less about visual appeal as it is reduced cost/time to shelf.

 

[gordo]

I think you may have misconstrued some points of the article.[SNIP]

Quite possibly. It was early in the morning so I reread the article.

I am a proponent of expanded gamut printing, but I feel the driving force behind expanded gamut is less about visual appeal as it is reduced cost/time to shelf.

That's where I agree with you but both you and I disagree with the article. And it's why I would not give it to sales people.

He makes these points (I've used quotes from the article)

The issues with simulating spot colors out of extended process screen tint builds:
1- "Tints vary more than solid colors."
2- "The brain is more sensitive to "blocks" of color than to images."
3- "ICC profiles are not very good for seven-color process colors." (But he does mention a solution.)
4- "Print consistency." Basically a restating of tints vary more than solid colors.
5- "Proofing is not perfect."
6- "Visually, spot colors created by extended gamut are not as accurate as the spot colors themselves."

The benefits:
1- "It's more economical because you save time in makeready and you can gang jobs."
2- "Images can be much better."

Bottom line take away from the article is that simulating spot colors out of extended process screen tint builds is problematic but you can save time in makeready and you can gang jobs. Instead, the key benefit of extended process printing is in making the images much better so that "With enhanced graphics we can catch the consumer's eyes with creative packaging ideas."

That's not the message that I would want my sales people to get from an investment in Spotless technology (or any other process spot color simulation solution).

best, gordo

 

[Deleted member 16349]

Spotless uses a LUT instead in order to build press optimized screen tint builds.

Gordon, just curious. How many points are measured to build the LUT?

I am suspecting a certain number of points measured with the rest of the LUT made by interpolation.

Thanks for any comments.

 

[gordo]

Gordon, just curious. How many points are measured to build the LUT?

I am suspecting a certain number of points measured with the rest of the LUT made by interpolation.

Thanks for any comments.

I don't believe that I'm permitted to speak to that (NDA). Also I don't want to be an apologist for Kodak Spotless technology. It's Kodak's place to be respond to this thread and/or support this customer. I'm only responding because I have experience with this product (which is what the OP asked for). (And it was one of my babies at Creo/Kodak)

best, gordo

 

[Deleted member 16349]

I don't believe that I'm permitted to speak to that (NDA). Also I don't want to be an apologist for Kodak Spotless technology. It's Kodak's place to be respond to this thread and/or support this customer. I'm only responding because I have experience with this product (which is what the OP asked for). (And it was one of my babies at Creo/Kodak)

best, gordo

OK, I think I understand your position.

I like the LUT approach and think it is the future solution for colour management in general.