For the love of god

[gig0]

CAN SOMEONE GIVE ME THE CMYK BREAKDOWN OF 485 HERE IN 2013?


All I have is 100m, 91y according to my trusty old 20 year old Pantone spot to CMYK swatch book, yet I have designers telling me 100m, 100y is teh correct conversion! HALP ME!!!

 

[Stephen Marsh]

What is the final CMYK print condition/destination? ISO Coated, GRACoL C1 etc?

CMYK values are just a bunch of device dependent numbers. The Pantone 485 has a known device independent Lab colour value, however we need a known device dependent colour space to describe the CMYK values.

Pantone Plus 485 Coated (current) = L*49.7 a*69.1 b*54.6

Pantone 485 Solid Coated (older) = L*50.1 a*69.5 b*58.5

____

Pantone Solid to Process (older, hard wired values) = 95m 100y

Pantone Color Bridge 485 EC (hard wired values) = 96m 100y

Pantone Color Bridge 485 PC (hard wired values) = 93m 95y

As you can see, the above CMYK recipe values for device dependent output vary, depending on the destination print condition! It is an industry fallacy that there is one single set of magic CMYK numbers that are a "correct" simulation of a particular Pantone colour (even if the colour is in gamut).

When one knows the final print condition, then one can work out the appropriate recipe of CMYK values that can match the known Lab values.


Stephen Marsh

 

[gig0]

Thanks Stephen. Just standard SWOP coated.

I've tried the 485 conversion in Photoshop and InDesign using many different profiles and still can't find a mix that results in 100m/100y destination. The designer thought it would make sense to use some (random?) CMYK swatch conversion of 485 instead of just leaving the 485 in their design and let us do the conversion through our profiles. The end result is a mess, as you would expect. Thanks for the feedback. I found your comment about 'industry standard' for simulation profiles enlightening.

 

[gordo]

If it's standard SWOP then why the heck is the "designer" specifying a Pantone Spot Color. If he wants 100m/100y then why doesn't he just create a color with those screen tint values?

Errrrrrr, ummmmm. I dunno what came over me.

Never mind.

8-P

Gordo

 

[gig0]

If it's standard SWOP then why the heck is the "designer" specifying a Pantone Spot Color.

They didn't, until after the fact. I'm just trying to figure out how this designer came to the conclusion that 485 = 100m/100y.

 

[Stephen Marsh]

They didn't, until after the fact. I'm just trying to figure out how this designer came to the conclusion that 485 = 100m/100y.

Because 485 is bright red and one does not get a CMYK red any purer than 100my? :]

In this case, the customer is probably "correct" (independent of the client always being correct).

P.S. I think that you will find that a process simulation of Pantone Plus 485 is out of gamut for SWOP T3 paper, so it is probably a moot point anyway what the "correct" CMYK breakup is.


Stephen Marsh

 

[maas]

If it's standard SWOP then why the heck is the "designer" specifying a Pantone Spot Color. If he wants 100m/100y then why doesn't he just create a color with those screen tint values?

Errrrrrr, ummmmm. I dunno what came over me.

Never mind.

8-P

Gordo

Gordo, the designer found a colour that spoke to them on their monitor (as an art director explained to me once), colour space, profiles, gamut, density cmyk etc is irrelevant terminology to cloud the design aesthetic and thus curb the creative genius of someone who sees themselves on a higher plain than ordinary printers.

I was send an email yesterday requesting to match a fluro pink colour the designer wants to see in print, when my response was we cannot match this colour in CMYK i was asked to recommend a web offset printer that could

 

[Deleted member 16349]

If it's standard SWOP then why the heck is the "designer" specifying a Pantone Spot Color. If he wants 100m/100y then why doesn't he just create a color with those screen tint values?

Errrrrrr, ummmmm. I dunno what came over me.

Never mind.

8-P

Gordo

Gordon, it seems to me that there is always this conflict between what customers might want and what printers might be able to deliver.

I understand that all colours are not going to be printable and that often printers complain that the customers are unreasonable.

The whole issue about wanting to print to a standard is part of the problem and is the fault of printers limiting what they can print.

In your view, how much more of a gamut could printers print if they used non standard ink sets?

Would it help to satisfy some of the customers needs?

 

[gordo]

Gordon, it seems to me that there is always this conflict between what customers might want and what printers might be able to deliver.

I understand that all colours are not going to be printable and that often printers complain that the customers are unreasonable.

The whole issue about wanting to print to a standard is part of the problem and is the fault of printers limiting what they can print.

In your view, how much more of a gamut could printers print if they used non standard ink sets?

Would it help to satisfy some of the customers needs?

IMHO, the problem of wanting to print to a standard is not (part of) the problem. The problem is that printers seem unable to realize that their shop can print to more than one standard. This is one of the key opportunities that a CtP workflow and digital proofing enables - but is seldom leveraged. It's as if a clothing store only carried one color of one type of clothing or one brand and size of TV. So long as all the other stores carried the same then stores would compete on pricing and customers would have no where to go for an alternative. Both supplier and customer would be disgruntled - the supplier because of their low to no profits and the customer because they couldn't achieve their goals.

I know that in packaging a number of printers use non standard ink sets to expand the gamut to simulate a wider range of custom spot colors (e.g. over 90% in the case of Pantone's library) however this is still rare. But those printers who do it are much more profitable and are able to more effectively meet customer expectations (and hence are better able to bind their customers to their shops to shut out competition).

But, unfortunately, the vast majority of printers seem unable to think outside the tin of ink and prefer to stay the course on the well travelled path.

best, gordo

 

[Deleted member 16349]

But, unfortunately, the vast majority of printers seem unable to think outside the tin of ink and prefer to stay the course on the well travelled path.

best, gordo

It also does not help when the experts tell printers to print to some standard. The experts should develop the technologies to make it easier to print what ever target is needed.

The whole concept of printing to a standard based on process targets instead of actual final colour results, is a faulty concept in my view and it has just covered up the problem of obtaining process consistency and predictability, which is really what needs to be addressed.

It is the experts in the industry who have not taken a credible leadership role with this problem. They haven't because they don't really know what to do, other than doing the same old thing. Everyone suffers.

 

[gordo]

It also does not help when the experts tell printers to print to some standard. The experts should develop the technologies to make it easier to print what ever target is needed.

The whole concept of printing to a standard based on process targets instead of actual final colour results, is a faulty concept in my view and it has just covered up the problem of obtaining process consistency and predictability, which is really what needs to be addressed.

It is the experts in the industry who have not taken a credible leadership role with this problem. They haven't because they don't really know what to do, other than doing the same old thing. Everyone suffers.

Well, there is value to printing to an industry defined standard:

The Print Guide: Press and proof alignment strategies

And there is a notion that printing to a standard based on process targets - specifications - will lead to a fairly predictable result (and hence meet customer expectations).

The technologies do exist to make it easier to print what ever target is needed. They are just not being developed and promoted as solutions/opportunities by the current crop of vendors and "experts."
Perhaps it's a lack of vision, a lack of perceived ROI, or a lack of understanding the business needs of the printers (as you wrote: they "don't really know what to do, other than doing the same old thing"). Maybe it's a bit of all these issues.

I'm not optimistic that the situation will change.

gordo

 

[Correct Color]

CAN SOMEONE GIVE ME THE CMYK BREAKDOWN OF 485 HERE IN 2013?

No.

Because it doesn't exist.

What PMS 485 is, is 8 parts Pantone Yellow, and 8 parts Pantone Rubine Red.

If you mix some of that up, and print it on the exact some coated stock that Pantone used to print their solid coated books, that will get you a L*a*b* value of 47;67;53.

And it's that L*a*b* value that's PMS 485.

So, if that L*a*b* value is in the gamut of your printer, then you can match PMS 485 exactly. However, since no two CMYK devices print exactly the same, and since you're probably not printing on the exact same stock Pantone used to print the books, all you can say about whatever CMYK build it takes to get there, is that it's going to be unique for every device, and for every media.


Mike Adams

 

[buckeye]

Well put Correct Color.

Erik

 

[KamilT]

Dear Erik,
I am afraid that the whole problem is a growing shortage of quality operators - printers and designers.
I'm part of both worlds, so I can compare. Many are frozen in time 10 years ago, many have come to the business now and the first thing seen is ACS5 - and they produce scary things. Yesterday i saw a design manual for a global company, created the agency in New York, where "designer" create color combinations for the case that will be used spot colors, RGB version, CMYK version .. OK, but what the hell, it uses CMYK color like C0 M60 Y100, K3?? Maybe everybody going crazy?

Best,

KamilT

 

[kewlbigdan]

my trusty old 20 year old Pantone spot to CMYK swatch book, yet I have designers telling me 100m, 100y is teh correct conversion! HALP ME!!!

Pantone have indeed changed their swatches, TWICE since your trusty book came out!
In 2000 pantone changed the value of 485C from 100m, 91y to 95m, 100y.
Then again in the new Pantone plus series (2011?) 485C was changed once again to 100m 100y. (edit: the new pantone plus is LAB based and the cmyk is just a colorspace conversion. Am I right on this one guys? but us Prepress guys work in definable spaces, and mine says 100m 100y)

This is really crazy when using CS6 using the pantone C series and opening a doc in CS5 which converts it to the older values. Of course if you open a CS5 in CS6 it pulls in the old series values so they dont match the new color values of any new CS6 doc. We went looney toones trying to figure this one out last year.

Why Pantone just didnt add a + at the end of the new series instead of naming it the exact same thing...

 

[kewlbigdan]

No.

Because it doesn't exist.

Mike Adams
Correct Color

Technically correct but this technical talk isn't going to help him solve his 'Designer' issues.
Currently in CS6, which your designers are probably using as their color Bible, 485C is 100m 100y (with the right settings). I usually find arguing with the design department about their art colors detrimental to my head and the wall.

 

[rich apollo]

Technically correct but this technical talk isn't going to help him solve his 'Designer' issues.

This is a bit of a seachange moment. People are going to have to adopt some new workplace practices. The original poster's request for, "...THE CMYK BREAKDOWN OF 485...," is a little like asking which hammer is the one to use on phillips-head screws.

PANTONE Plus has new color definitions for the entire library of colors. The inks were printed at new ink film thicknesses, on different substrates than before, and then remeasured. ALL of the color definitions have changed, some of them significantly. The color in question, PANTONE 485, changed 1.5 ∆E(ab). It's a whole new ball game.

On one point I agree, kewlbigdan, I wish that PANTONE had appended the color names.

 

[Correct Color]

Rich,

ALL of the color definitions have changed, some of them significantly.

Not all of them. None of the ink formulas have changed. The main reason for the shift in L*a*b* values from the old books to Plus is simply that they were printed on different (supposedly "greener") media. With Plus, they added some colors and very quietly abandoned a few, but for the ones that remain, they're still the same ink formulas they always were.

I wouldn't be surprised if at some point in the next few years, they start using L*a*b* values as the 'official' definitions of their colors; but as of now, the ink formulas are, and none of them have changed.


kewlbigdan

Technically correct but this technical talk isn't going to help him solve his 'Designer' issues.

Can't say as I agree. Believe me, I've been around long enough to know that many 'designers' hate the idea of color management, and just want to specify a color and have it appear.

But that doesn't change that things work. The sooner the OP understands that there's no single 'official' CMYK definition for any PMS color, the sooner he'll quit wasting his time looking for something that doesn't exist.


Mike Adams
Correct Color

 

[gig0]

Currently in CS6, which your designers are probably using as their color Bible, 485C is 100m 100y (with the right settings).

What wizardry is this?! I tried a few CMS settings in CS6 and never got that recipe!

The sooner the OP understands that there's no single 'official' CMYK definition for any PMS color, the sooner he'll quit wasting his time looking for something that doesn't exist.


Mike Adams
Correct Color

There is a CMYK recipe for 485 in our Prinergy workflow IF the designer would've used a 485 swatch in the design and let us handle the conversion in the first place

Instead, they choose to use their own formula and didn't tell us until AFTER the proofing stage that it looked too 'orange' and needed to be closer to 485. Now we get to re-process/re-proof 3GB of files with dielines, probably at no cost just because we don't wear mind reading hats. Fun fun!

 

[rich apollo]

Not all of them. None of the ink formulas have changed. The main reason for the shift in L*a*b* values from the old books to Plus is simply that they were printed on different (supposedly "greener") media. With Plus, they added some colors and very quietly abandoned a few, but for the ones that remain, they're still the same ink formulas they always were.

The formulae didn't change; that is correct, but the official L*a*b* values have changed for all of the colors.