GRACoL 7 - spectro with UV at end of name

[disbellj]

That's a good idea Rich, but would solids be much off using UV-filtered spectro vs non-UV-filtered (since this is the first step before NPDC)? If the L* values are similar using UV-filtered vs not along the whole scale, I can plug the L values from the target into an NPDC calculator I made, and it will convert the L* to density values, I minus paper, and plot the NPDC. This still doesn't say that the actual Lab values of the colors are going to be close though, right? That is where my main concern is: If I want to match a color on a printed piece a customer brings in and ask me to match, if I want to use the standard profile for converting captured Lab values to CMYK values, then this is where I see the problems coming in. Not at press NPDC so much, but converting Lab captured using UV-filtration, and converting it to CMYK profile that doesn't use UV filtration. Will it look the same when printed as if I had captured that color from the printed piece not using UV filtration and converting to official profile that doesn't use it. And my concern lies in mainly the light colors area (pastels aka colors with equal to or less than say 20% of any process color).

Regards,

Don

You can also use a densitometer to set the gray balance. Include one of Don Hutcheson's old Gray Finder targets on the test form. Measure the patches with with all filters on. Neutral is the patch at which the filters all read equal. The target tells you the adjustment to make.

 

[glenncolorguy]

UV Cut Confusion

UV Cut Confusion

For some reason, proofing manufacturers almost always supply UV cut devices withe their systems (probably because from a scientist's point of view it seemed like a "clean" approach at the time).

Unfortunately, such readings often don't correspond to what we actually see. A sheet with optical brighteners will look blue to us but may measure as neutral when using a UV cut instrument.

Taking a quick at the larger question, it is simply not correct for a grayscale printed on a bluish paper to be uniformly neutral. The paper is part of the image, and a perfectly neutral grayscale is not something to be desired when printing onto a strongly bluish paper.

IDEAlink curve tool does a good job scaling NPDC to paper white. Unfortunately, GRACoL verification, tied to a fictional and fixed 0a* -2b* whitepoint has tended to lag in this respect, often causing perfectly good G7 sheets produced on bluish papers to get false fails.

 

[meddington]

Good points Glenn...

Taking a quick at the larger question, it is simply not correct for a grayscale printed on a bluish paper to be uniformly neutral. The paper is part of the image, and a perfectly neutral grayscale is not something to be desired when printing onto a strongly bluish paper.

Yes. From the point of view of the proof though, the problem arises in the simulation of the GracolCoated1 white point on a paper with optical brighteners. As it is, there isn't fool proof method for ensuring an accurate white point for a given paper with OB content, given instrument and viewing conditions. best results in these situation can be subjective. Of course if one's press stock deviates from 0a*, -2b*, one would have to consider what's more important...matching the charaterization data white point, or the white point of the actual print stock.

Unfortunately, GRACoL verification, tied to a fictional and fixed 0a* -2b* whitepoint has tended to lag in this respect, often causing perfectly good G7 sheets produced on bluish papers to get false fails.

True. Additionally, there has been some discussion in the Gracol committee of "paper relative" scaling when evaluating press sheets.

 

[disbellj]

Maybe I should tell my boss to wait another couple years.

 

[glenncolorguy]

OB's, UV, job stock and characterization data

OB's, UV, job stock and characterization data

Good points Glenn...



Yes. From the point of view of the proof though, the problem arises in the simulation of the GracolCoated1 white point on a paper with optical brighteners. As it is, there isn't fool proof method for ensuring an accurate white point for a given paper with OB content, given instrument and viewing conditions. best results in these situation can be subjective. Of course if one's press stock deviates from 0a*, -2b*, one would have to consider what's more important...matching the charaterization data white point, or the white point of the actual print stock.

True. Additionally, there has been some discussion in the Gracol committee of "paper relative" scaling when evaluating press sheets.

Mike,

It is true that simulating GRACoL C1 with an OB paper is tricky. OB's confuse the process in unpredictable ways.

But most "real" #1 sheets contain OB's and strong -b* values. Matching characterization data white point is important to color experts, but matching the white point of the actual job stock is important to clients, so I'd go with the people who are paying the bills...the clients.

Hopefully, adoption of paper relative scaling will reduce this conflict and make it possible to satisfy both needs

 

[disbellj]

OK guys, an update:

Kodak came in, and the Eye-One Pro does have UV cut.
The Kodak MatchPrint Proofing Solution (proofing on SM240P proofing paper) I believe was told to me to be UV cut required. I believe today that I was told that this may not be the case and maybe I can use no UV filter with the software (would be nice, especially if what I find gets the boss to maybe request proofing and press papers more in line with the standard white point so UV filtration was not needed in proofing, so that same type of intrument can be used in all places in workflow).

Today I found they also delivered an XRite spectrodensitometer 500 series that I was told does not have UV filter on by default. So it looks like I can use this to scan Lab values from a printed piece or proof for reproduction, and to also verify my proofs (although not meant to per the software expert, but I'll have to confirm tomorrow), since the XRite 500 series is meant to be used at press.

So we are going to set up to GRACoL 7 for coated paper (and also FOGRA 29 for uncoated paper since there is no ICC profile for paper type #4 using G7, and FORGRA 29 looks pretty close) using a spectro that does not have a UV filter. Since I haven't been told someone is coming in to do it, I will probably be the one to do it, and have no qualms about it as long as I have the non-UV-cut spectro and I think white backing, and of course my calculators (although I'd love to see the difference between my results and IDEAlink Curve 2, but that may or may not happen).

Thank you ALL for your replies.

I will probably keep everyone updated in this thread with possibly Excel calculators I made and information I may learn as I go - that although pertains to my situation, may also help someone else who reads this.

Regards,

Don

 

[disbellj]

Disregard what I said before about the 500 series that's supposed to be used at press. It's just a densitometer.

Now that we have a Certified proof (which I can't validate as being within tolerances myself, since I only have two UVcut spectros and no UV included spectros, so my calculator does no good when comparing apples and oranges), my boss decided he wanted to make some plates and put on press to see what we get. This is as bad as Kodak saying to basically do the same thing, send them a press sheet of our current condition and they'd make a press profile for us to use in proofing.

(Note: We just set proofing up to match GRACoL2006 / GRACoL 7 using the included certified GRACoL profile in our proofing solution, so we don't need to have a custom ICC profile made, although we most likely paid for it already, and having a GRACoL 7 proof is not going to magically make the press print to GRACoL 7).

Why is it I feel like I'm in bizzaro world?

(monumental rant following)

It's like running full speed ahead into a brick wall trying to get anybody to see what I'm talking about. It would have been much easier for me to have stayed ignorant and let them stay ignorant too. My boss just wants to get it over and have it done with, and doesn't care about the details. He'd rather just not know them and let someone take care of it. No wonder he gets sold crap by "experts" who really don't seem to EVER do all that needs to be done. They take care of press but don't think/care about prepress, or vice versa.

Same old story. Nobody seems to take everything into account - prepress AND press. These are supposed to work together.

And frankly, I've become more apathetic since I used to post here, so I really easily get to the point I don't care anymore. I just get easily pissed off and wonder why I give a crap at all anymore. I try to save the boss about $3,300 on hard drive and RAM upgrades for a new Mac Pro 8-core, and the boss gets mad because I didn't tell him everything I needed while he was standing in the Apple store. I got a new Mac so I should be happy right? Well, I took a couple weeks building it up, and it's not backed up, so no I'm not happy about the fact that it could crash and all that time would be wasted that I spent, and I would have to start over again. All because I didn't ask for the HD when I ordered the damn machine. I never intended to buy the HD and RAM upgrades from Apple. I wasn't expecting a thank you, but I hardly expected for him to get mad. So I was in a funk through new years (yeah this happened on New Years Eve). And now everything I had asked for or talked about gets delivered and I'm supposed to make it work, although not one damn thing is as I asked for.

Actually, that's not true. I do have my image centered in the proofing paper (so I got one thing I asked for and actually insisted on), and it took 3 days for the proofer installer tech to do that. And to think: I should have been getting actual training at that time, but the time was wasted trying to get an image to center in a piece of paper. 3 days. Why? Because we are doing imposition proofs on a 7880 instead of me getting the wider printer that I asked for which would have made this easy. So we live with what we got, and they had to make it work.

Again, why is it I feel like I'm in bizzaro world? And why do I give a crap at all?

(end of rant - for now)

Don

 

[stargate]

If you can quit and save yourself lots of stress. Stress kills, just like cancer.

 

[glenncolorguy]

Intentional Ignorance

Intentional Ignorance

It's like running full speed ahead into a brick wall trying to get anybody to see what I'm talking about. It would have been much easier for me to have stayed ignorant and let them stay ignorant too. My boss just wants to get it over and have it done with, and doesn't care about the details. He'd rather just not know them and let someone take care of it. No wonder he gets sold crap by "experts" who really don't seem to EVER do all that needs to be done. They take care of press but don't think/care about prepress, or vice versa.

Same old story. Nobody seems to take everything into account - prepress AND press. These are supposed to work together.

Don

This is really the central problem, much more than UV vs Non UV, and certainly deserves its own thread.

The print industry has drifted over the years into permanent crisis management mode, ignoring the larger view and never thinking in terms of systems, only in individual fires that need to be stomped out quickly.

 

[disbellj]

Well, I'm not to the point yet that I can quit, but this is why I started researching trading Forex a couple years ago. I look forward to a day when I will be my own boss on my own schedule. Not complaining really. I have it better than most. Unless something like this happens (new equipment, etc., which is almost never), then I do what I do and get left alone, which is how I like it.

Until then, I have determined to try and get the company I work for into a place that they will be in good shape when I leave. It's just I'm not that good at communication and/or they aren't. I couldn't do their job, but I do know mine pretty well. I'd say more than the average prepress person for sure. But that's because I've been doing it for almost 15 years now.

I can't expect them to understand me I guess. That's why I lay blame at the vendors, because they should recommend the full solution. They knew we were moving to GRACoL. They knew we wanted to replace our wide Sherpa 2 proofer. They gave us the wrong printer, and then recommend we make a profile of our press in the current condition, gave no instructions on GRACoL for press, and also give us a spectrodensitometer I thought, but it doesn't have Lab values from what I can see, only a main menu that has density and dot gain, so it's just a densitometer.

If I was ignorant of something, I would hire experts too. If I am ignorant of something, I mainly ask the experts here. I don't mind not knowing something and being ignorant of it. We're all ignorant of something (more than one thing, because none of us know everything, and who would want to anyways). But if I'm wrong, I want to learn what is right. But not everyone is like that. They just would rather pay for someone to make it right.

But when the experts are not doing the right thing, what is the avenue for someone that doesn't even know it? Without me being their pain in the ass, the company I work for wouldn't know they weren't given what they need. They would make the order, the people would come in and deliver something, install it, and I'd have to work with what they installed, whether it is what was ordered or not, or needed or not. Because normally I wouldn't know what was ordered. I wouldn't know it until one day it was delivered and installed.

And all I can do is either shut up or say the problems I see compared to what I asked for. This is the first time I have been asked my opinion. Before this, the vendor would just make a recommendation, and that is what would be done. This time, I was asked, made my recommendations, and still got what the vendor decided to give, and I'm so pissed off I have to say something to the boss and ask why they even fool with the ignorant vendors anyways and not go straight to X-Rite like I recommended, and let the chips fall where they may. I'm to the point of telling him to get me an Eye One without a UV filter, and I'll use the free GMG software at press to see if I can get them set up to GRACoL at press since nobody else (it seems) has bothered to look into doing this.

Regards,

Don

If you can quit and save yourself lots of stress. Stress kills, just like cancer.

 

[disbellj]

Maybe the printing industry at large is like that, but this is not a fire that needed put out. There were no complaints from customers. There almost never are. I run a tight ship, so things just flow. I guess you could say the company has it easier than others because of how I run the prepress department.

So they had the time to make the right decision, and even do research on what I had told them, with the people I recommended, but again relied on vendors like they do everytime. And I'd have no problems with it if the vendors actually listened. But they don't, and it's painfully obvious. I know what I needed. They obviously don't. And they are "helping" me (man have I heard that enough for one lifetime from people who are clueless themselves, and yet they can be arrogant like they know what I need and they can do it, yet I find gaping holes in implementation). If it was all set up right (and really it doesn't require THAT much, just the right tools and knowledge), then I expect it to be like it has been for at least the last 7 years or more: two profiles - one for coated paper, one for uncoated paper - and not having to update these. Just set it and forget it (well, check calibration, but profiling should only have to be done once IME, but since I am aiming to standard ICC profiles, then setting the press up via G7 is all that's needed, and they have no clue). But I've waited literally years for new equipment and for the company to move to GRACoL (for the sake of designers, because I am an artist), and I once again get stuck with basically what I did not need, or at least not all I needed.

Regards,

Don

This is really the central problem, much more than UV vs Non UV, and certainly deserves its own thread.

The print industry has drifted over the years into permanent crisis management mode, ignoring the larger view and never thinking in terms of systems, only in individual fires that need to be stomped out quickly.

 

[prepresscolor]

UV filters were used a few years back to create profiles on the inkjet printers which used papers with "whiteners or Brighteners" in them. The UV filter is not necessary in the Press profiling or for most of the inkjet printers used today. Just stay away from the "extra Bright/white papers which no one wants their proofs on anyway.

 

[disbellj]

prepresscolor,

I totally understand. And what you said is why I believe why we received the spectro with UVcut. Easier than changing paper.

UV filters were used a few years back to create profiles on the inkjet printers which used papers with "whiteners or Brighteners" in them. The UV filter is not necessary in the Press profiling or for most of the inkjet printers used today. Just stay away from the "extra Bright/white papers which no one wants their proofs on anyway.

 

[GFYE]

You cannot use a non-UVcut device with you MPI. The MatchPrint InkJet's calibration system is designed from its inception to use UV filtered spectro's and will not even allow you to measure a calibration strip if it detects an unfiltered device. The system used is the same one that was initially developed for the Veris (actually the Iris) proofing system.

In my time spent delivering color, press, and G7 services for Creo and then Kodak I always carried at least two spectro's.

Was Kodak made aware that you wanted to use the provided spectro for G7 calibration?

Gary

 

[disbellj]

Gary,

I can't say whether they were made aware or not. Since I have talked to my boss this morning, and we don't have the funds to get a G7 expert in here, and since Terry Wyse said in an email conversation "At the point ink is printing 100%, paper OBAs are not of great concern", then I will probably use the Eye-One with UVcut to measure ink solids and overprints, and probably use a densitometer to get gray balance correct per what Rich said. I'm being told to put linear plates on press and see what we get, which means to me I must take my Eye-One spectro I have that has UVcut, install Colorport on PC by press, and try to get him within tolerance for solids and overprints, and then take that sheet to prepress and analyze by plugging densities into my NPDC calculator. I wish it weren't this way (the Kodak image I'm being asked to print doesn't even have the correct NPDC blocks, so I can't even see how I'm going to do this), but I must work with what I have and try to do what is being asked.

Update: I decided I need the right tools, and because our vendor screwed up our order on our proofer that I asked for, I figured they screwed up the device they gave us too. So I asked my boss if we were supposed to get spectro function in that spectro-densitometer that was delivered (with no instructions to me on what I was supposed to do with it). He said that they (Pitman) knew we wanted to get set up to GRACoL. I asked why they didn't mention it while they were here, and why I only had density and dot gain functions on the "spectro"densitometer. So I left it in his hands.

If I ever get the right equipment (spectro without UVcut filter), this shouldn't be that difficult I don't think, but could be wrong. I do know there are multiple programs that would make it easy. Unfortunately, my boss or I ask for what we ask for, and got delivered something different on each thing we asked for. This doesn't say much for the vendors to me. Even if my boss doesn't know what should be done, the vendors should. But instead, I've got about nothing but headache from them. It's like pulling teeth just to get what should be done done. It should be easy. I'm done with the rant. Thank everyone for their input.

Regards,

Don

You cannot use a non-UVcut device with you MPI. The MatchPrint InkJet's calibration system is designed from its inception to use UV filtered spectro's and will not even allow you to measure a calibration strip if it detects an unfiltered device. The system used is the same one that was initially developed for the Veris (actually the Iris) proofing system.

In my time spent delivering color, press, and G7 services for Creo and then Kodak I always carried at least two spectro's.

Was Kodak made aware that you wanted to use the provided spectro for G7 calibration?

Gary

 

[Mike Strickler]

Vendor Malaise

Vendor Malaise

Hi Don. This is really of course about something much bigger than what sort of spectro one should buy; it's about the industry in general. Where do we begin? Probably with the inception of digital imaging technologies. Printers were rather quickly forced from a world they knew into one they didn't, and they've never caught up. And it's not getting any easier. This makes them vulnerable to those who claim to have all the answers, and it is primarily the vendors who have stepped forward. As you say, if you're lucky they'll know the products they sell; they almost never have the whole picture. Sometimes the "help" is disingenuous; there is a lot of overselling of redundant or inappropriate "solutions" that often leave the real problem unaddressed. Those of us who do specialize in integrative problem solving, which can be time-consuming and expensive, find ourselves competing with vendors' bundled "services" that are half-hearted and superficial swipes at a problem and no actual bargain at all. (The G7 Master program is struggling with this attempted, and partly successful, co-opting by ink, paper, and equipment manufacturers--my personal opinion, by the way.) But there are some exceptions. I know of at least two graphic arts suppliers in the Midwest who have made technical services a real specialty, and they are also active in the organizations that set the standards and educate the industry. I know some ink and paper companies that are exemplary in this way. Find them, and reward them with your business. They won't give away this knowledge, but that's actually a good sign that they have something of value to offer. And don't forget your independent service providers and consultants. Many of them actually can tell you that use of a UV-filtering spectrophotometer will result in a large b* error when measuring substrates containing even moderate levels of UV fluorescing agents and are thus best avoided for general use. As for your boss, well, try to point him in the right direction. There is help if he wants it.

Best regards,

Mike Strickler
IDEAlliance G7 Expert
MSP Graphic Services

 

[disbellj]

Mike,

I couldn't agree more. I'm sure you have seen much more than I have.

Kodak came through for us since I demanded to get my image centered in the middle of the proofing sheet of the short printer we were delivered. I wasn't going to be stuck trying to do it. I've done it before. To heck with that. This is why imposition should be done on a 9800 and not a 7800 if the widest press sheet is over 22" IMHO. It took 4 days for them to make this workaround work, and another few days with me on the phone getting setup the rest of the way since I missed training because of the imposition not backing up correctly (came down to one setting, like usual).

But Kodak did hang in there, and I am happy as of right now with their solution. It worked out well afterall. Tech support was helpful, and we'll end up being able to use both our old and new Epson for imposition and contract proofing (by changing the old Epson to different inks and paper, the same as what the new Epson runs).

The press still has to get worked out, but I was able to import my custom (current) press profile into Kodak MPI, so I can proof to current press ICC profiles, or specifications/standard ICC profiles, on both old and new proofers. Although Kodak will not support my "backup" of Kodak MPI, I backup my machines anyways, I don't need approval from anybody to do so. I have transferred the physical mahine into a virtual machine on my Mac in Parallels as my way to back up the system, since our external IT support nor vendors have NEVER recommended a backup solution for prepress computers (I wonder why? Oh yeah, they make money if your stuff breaks down).

So I am in good shape at this point, and will implement GRACoL2006_Coated1v2 and FOGRA47 as circumstances permit. As far as the UV issue, I figured we didn't get what we asked for, and it turns out we didn't. Why they stick with Pitman I will never know. Why not just bypass them and go straight to their vendors (X-Rite, Epson, etc.)?

Regards,

Don

Hi Don. This is really of course about something much bigger than what sort of spectro one should buy; it's about the industry in general. Where do we begin? Probably with the inception of digital imaging technologies. Printers were rather quickly forced from a world they knew into one they didn't, and they've never caught up. And it's not getting any easier. This makes them vulnerable to those who claim to have all the answers, and it is primarily the vendors who have stepped forward. As you say, if you're lucky they'll know the products they sell; they almost never have the whole picture. Sometimes the "help" is disingenuous; there is a lot of overselling of redundant or inappropriate "solutions" that often leave the real problem unaddressed. Those of us who do specialize in integrative problem solving, which can be time-consuming and expensive, find ourselves competing with vendors' bundled "services" that are half-hearted and superficial swipes at a problem and no actual bargain at all. (The G7 Master program is struggling with this attempted, and partly successful, co-opting by ink, paper, and equipment manufacturers--my personal opinion, by the way.) But there are some exceptions. I know of at least two graphic arts suppliers in the Midwest who have made technical services a real specialty, and they are also active in the organizations that set the standards and educate the industry. I know some ink and paper companies that are exemplary in this way. Find them, and reward them with your business. They won't give away this knowledge, but that's actually a good sign that they have something of value to offer. And don't forget your independent service providers and consultants. Many of them actually can tell you that use of a UV-filtering spectrophotometer will result in a large b* error when measuring substrates containing even moderate levels of UV fluorescing agents and are thus best avoided for general use. As for your boss, well, try to point him in the right direction. There is help if he wants it.

Best regards,

Mike Strickler
IDEAlliance G7 Expert
MSP Graphic Services

 

[GFYE]

Even if my boss doesn't know what should be done, the vendors should. But instead, I've got about nothing but headache from them. It's like pulling teeth just to get what should be done done.

IMHO it is a mistake to assume that your sales reps know all of the pieces of the puzzle. There are some good ones out there, and there are some not so good ones. Even the good ones cannot be expected to know everything about everything. To many, 'G7' is nothing more than a press fingerprint service.

Don't let the UV/non UV issue prevent you from progressing. I've measured plenty of targets using both UV and non-UV, and yes you will certainly find a b* error on certain substrates but chances are there are many things in your shop that will have a greater effect on your results. Are you tracking the stability of your CTP system? Are the chillers on your press working properly? What kind of density and TVI variation do you find from operator side to gear side on your press? How about from gripper to tail? How consistent is your paper?

These things (and dozens more) will cause you more headaches than the filter on your spectro.

Although Kodak will not support my "backup" of Kodak MPI, I backup my machines anyways, I don't need approval from anybody to do so. I have transferred the physical mahine into a virtual machine on my Mac in Parallels as my way to back up the system, since our external IT support nor vendors have NEVER recommended a backup solution for prepress computers (I wonder why? Oh yeah, they make money if your stuff breaks down).

The MPI has its own backup in place. When you backup from within the administrator all of your layouts, profiles, and settings are archived. If one of your disks fails then your field technician can simply replace the drive, restore the OS and software from DVD and then restore your proofer settings.

 

[disbellj]

THIS IS NOT MEANT TO SOUND SNOTTY, I'M JUST NOT TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR OTHERS MISTAKES, AREAS, ETC.

"Are you tracking the stability of your CTP system?"

Yes. And it is basically linear by default. I don't need to use a curve to linearize. I just checked it again yesterday.

"Are the chillers on your press working properly? What kind of density and TVI variation do you find from operator side to gear side on your press? How about from gripper to tail? How consistent is your paper?"

Those are not my area. I am prepress. The pressmen know this info, and they do keep the press in good shape. Our printing has been consistent for years (able to match the proof easily). I'm just trying to implement standards that are internationally based, but it's more me than the customers asking about GRACoL.

"These things (and dozens more) will cause you more headaches than the filter on your spectro."

I'm just trying to help them get set up correctly and making sure the company gets what it needs (and only this because I do know a little something about G7).

I'd be just fine not doing anything. It's not my job to set up the press, and without the right equipment to boot, it's easy to say it's the pressman's area, and you need an expert, and if you don't get one, the onus is still not on me to make chicken salad out of chicken shit. Talk to the vendor that sold you what you did not ask for. Get what we need, and it can be made easier.

As far as MPI, I know it has a backup for the software, but not the OS it's installed on.
Let me see:
1. If the machine goes down, call a tech, wait until they come out the next day maybe, pay for them to come in to replace a hard drive (EXPENSIVE HARD DRIVE REPLACEMENT) and re-image the machine installation on the new drive, and restore my backup MPI.
-OR-
2. Start virtual machine, plug the USB spectro into my Mac's USB port, and I'm up and running in less than five minutes. If it gets corrupted, I can copy the backup of my VM from backup drive, and I'm up and running in less than 15 minutes.

You can take option number 1. I'll take option number 2.

Regards,

Don


The MPI has its own backup in place. When you backup from within the administrator all of your layouts, profiles, and settings are archived. If one of your disks fails then your field technician can simply replace the drive, restore the OS and software from DVD and then restore your proofer settings.[/QUOTE]

 

[GFYE]

Those are not my area. I am prepress.

That statement sort of reinforces my point, Don. My experience has been that successful implementation of any proof and press alignment is always easier when the pressroom understands the capabilities and variables in the prepress department and vice-versa. Wrapping your head around the things I mentioned earlier will contribute more to your success than your UV/U problem.

As far as MPI, I know it has a backup for the software, but not the OS it's installed on.
Let me see:
1. If the machine goes down, call a tech, wait until they come out the next day maybe, pay for them to come in to replace a hard drive (EXPENSIVE HARD DRIVE REPLACEMENT) and re-image the machine installation on the new drive, and restore my backup MPI.
-OR-
2. Start virtual machine, plug the USB spectro into my Mac's USB port, and I'm up and running in less than five minutes. If it gets corrupted, I can copy the backup of my VM from backup drive, and I'm up and running in less than 15 minutes.

You can take option number 1. I'll take option number 2.

My mistake, the OS is not on the DVD, the OS is written to the recovery partition ghost image.

I'm curious, have you tested your backup plan? The MPI uses significant memory, how does your workstation function while running proofs?