How to choose a print standard ?

[zcto7]

I am trying to get my shop to on some sort of standard, so that when we print jobs, they come out matching our proofer, and can be matched again.

We have two offset 4 color presses a heidelberg 5 color and presstek DI, and a offset 2 color press, along with a couple small 2 color offsets for one up cards etc. We have a platesetter (Heidelberg topsetter) outputting to all the press's except the presstek DI press, which gets 1bit tiffs sent from navigator to DI tools, then to the press.

We recently upgraded the rip to Xitron Navigator 8.1 , and am trying to figure out the best way of achieving some sort of calibration. Xitron sells ColorPro, which makes profiles automatically but is pretty expensive, so I am trying to make do with what we have, an Eye1 pro, Xrite-408 (can read dot % ), and profilemaker5.

After talking to the xitron tech, he recommended leaving the rip uncalibrated and making icc profiles for each press and preflight with that profile, allowing the rip to manage icc profile in the pdf. We could make these with the Eye1 & Profilemaker5

Alternatively I could use a densitometer ( Xrite 408 ) to set the actual press curves (screenshot below) and fingerprint each press, and match them to one standard.

I am leaning towards fingerprinting, and am unsure which standard I should try to achieve. I like the idea of the G7, but might be too complex for our shop workflow. I used the Gracol 2006 v2 profile in pitstop and it seems to be pretty achievable now.

Would this be a good way to go or should I just attach the press profile in pitstop and send out to the rip with no other corrections applied?

I am trying to finish up Real World Color Management, and have found it to be a good resource, but you guys sure know your stuff!!

[br]

 

[gordo]

You may find the info here:

Quality In Print: Aligning proof and presswork

might give you some helpful ideas on aligning proofing and presswork.

To choose a print standard, start with this info:

http://qualityinprint.blogspot.com/2009/01/press-and-proof-alignment.html

best gordon p

 

[zcto7]

Thanks Gordo!

I regularly read your blog, and find it very helpful, I have not read all of it yet, but am working on it!

I think I will go with aligning the proof to the press, I am afraid the old Heidelberg will not be able to hit a nice standard. The pressman says that it needs new rollers and blankets, and needs repair. I will keep the industry standards in mind, and will run further tests to see if we can hit them later on down the road.

 

[zcto7]

Just thinking, Gordo, do you have any information that I could pass onto the pressmen to try and squeeze out the most performance from the press's ? I have been looking but can't seem to find much, but then again i'm not sure what exactly i'm looking for

I reaaally appreciate everyone's help with this!

 

[rich apollo]

A G7 implementation would be pretty ideal for your situation as it steers all of the presses and proofers toward a common standard.

It's not that complex to implement, and all of the information needed is available free of charge.

If you have questions PM me.

 

[gordo]

If the pressman says that the press needs new rollers and blankets, and needs repair then the last thing I would do is attempt to align the proof to the press. You can't align a proof to a moving target.
Instead, I would make the proofer (much more stable than the press) the target. I would have the proofer set up to output an industry standard (i.e. SWOP proof, or GRACoL 6/7 proof). Then see if you can bring your press, using plate curves and process ink choice, as close to the standard as possible.

Your print shop must be very profitable if management is not willing to invest in bringing the press up to a proper mechanical condition. Only very profitable companies can afford to lose money in the press room (copious amounts of sarcasm)

There's plenty of literature about optimizing the pressroom, "Sheetfed Offset Press Operating" (3rd edition) published by PIA/GATF Press ( Home | Printing Industries of America - Printing.org ) is a good start. However, it might be like giving driving instructions to someone whose car doesn't work. Might be a bit demotivating.

PS Just saw Rich's post. I would have to disagree, given the condition of the pressroom - unless the G7 implementation includes press repair and pressroom optimization (which I don't believe is typical). Also, you can steer color towards a standard without G7, and would, in this case be an excellent educational exercise to go through.

best gordon p

my print blog here: http://qualityinprint.blogspot.com/ current topic: Ink Sequence - 4/C process & beyond

 

[zcto7]

Thanks guys, I will talk with the pressman and see exactly where it stands. I'll look into that site as well, it seems to have plenty of good info!

 

[zcto7]

Your print shop must be very profitable if management is not willing to invest in bringing the press up to a proper mechanical condition. Only very profitable companies can afford to lose money in the press room (copious amounts of sarcasm)

Ohhhh they are Very profitable ...and lose money they do, and in all other departments...but that's another post lol. I'm trying my best to get everything more efficient.

They seem to put everything off until a customer complains or it becomes a serious issue. It seems that everything is put to the DI when possible and only if the run size is too big then it goes to the 5 color.

I talked to the 5H pressman and he said that it is not consistent and agreed we would be chasing our tails keeping it constantly stable.

 

[gordo]

Ohhhh they are Very profitable ...and lose money they do, and in all other departments...but that's another post lol. I'm trying my best to get everything more efficient.

Just a thought.
You might try approaching from an enlightened self interest point of view. If your company goes bust because of the lack of management's willingness to invest in their business then you and the press operators will lose your jobs - probably not a desired option. If you can, work with your pressroom (and sales) to try and document costs related to current conditions. Things like make-ready times, paper wastage, number of jobs that can be processed through the day, reworks, etc. You'll need to put dollar figures to these activities. Then you'll need to work out what the dollar figure would be if you implemented the changes you're contemplating. If the cost of fixing the problems is less than the cost of doing business in the current situation, then it should be a no-brainer for your boss to implement the changes. If they still won't, then if I were you, I'd start working on my résumé.

good luck, gordon p

 

[zcto7]

Just a thought.
You might try approaching from an enlightened self interest point of view.........

Exactly..... I will try and pitch some numbers at them, but I doubt they will bite. I recently completed school (for graphic design) but wish to pursue prepress and eventually some sort of specialty prepress installation /color management job. I will have two years there next May, so I am trying to build my skill set and build my resume.....it seems no one will even talk to you without 2 years of experience But this is all being learned through helping myself, as no-one there even knows what CIELab is (Literally!) I could work at a different unrelated job making more money but the experience potential is worth more to me (even though I am making $2 hr. more than a WalMart employee lol )

Anywho.....after spending the whole day reading up on various print standards, I have narrowed it down to a couple print standards (I think!). I really like the G7 method, but with press conditions and lack of a spectro densitometer that can output Lab values I don't think that can work.

My thought was to try to run the Gracol 2007 spec (TR 006 i think ?) using there data from there website, using the Eye1 to get the NPDC correct, then use the SID readings for reference using a densitometer during normal press runs. Is this do-able or am I wandering too far off the path? I know for sure buying a spectro densitometer that can output Lab is out of the question.

My second choice would be using an older standard that using TVI curves and SIDs.

 

[gordo]

Anywho.....after spending the whole day reading up on various print standards, I have narrowed it down to a couple print standards (I think!). I really like the G7 method, but with press conditions and lack of a spectro densitometer that can output Lab values I don't think that can work.

My thought was to try to run the Gracol 2007 spec (TR 006 i think ?) using there data from there website, using the Eye1 to get the NPDC correct, then use the SID readings for reference using a densitometer during normal press runs. Is this do-able or am I wandering too far off the path? I know for sure buying a spectro densitometer that can output Lab is out of the question.
My second choice would be using an older standard that using TVI curves and SIDs.

G7 is a method - not the destination. There are many methods that can get you to the destination.
GRACoL 7 was based, for the most part on CtP imaged plates run linear with a 175 lpi AM screen using inks that conformed to the ISO 12647-2.
Speak with your ink vendor to determine whether the ink series you're running conforms.
Speak with your inkjet proofing vendor to see if your proofer can output a proof that conforms to GRACoL 7 using existing canned profiles.
Then you can use a densitometer and plate curves to align your presswork to your proof. It will get you very close. It is the way the process has been successfully done for decades.
It will give you the baseline to get more complicated should you need/want to down the road.


best, gordon p

 

[meddington]

My thought was to try to run the Gracol 2007 spec (TR 006 i think ?) using there data from there website, using the Eye1 to get the NPDC correct, then use the SID readings for reference using a densitometer during normal press runs. Is this do-able or am I wandering too far off the path? I know for sure buying a spectro densitometer that can output Lab is out of the question.

My second choice would be using an older standard that using TVI curves and SIDs.

As Gordo pointed out, G7 is not a print standard, but adopts ISO 12647-2 as its target while adding and elevating gray balance (NPDC) as a defining metric, and demoting TVI to a secondary metric.

As you indicated, you have an i1Pro spectrophotometer. This can be used to verify/establish the CIELab targets for solids and NPDC are being met. Correlate those values with densitometry, and process control with an Xrite 408 is acceptable, perhaps even optimal as CIELab targets for an offset press aren't completely intuitive and the de facto tolerance window of 5 delta E is huge.

 

[zcto7]

Very Cool,

Where can I buy the ISO 12647-2 specs ? We dont have anything on them here.

ISO's Website has them , but its in Franks or some other currency.

 

[meddington]

Very Cool,

Where can I buy the ISO 12647-2 specs ? We dont have anything on them here.

ISO's Website has them , but its in Franks or some other currency.

ISO is the source, so that's where you get it. They'll let you pay in US dollars.

Before you shell out the bread, you might consider looking at the (free) english version of MediaStandard2006 available from BVDM.

bvdm | Downloads

Contains essentially the same information as the ISO standard, with more data and in a more intuitive format. Its a bit outdated (references to Fogra27 would be Fogra39 now), but they are slow to come out with an updated english version.

 

[Paul Sherfield]

How to choose a print standard ?

Hi

The advice that Xitron give was wrong and very out of date with current thinking on printing standards. I do not know which area you are from but check out ISO 12647/2 standard printing conditions and the G7 US implimentation if you are in the US.

This standard sets a number of standard, colour managed printing conditions for sheet amd web offset litho over a range of papers with ICC CMYK profiles for each condition.

These profiles can be used for seperation and proofing.

Then by setting up your presses to match the 'needs' of these profiles the print will match the proof.

So you will need to amend dot gain curves in your rip to match the standard and profiles.

Many clients around the world are know specifing this standard for their work.

Check out the Fogra, and G7 web sites to begin with, and feel free to email offline.

Paul Sherfield

The Missing Horse Consultancy Ltd

 

[Jim-CompuDoc]

We recently upgraded the rip to Xitron Navigator 8.1 , and am trying to figure out the best way of achieving some sort of calibration. Xitron sells ColorPro, which makes profiles automatically but is pretty expensive, so I am trying to make do with what we have, an Eye1 pro, Xrite-408 (can read dot % ), and profilemaker5.

After talking to the xitron tech, he recommended leaving the rip uncalibrated and making icc profiles for each press and preflight with that profile, allowing the rip to manage icc profile in the pdf.

Adam, I'm all for "printing to a standard" and you've rcvd some very good advice in this thread.

I need to point out a couple things in your original post though.

First and foremost, COLORPRO does not make profiles, it allows ICC profiles to be installed and used by the Rip. The profiles have to be created with other software, such as Monaco. Colorpro is most often used in navigator to profile a color proof printer.

Making an ICC profile for a press is a really bad thing. It will NOT accomplish the task of printing to a standard, rather, it will establish the current state of your press as the standard to rpint too! (depending on how the profile is used of course)

What exactly do you use as a proofing system?

 

[meddington]

Making an ICC profile for a press is a really bad thing. It will NOT accomplish the task of printing to a standard, rather, it will establish the current state of your press as the standard to rpint too! (depending on how the profile is used of course)

The last statement you make is key here. ICC profiles can certainly be used in a workflow to "standardize" printing, and that's a good thing, if that's your goal. Profiles can also be used within a custom workflow to print to your own in house standards. nothing wrong with that either, if that's your goal. Expecting a single ICC profile to correct printing toward a standard without addressing the rest of the workflow...well, that could be bad. ICC profiles are only *part* of a complete breakfast.

 

[danremaley]

choose a print standard - ISO

choose a print standard - ISO

Hi Adam, I would attempt to hit the ISO standard. The proofer will be managed thru their ICC profile(s) (free) for coated and uncoated. They also have the density, dot gain numbers that will create gray balance at press. It's pretty simple - print with linear plates to target density, measure and make adjustments to the Y-M-C-K plate curves to match the ISO standard. Any questions please call 412.889.7643.

The ISO standard is very close to SWOP and G7 good for shops that need to print to gray balance with little color experience.

Dan Remaley
Process Control Consultant

 

[zcto7]

Wow thanks for all the good info guys I'll process the BVDM pdf tonight and try to make some sense of it.

One quick question (and probably a stupid one) , when I send a pdf with a 50% screen, should it be exactly 50% on paper, after using the rip curves? I saw somewhere that one spec called for a 62% screen at 50%, which seemed odd, but I assume that was a target gain for the press to hit?

 

[Jim-CompuDoc]

No, it should absolutely not be 50% on paper. The printing process has dot gain. Different processes (web-newsprint, sheetfed glossy, flexo, for example) can and do and shouls have vastly different gain curves.

Your "target standard" IS a particular gain curve.

In many cases, a 50% dot will measure 60 to 65% when printed on paper by a press.
If you zero all the gain out, your printed output will look flat and lifeless. I've done it, it's ugly.

Go into the calibration manager on your navigator. Select printing press as your output device, and cmyk as your color space. Select the cal table for SWOP (these are not profiles, they are simple cmyk dot gain curves) and click "edit from calibrated target."
You will then see the desired curve for swop. You can look at the different colors, and I think you can change "measurements as" which will present the table in different ways. The normal view is "status-T" which shows deviation from linear. 0 and 100 will be on the zero line, with a bell curve up to the desired gain at 50 poercent and back down again.