Hybrid proofing, Is it possible?
- Thread starter marc3llo
- Start date
gordo
Well-known member
gordo
Well-known member
Then you might want to look at Compose Starproof instead of GMG.
Very impressive proofing for flexo and I'm pretty sure they can do want you want.
Go here: COMPOSE SYSTEM LIMITED
best, gordon p
Do you have the ability to send screened tiff files to your GMG instead of using GMG Ripserver to do the screening? If your files are already screened and your sending a dotproof with an MX5 profile you should be able to see the samba screening along with the conventional screening on your proof.
wesley
Well-known member
screening
screening
If you are not using the same screening engine to make your proof there is no point. We can produce Sambaflex screened Epson proofs using the actual tiffs for plating. Find a PDF engine like TiffPager to combine your final tiffs to a composite PDF for RIPping on the Epson RIP of your choice. Downside is Big file size and time involved. For Flexo the clients really love it. It is hard to manage the file for accurate color however. Make one profiled proof for color and one screened proof for content and screening and let sales work with the client.
screening
If you are not using the same screening engine to make your proof there is no point. We can produce Sambaflex screened Epson proofs using the actual tiffs for plating. Find a PDF engine like TiffPager to combine your final tiffs to a composite PDF for RIPping on the Epson RIP of your choice. Downside is Big file size and time involved. For Flexo the clients really love it. It is hard to manage the file for accurate color however. Make one profiled proof for color and one screened proof for content and screening and let sales work with the client.
gordo
Well-known member
But will the dots on the proof be the same as the dots on the presswork (or plate)?
Could you post a closeup photo of the dots imaged on an Epson with the same dots on the press sheet as a comparison?
thx, gordon p
Chief_1975
Well-known member
I thought the limitation with screened proofs was more do with the capability of current proofing device's rather than software. From what I remember GMG recommend not to use screening finer than 150 because basically any finer is not realistically re-producable on any current digital printer Epson, HP, Cannon etc.
Marko
Well-known member
Hybrid proofing, Is it possible?
People are still trying to do dot for dot proofs? Sheesh-seems like forever ago that we did this with Creo Trendsetters Digital matchprint and it's wasn't worth the effort. Just my opinion.
People are still trying to do dot for dot proofs? Sheesh-seems like forever ago that we did this with Creo Trendsetters Digital matchprint and it's wasn't worth the effort. Just my opinion.
wesley
Well-known member
Screened Epson
Screened Epson
Gordo, you zoomed right in on that one. There is a bit of funny business in getting the color close on the Epson proof and the actual tiffs for plating. I admit to RIPping the file twice via BS with a slightly different curve for the proof. There are quit a few differences between those plating tiffs and a proof that looks like it will on press. I found it absolutely necessary to create these for complex jobs using multiple screen types and Samba screening. The curve is not exactly the same. I cannot make non-Samba dots that are bumped for plating reproduce as they would on press for the Epson. The final product on the Epson proof with a little work in Intellicurve and some press samples looks pretty close and there is a trade-off on color match and screening simulation you need to make. No complex color-metric data here. Best way is to make the curve you think will be close and make a proof. Real set-of-the-pants work and just making tweaks to your curves in the color booth. Overall it gives clients a better understanding of min dot issues and other parts of the artwork that we know look radically different when screened. We rarely go higher than 133 here, so the typical 120 and below works pretty well. You may want to go higher than 720 on your Epson however.
Screened Epson
Gordo, you zoomed right in on that one. There is a bit of funny business in getting the color close on the Epson proof and the actual tiffs for plating. I admit to RIPping the file twice via BS with a slightly different curve for the proof. There are quit a few differences between those plating tiffs and a proof that looks like it will on press. I found it absolutely necessary to create these for complex jobs using multiple screen types and Samba screening. The curve is not exactly the same. I cannot make non-Samba dots that are bumped for plating reproduce as they would on press for the Epson. The final product on the Epson proof with a little work in Intellicurve and some press samples looks pretty close and there is a trade-off on color match and screening simulation you need to make. No complex color-metric data here. Best way is to make the curve you think will be close and make a proof. Real set-of-the-pants work and just making tweaks to your curves in the color booth. Overall it gives clients a better understanding of min dot issues and other parts of the artwork that we know look radically different when screened. We rarely go higher than 133 here, so the typical 120 and below works pretty well. You may want to go higher than 720 on your Epson however.
gordo
Well-known member
@ wesley
I think that it helps to break this down into the important bits.
IMHO the main reason that people want a halftone dot proof is to check for screen angle issues (e.g. subject and screen angle moiré) as well as dot loss in highlights and shadows.
Changing the physical dot size on the proof slightly from the bitmaps is one way to simulate final presswork dot gain - which I think is what you're doing. And that's fine since the physical dot size on the proof does not have to be precisely the same physical size on the proof that it is in the bitmap that will go to the plate. But it does have to be positioned identically otherwise it cannot reveal halftone screening issues in the original bitmaps - and in fact it may introduce moiré itself where none will appear in the final presswork.
I assume that when you wrote that: "I cannot make non-Samba dots that are bumped for plating reproduce as they would on press for the Epson" that is because of how you alter the bitmaps to print on the Epson? Does that mean that you cannot accurately proof the highlight break that will occur with flexo with a standard AM screen even when the highlights are bumped?
You originally wrote: "If you are not using the same screening engine to make your proof there is no point. We can produce Sambaflex screened Epson proofs using the actual tiffs for plating." and "Make one profiled proof for color and one screened proof for content and screening and let sales work with the client."
Now you're saying that "some press samples looks pretty close and there is a trade-off on color match and screening simulation you need to make."
To me, you're saying that you can proof the screening, then you say that there is a trade-off. I don't think you can have it both ways. Either you can proof the screening accurately (with a color trade off) or you can proof the color (with a screening trade off) or you can accurately proof both screening and color or you can't accurately proof color and screening.
There's just a bit too much wiggle room with "there is a trade-off on color match and screening simulation"
best, gordon p
I think that it helps to break this down into the important bits.
IMHO the main reason that people want a halftone dot proof is to check for screen angle issues (e.g. subject and screen angle moiré) as well as dot loss in highlights and shadows.
Changing the physical dot size on the proof slightly from the bitmaps is one way to simulate final presswork dot gain - which I think is what you're doing. And that's fine since the physical dot size on the proof does not have to be precisely the same physical size on the proof that it is in the bitmap that will go to the plate. But it does have to be positioned identically otherwise it cannot reveal halftone screening issues in the original bitmaps - and in fact it may introduce moiré itself where none will appear in the final presswork.
I assume that when you wrote that: "I cannot make non-Samba dots that are bumped for plating reproduce as they would on press for the Epson" that is because of how you alter the bitmaps to print on the Epson? Does that mean that you cannot accurately proof the highlight break that will occur with flexo with a standard AM screen even when the highlights are bumped?
You originally wrote: "If you are not using the same screening engine to make your proof there is no point. We can produce Sambaflex screened Epson proofs using the actual tiffs for plating." and "Make one profiled proof for color and one screened proof for content and screening and let sales work with the client."
Now you're saying that "some press samples looks pretty close and there is a trade-off on color match and screening simulation you need to make."
To me, you're saying that you can proof the screening, then you say that there is a trade-off. I don't think you can have it both ways. Either you can proof the screening accurately (with a color trade off) or you can proof the color (with a screening trade off) or you can accurately proof both screening and color or you can't accurately proof color and screening.
There's just a bit too much wiggle room with "there is a trade-off on color match and screening simulation"
best, gordon p
Last edited:
wesley
Well-known member
Screening
Screening
You are correct in that the highlight screen break and range compression will not be achieved exactly like the press sample. My hope is to get close to that with the profiled proof. The color gamut for a screened proof will be quite a bit different than the profiled unscreened proof produced (in our case) with an Oris system. I am not sure what you mean by "positioned identically". The whole reason I give little value to a screened proof from something other than the same RIP is to show screening - (dot shape, angles, ruling) as it will appear on the final tiffs and on press. Samba is the best example as most clients need to see that screening and the trade-offs for using that technology. If I change the physical size slightly to give better optical gain, the actual position in the bitmap matrix will not change, just dot size. (well I take that back, Samba in the highlights and shadows will vary with a change in pixel size CS25 vs. CS19 for example) Moiré will not be introduced where none appears in the final presswork. Moiré will be an issue in all cases, but not for that reason. Depending on the resolution, rasterizing small half-tone dots at 720 can introduce that with just one color. In higher line work we upload tiffs to a Kodak Approval for a similar workflow. All in all, you are correct, there is a huge amount of "wiggle room" in using this process in the proofing cycle. We typically produce a screened proof and a profiled proof for the client and explain the purpose of each. I guess it is just another tool for helping the client understand how the final product may look on press and make adjustments at that time to optimize quality.
Screening
You are correct in that the highlight screen break and range compression will not be achieved exactly like the press sample. My hope is to get close to that with the profiled proof. The color gamut for a screened proof will be quite a bit different than the profiled unscreened proof produced (in our case) with an Oris system. I am not sure what you mean by "positioned identically". The whole reason I give little value to a screened proof from something other than the same RIP is to show screening - (dot shape, angles, ruling) as it will appear on the final tiffs and on press. Samba is the best example as most clients need to see that screening and the trade-offs for using that technology. If I change the physical size slightly to give better optical gain, the actual position in the bitmap matrix will not change, just dot size. (well I take that back, Samba in the highlights and shadows will vary with a change in pixel size CS25 vs. CS19 for example) Moiré will not be introduced where none appears in the final presswork. Moiré will be an issue in all cases, but not for that reason. Depending on the resolution, rasterizing small half-tone dots at 720 can introduce that with just one color. In higher line work we upload tiffs to a Kodak Approval for a similar workflow. All in all, you are correct, there is a huge amount of "wiggle room" in using this process in the proofing cycle. We typically produce a screened proof and a profiled proof for the client and explain the purpose of each. I guess it is just another tool for helping the client understand how the final product may look on press and make adjustments at that time to optimize quality.
gordo
Well-known member
That's what I meant by "positioned identically" - basically every dot on the proof is in the same place as the dots in the bitmap - i.e. you could place the bitmap over the proof and the dots would line up. They may not be the same size but they're in the same position.
Thanks for your answer and clarification.
best, gordon p
BTW, I'd still like to see a close up photo of the same section of proof and press sheet.
michaelejahn
Well-known member
Proofing the dots from your 1bit TIFF files
Proofing the dots from your 1bit TIFF files
(sarcasm) well, I guess the point would be "see, we have a dot proof !" YEAH ! W00t W00t ! (/sarcasm)
I would tend to agree with you, but honestly, if you ask me with my compose hat off of my head - in some cases, just simulating GRACoL, SWOP3 or SWOP5 color is good enough - and if that is the case, dots are not worth worrying about...
BUT - if YOU (or your customer) absolutely wants to see your screening, Compose Star Proof enables you to simulate your screening up to 200 (on a nice sunny sweet day) but most of our customers rarely go that high - I can say that Compose Star Proof is extremely reliable simulating up to 175.
And yes, Star Proof takes YOUR screened 1 bit TIFF files and process them, and you get the line screen, screen angles, not some de-screened re-screened result.
I think you might like Star Proof. We do have demo dongles for try before you buy. It really does color manage 1 bit TIFFs, if you can get your head around it...
COMPOSE SYSTEM LIMITED
Proofing the dots from your 1bit TIFF files
(sarcasm) well, I guess the point would be "see, we have a dot proof !" YEAH ! W00t W00t ! (/sarcasm)
I would tend to agree with you, but honestly, if you ask me with my compose hat off of my head - in some cases, just simulating GRACoL, SWOP3 or SWOP5 color is good enough - and if that is the case, dots are not worth worrying about...
BUT - if YOU (or your customer) absolutely wants to see your screening, Compose Star Proof enables you to simulate your screening up to 200 (on a nice sunny sweet day) but most of our customers rarely go that high - I can say that Compose Star Proof is extremely reliable simulating up to 175.
And yes, Star Proof takes YOUR screened 1 bit TIFF files and process them, and you get the line screen, screen angles, not some de-screened re-screened result.
I think you might like Star Proof. We do have demo dongles for try before you buy. It really does color manage 1 bit TIFFs, if you can get your head around it...
COMPOSE SYSTEM LIMITED
Similar threads
