Idealliance Gracol 2013

[indy jones]

Is there anybody thinking of switching to Gracol 2013? We might start implementing mid year in 2014.

 

[rich apollo]

GRACoL 2013 has brought up some interesting dialogue. The most significant change is in the white point - the b* value moved from -2 to -4. Not a big deal, unless you're in the business of buying or selling "G7 certified" paper(s).

 

[Bret Hesler]

I just saw a press release from CMA imaging that they are releasing a compliant paper soon, expecting others to do the same.

I agree that the white point move is not too big, but it is only 0.5 a* away from the white point that I have been aiming for for the last six or seven years. I lost count of how many times I had a supplied proof on an OB free, certified paper, that a customer or sales rep demanded a match to a pastel color that was off because of the paper color.

I plan on switching as soon as I find a suitable inkjet stock.

Bret

 

[Asures]

In my opinion, GRACol 2013 was released premature.

#1 - The white point has changed from a b* of -2 to -4 with a plus or minus of 2. This means that in order to be "Certified" on any G7 submission, you can be anywhere from a B* of -2 to a -6. That couldn't be farther apart on opposite ends of the spectrum, one Yellow and the other Blue.

#2 - The lighting has changed from M0 to M1. That's somewhat understandable but the software available like X-rite's Color Port doesn't give you an option for flipping from one or the other. I have had a DTP70 and I went out and bought the new X-Rite Ione Pro2 to keep up with the trends but there's no supportive software that I am aware of that can translate the two from 2006 (M0) to 2013 (M1) change.

When doing a submission, trying to find a stock that is under B* -4 when the proofing stock used is a B* -1.5 / -2 is a challenge.

<Holding my hand on my forehead>
That's my rant..

 

[Bret Hesler]

I'll have to disagree about the release being premature. Even back in 2006, when the last characterization data was being developed, the vast majority of #1 and #2 coated sheets were in the -4b* area, and few were close to -2b*. (I understand the standards community being slow to make changes, but optical brighteners have been in heavy use for about 15 years, and don't appear to be going away, so I applaud the change.)

I don't think there can be a translation between M0 and M1, mostly because M0 did not really have a defined spectral content, and because it would have to guess the fluorescent effect of OBAs. It might be possible to develop an algorithm for specific devices, such as how the iSis combines a UVx reading with a UV only reading to get a UVi reading. But, i have never been a fan of the iSis anyway. I am also looking at the i1Pro2 to move forward with M1 measurements.

Bret

 

[Asures]

Bret,

We on this forum are all here to positively communicate, network, and share positive contributions via debate. I applaud your chiming in but you don't think that the tolerances are a bit stretched for compliance now?

Printing with B*-2 and B*-6 and still achieving tolerance is insane. Not saying it can't be done but you'll compromise densities somehow. I've done ALOT of G7 submissions for an abundance of offset shops and have always struggled satifying a Neutral Gray with low Delta numbers when the paper is a B* of anything over -4.

Do you frequently calibrate digital of offset/litho?

Just curious.

 

[Bret Hesler]

First, my disagreement was not meant to be disrespectful or negative. Please don't read emotion into words on the internet, emotion is hard to convey with text only. I typically write as concisely as possible.

The tolerances are wide, but they are borne out of ISO 12647-2 and have not changed. The target, however, is much closer to the actual papers I am using. I am not too worried about papers with a -2b* because the vast majority that I deal with are in the -4-6b* range.

Would it be a problem to run a proof with a -2b* and print on a paper with a -6b*? Absolutely. That is why I use a proofing paper with some OBAs and modified the white point to -4b* several years ago.

If you are questioning my qualifications, don't worry, I am not offended. I profile grand format, digital, offset and proofers. I have been using G7 since my previous employer hosted a run for the Gracol committee in 2005.

Oh yeah, If anyone is interested, Here is a link to a white paper X-rite put out on the different measurement condition M factors.

https://www.xrite.com/documents/literature/en/L7-510_M_Factor_en.pdf

Bret

 

[joe pasky]

You might look at BabelColor PatchTool. The new update deals with the i1Pro2 and M0, M1 and M2 filters.

 

[tmiller_iluvprinting]

My biggest concern is the change to the use of M1 lighting for measurement and qualification. I have 2 Epson 9900's with onboard spectros that will no longer be allowable once the switch is made. Targets can be read with the i1Pro2, but have to be measured twice......manually to use the M1 light source, not fun when you have 1617 patches to measure. The lighting change has caused a major hold-up in the adoption of the new RPC here at our shop.
-Todd

 

[Werby]

I'm reviewing the Idealliance site and I don't see any mention of a "plus or minus 2" on the b value of the white point for Gracol 2013. Could someone point me to where that is specified? And I assume we are still using the ISO 12647-7 tolerances, which are ∆E 3 on paper white, right? As we all know ∆E 3 on paper white is already kind of tragically wide, so if indeed the spec allowed for another 2 points it would become meaningless.

Also in response to tmiller, you could still use your onboard spectros to calibrate your printers, just not to certify proofs or read charts, right? I could be wrong (and correct me if I am), but calibration only needs to get the printer back to a repeatable state, not have UV accurate M1 illumination.

We already certify our proofs by hand so that all certification is with the same spectro so it is easy to to sub in an i1Pro2 for that. A bigger challenge is M1 chart reading. Is there anything that does that yet?

-Todd

 

[tmiller_iluvprinting]

Having to manually certify proofs is a huge step backwards, one I won't even consider.
-Todd

 

[Werby]

Having to manually certify proofs is a huge step backwards, one I won't even consider.
-Todd

I don't blame you a bit. Can anyone speak to the state of available M1 measuring devices? Is there anything available like an isis that can read a chart in M1 mode? Is there any known schedule for onboard inkjet spectros to feature M1 illumination? What are you using to read charts, Bret?

-Todd Shirley

 

[Bret Hesler]

I'm reviewing the Idealliance site and I don't see any mention of a "plus or minus 2" on the b value of the white point for Gracol 2013. Could someone point me to where that is specified? And I assume we are still using the ISO 12647-7 tolerances, which are ∆E 3 on paper white, right? As we all know ∆E 3 on paper white is already kind of tragically wide, so if indeed the spec allowed for another 2 points it would become meaningless.
...

We already certify our proofs by hand so that all certification is with the same spectro so it is easy to to sub in an i1Pro2 for that. A bigger challenge is M1 chart reading. Is there anything that does that yet?

-Todd

Hi Todd,
You are correct on the tolerance in 12647-7 for proofing. The plus/minus tolerances are from 12647-2 for actual paper used to print the job. The separate L*, a*, and b* tolerances give a tolerance range from 2 to just over 4∆E.

I am a little disappointed that the i1Pro2 needs to take two readings to get M1, but if it is on an io table, I can deal with it. I think this is how I will have to work going forward because the Isis does not read the thick substrates we use for wide format, and there is no way I am calibrating proofers with a handheld. I have not been able to find anything on the Isis and M1 or how well it matches readings from the i1Pro2.

Epsons are calibrated with onboard spectro, color matching is done with an Isis. Wide format is done with an i1Pro because of the substrate thickness, and my Isis is super picky about the charts it will read. Besides the I1Pro2 on an IO table, it looks like the Barbieri Spectropad will do M1 , but I have no experience with it.

Bret

 

[tmiller_iluvprinting]

As far as I know Xrite has nothing available at the moment that will allow automated reading of an IT8 chart. The i1Pro2 will allow you to read using the M1 standard, but I believe it will only allow manual reading at this time, not with the IO table. I will need to purchase new on board spectros for the Epsons when they are available, and I am not very happy about that. The new RPC's should be adopted, it's a shame M1 is slowing this down.
-TM