InkDrop, or InkDropped?

tmiller_iluvprinting

Well-known member
I don't see very much discussion about InkDrop, which leads me to believe: 1. the economic standstill has slowed the acceptance and deployment of the ink saving add-on, or 2. those that have integrated InkDrop are tight-lipped about there experiences, or reluctant to share any insight. InkDrop is something we continue to be interested in, but there is not much buzz about it. Maybe the results of InkDrop deployment aren't worth the cost, maybe it just doesn't work. I sat in on a Fuji webinar awhile back, and came away with the feeling that Fuji's people didn't know much about InkDrop either. I will throw this out there one more time, what are your experiences with InkDrop?

Regards,
Todd
 
OK Todd, I'll bite. :)

My experience (obviously) is of one who has implemented inkDROP for clients, not one who actually uses it in day-to-day production....so take what I say with that in mind. Naysayers might conclude that disqualifies me from even commenting on inkDROP....but I'd like to think I've seen more inkDROP implementations, both good and not-so-good, than anyone in a production environment is likely to see.

First, we should distinguish between the RAMpage option/feature that is inkDROP and device link profiles generally. What I THINK you want to know about is how device links are working generally and not inkDROP specifically. If it's specifically about inkDROP, all I can say is that it's one of the better implementations for using static device link profiles. In fact, RAMpage (in inkDROP v2) has done some amazing things in working around some of the limitations inherent in using static device links (DVLs). Protection of special colors, protection of imposition elements outside the page boundaries and coming up with an ingenious work-around for preserving TRUE 100% black overprint values are just a few of the things you get with inkDROP that go beyond the typical handling or conversions using static DVLs (I say "static" because there's a distinction of what can be done using static DVLs vs. "dynamic" DVL workflow products). But moving on....

First off, in terms of ink reduction/savings, this is NOT so much a function of inkDROP as it is of the software that is used to create the DVLs. It's fair to say that RAMpage inkDROP really has nothing to do with ink reduction or even color quality but has everything to do with how the DVLs are created. Bottom line, if you're looking for maximum ink reduction, prepare to spend some serious money on the software used to create the DVLs. Entry fee is at least $5,000 for decent DVL software and you can expect to pay easily 2-4x that for some of the higher end products.

Ink savings is a difficult thing to measure/track and it's been my impression that some folks that are interested in that aspect alone of inkDROP+DVLs really have no way to track it accurately. Having said that, I've heard from customers that have measured 30-40% ink savings on certain jobs. The downside of this kind of ink savings is that it requires the press operator to re-learn a lot of what he knows about ink key adjustment. Those levels of ink savings can even create problems at the press console in terms of fine ink control....set up the DVL for very aggressive ink savings and you might find the ink key adjustments on the console functioning more like on/off switches on the CMY ink channels! For aggressive ink savings, I would strongly suggest this only be used on relatively new presses with auto-scanning or in-line density control and closed-loop color controls.

In terms of *color* (from my perspective, what most should be thinking about!), inkDROP + DVLs can do wonders, especially if you're using the G7 method for GRACoL and SWOP. If the G7 plate/press curves can get you an 80% match to a "certified" GRACoL proof, DVLs can get you into the 90-95% color matching range PROVIDED you have good process control. In terms of "delta E" matching, you should see a drop from the typical 2-3 dE average you get with plate curves alone, down to the 1-1.5 dE range by using a DVL made from a custom ICC profile of your press. If plate curves put you in the ballpark, DVLs will usually get you someplace between 3rd base and home plate. :)

That's not to say color is always perfect. I've seen a few "failures" (results not much better than using plate curves). The times I've seen this, it usually comes down to in ability to replicate results from one press run to the next and..increasingly....use of paper stock that falls far outside GRACoL/SWOP specs for paper white L*a*b*. Specifically, I've seen cases where pastel colors simply do not match all that well and I believe it's generally a combination of how far off the paper white is from GRACol specs (usually optical brighteners are the culprit) and how the relative colorimetric ICC rendering is designed to work. Basically, the further off your paper is from the GRACoL specification, the more trouble you're going to have with lighter colors where paper tint becomes a major influence. In proofing this is rarely an issue since we typically use absolute colorimetric for accurately rendering the entire color space, including paper white (we tint it on the proof if we have to). Going to press however, absolute colorimetric is not an option so we're back to being at the mercy of our press stock for the final rendering of color.

Anyway, I've babbled on long enough.....I guess I would just say for those folks looking at inkDROP+DVLs as some sort of magic bullet for either color or ink savings...or both...to reset your expectations based on how well you already are able to control your color in the pressroom. If you're not using closed loop color or still using hand-held instruments, expect an improvement with DVLs...but don't expect miracles. For those with the good control in the pressroom AND using higher quality papers that are already very close to GRACoL/SWOP specs, you should expect to get very good results.

Regards,
Terry
 
In terms of *color* (from my perspective, what most should be thinking about!), inkDROP + DVLs can do wonders, especially if you're using the G7 method for GRACoL and SWOP. If the G7 plate/press curves can get you an 80% match to a "certified" GRACoL proof, DVLs can get you into the 90-95% color matching range PROVIDED you have good process control. In terms of "delta E" matching, you should see a drop from the typical 2-3 dE average you get with plate curves alone, down to the 1-1.5 dE range by using a DVL made from a custom ICC profile of your press. If plate curves put you in the ballpark, DVLs will usually get you someplace between 3rd base and home plate.

Could you elaborate on the points you made?
Isn't the G7 method a gray balancing method? As such how does it get you to to an 80% match to a certified GRACoL proof?
How do DVLs better your color match since, AFAIK, their purpose is to reseparate images to a different condition while maintaining the same appearance as the original image?

best, gordon p
 
Could you elaborate on the points you made?
Isn't the G7 method a gray balancing method? As such how does it get you to to an 80% match to a certified GRACoL proof?

I should've been more specific....to match a GRACoL proof, we would use a combination of the G7 method for neutral and tonal calibration while at the same time adhering to GRACoL colorimetry (ISO 12647-2, Paper Type 1) for CMYKRGB. Combining the G7 method with GRACoL colorimetry should get you a decent visual match to a proof targeted to the GRACoL characterization data set....but not always, depending on how closely the ink set was able to achieve GRACoL colorimetry, especially for the overprint colors.

How do DVLs better your color match since, AFAIK, their purpose is to reseparate images to a different condition while maintaining the same appearance as the original image?

The need for a DVL depends largely on well you were able to "match" the GRACoL data set using plate curves alone.

Once you've performed your G7 calibration (along with targeting GRACoL colorimetry), you can profile this condition and then use this custom press profile as the destination profile within a device link, with the "official" GRACoL profile as your source profile.

With all your imagery assumed to be separated using the GRACoL data set, a device link using GRACoL as source and "My G7 Press" as destination will force the press into a "GRACoL" print condition better than curves alone can achieve. Basic issue with curves is they apply the same correction, say a -3% cyan midtone, to everything without regard for the actual color or CMYK overprint combination. A DVL on the other hand can correct for colorimetry errors between the source and destination and, for example, apply a +3% cyan in blues (C+M) and a -3% cyan in greens (C+Y). A plate curve, G7 or otherwise, could never accomplish such a stunt but a DVL can.

Regards,
 
Hi Terry,
Exactly the information that I was looking for. Thank you.


All the same Todd, it would be good to hear from actual inkDROP *users* and see what their experience has been.

I would like to hear how many actually *profile* their press(es) and use that for the DVL in inkDROP....vs. applying a "generic" DVL just for image re-separation (ink savings) and not for actual color correction. By "generic" DVL, I mean a DVL where it uses the same profile for both source AND destination with perhaps different GCR settings....the result would be no color correction but re-separation only. I've never tried that approach as I think it defeats the purpose of using a DVL...but I've seen cases where it may make sense because the actions of a "color-corrected" DVL can give unexpected results. My next inkDROP job, coming up in a few weeks, I aim to try both approaches and see what the results are.

Regards,
Terry
 
All the same Todd, it would be good to hear from actual inkDROP *users* and see what their experience has been.

I would like to hear how many actually *profile* their press(es) and use that for the DVL in inkDROP....vs. applying a "generic" DVL just for image re-separation (ink savings) and not for actual color correction. By "generic" DVL, I mean a DVL where it uses the same profile for both source AND destination with perhaps different GCR settings....the result would be no color correction but re-separation only. I've never tried that approach as I think it defeats the purpose of using a DVL...but I've seen cases where it may make sense because the actions of a "color-corrected" DVL can give unexpected results. My next inkDROP job, coming up in a few weeks, I aim to try both approaches and see what the results are.

Regards,
Terry

I agree Terry. I wonder if most Rampage shops who have implemented InkDrop have hired a consultant, such as yourself, to do the setup and deployment, do not have anyone in-house to monitor the workflow. Since InkDrop
works relatively in the background, maybe so well that it's a case of 'out of sight, out of mind?'
Regards,
Todd
 

PressWise

A 30-day Fix for Managed Chaos

As any print professional knows, printing can be managed chaos. Software that solves multiple problems and provides measurable and monetizable value has a direct impact on the bottom-line.

“We reduced order entry costs by about 40%.” Significant savings in a shop that turns about 500 jobs a month.


Learn how…….

   
Back
Top