Matching proof to unprofiled press

[Treedodger]

Using Monaco Profiler 4.6.1

My goal is to try and match my proofs to our Heidelberg Speedmaster 5c press. The press has not been profiled.

I am wondering if you can print the appropriate patches, read those patches into Monaco and then create a profile for the proofer that attempts to match what the press is producing.

Thanks in advance

Treedodger

 

[meddington]

My goal is to try and match my proofs to our Heidelberg Speedmaster 5c press. The press has not been profiled.

I am wondering if you can print the appropriate patches, read those patches into Monaco and then create a profile for the proofer that attempts to match what the press is producing.r

Profiling the proofer is a good idea, but its only half of what you need. You press either needs to be "calibrated" toward an industry standard output (such as ISO 12647-2, or using G7 towards Gracol or SWOP for example), or profiled in its current state...either way consistency is key to predictable output. Once your press target has been established, you profiled proofer can be used to simulate its output condition via industry standard or custom profiles.

 

[Treedodger]

Thanks Meddington

FYI, we are a small shop and do not have a lot of personnel (limits the interpretation/understanding of information) to throw at the "problem."

We have never had any discussions about "profiling the press" and then the proofer, we have only wanted to match the proof to the press.

I am sorry to say that I have not found the manuals for Monaco and Matchprint Rip to be very user friendly.

I am hoping it is as simple as printing the patches, reading those patches, printing the patches on the proofer, reading those patches and then matching the proof to the press by letting the densitometer and software do all the work.

Treedodger

 

[Lukas Engqvist]

If the printer in unprofiled chances are it will be unstable.
The calibration has the purpose of finding the state of the machine so that the state is repeatable. The two simplest parameters are the dotgain or TVI and the density DMAX.
If you are recording the state to target one might as well make life easier by choosing a wel known target (this is what the G7 and other methods are pointing at).
Once you have documented the state of the machine, you can profile.
You can ofcourse profile at any time, but without the state of the press documented the only thing the profile says is how the press printed on that particualar job.

Before creating a patch chart for a profile you need to print a tone say 40 40 40 40 covering the whole sheet…this just to confirm that the image is the same over the whole print area.

Next you print one of those charts refered to in your user friendly guide. Measure it up. And you now have a profile that you can use as the preview in photoshop or output intent or whenever you want to view printing. You would want to view CMYK work against this profile using "preserve numbers" if you intend to print your CMYK but want to see how it would look if it were printed with the press (and workflow) as it was when you printed the chart.

Note Many years ago we printed such a chart, and the press had a bias to magenta… consequently any job printed where pictures were made for that press needed to have too much magenta to look good. If the press was printing normally the pictures would be low in magenta. For this reason it may be good to do separations to a profile based on standard values and then just simulate for the press and see that the colours are acceptable with the uncalibrated press.

 

[TerryWyse]

Using Monaco Profiler 4.6.1

Upgrade to MonacoPROFILER 4.8.x ASAP....there were some major changes made to the color engine in 4.7...the upgrade may be free but even if it's not, it would be worth it. The changes made in 4.7/4.8 are what had me switching from ProfileMaker 5 permanently.

My goal is to try and match my proofs to our Heidelberg Speedmaster 5c press. The press has not been profiled.

I am wondering if you can print the appropriate patches, read those patches into Monaco and then create a profile for the proofer that attempts to match what the press is producing.

Nope.....only option is press calibration and/or profiling. I suppose if you knew the details of your press' behavior (full scale dot gain tone scale and ink colorimetry) you could possibly edit an existing profile....but to get the kind of information you'd need to pull that off, you'd be running a dedicated press test/run anyway....which you could simply build a profile from in the first place!

Regards,
Terry Wyse

 

[prepresscolor]

Proofing to an uncalibrated press is like making ice cubes without using water.
Someone needs to get a reality check. It is too important not to have your press fingerprinted. You need consistency and reliability. You cannot get that you need to have control on the controllable.

 

[gordo]

Using Monaco Profiler 4.6.1
My goal is to try and match my proofs to our Heidelberg Speedmaster 5c press. The press has not been profiled.
I am wondering if you can print the appropriate patches, read those patches into Monaco and then create a profile for the proofer that attempts to match what the press is producing.
Thanks in advance
Treedodger

Are you sure that you really want to make your proofer "match" what your press is doing?

Normally the process is to establish a presswork standard or specification (e.g. SWOP, GRACoL 7, etc.) that makes business sense for your shop. Then use the appropriate profiles to drive your proofer to output a proof that conforms to that specification. Then bring the press into alignment with the color target as represented by the proof. I.e. for the vast majority of shops, the press follows the proof.

More info on establishing a target for color here:

Quality In Print: Press and proof alignment strategies

best, gordon p

 

[danremaley]

matching proof to press

matching proof to press

Using Monaco Profiler 4.6.1

My goal is to try and match my proofs to our Heidelberg Speedmaster 5c press. The press has not been profiled.

I am wondering if you can print the appropriate patches, read those patches into Monaco and then create a profile for the proofer that attempts to match what the press is producing.

Thanks in advance

Treedodger

I believe a 'better' match would be to use the ISO profile on your proofer and make the press match it! Remember, most RGB>CMYK conversions are done in Photoshop, which in turn is simulated around ISO, SWOP, Gracol (6) there about -anyway. There's no drop down menu in Photoshop for G7.
Now that the proof is accurate, repeatable, and in gray balance, the press needs to be adjusted to match this controlled condition. If you adjust the proof to match the press, everyone would print different with the same separation!
Feel free to call me for more info 412.889.7643
Dan

 

[gordo]

I believe a 'better' match would be to use the ISO profile on your proofer and make the press match it!

Dan is correct.


best, gordon p

Quality In Print

 

[TerryWyse]

There's no drop down menu in Photoshop for G7.

Hi Dan, Photoshop CS4 ships with all the relevant "G7" profiles (GRACoL Coated1 and SWOP Coated3/5). Previous versions can simply download them from the IDEAlliance website and install them. No more reason to use the ugly Photoshop Custom CMYK settings!

Regards,
Terry

 

[Hardwired]

Upgrade to MonacoPROFILER 4.8.x ASAP....there were some major changes made to the color engine in 4.7...the upgrade may be free but even if it's not, it would be worth it. The changes made in 4.7/4.8 are what had me switching from ProfileMaker 5 permanently.

4.8 was released like 4 yrs ago, what was the major changes that is superior to ProfileMaker?

Rico

 

[tmiller_iluvprinting]

Hi Dan, Photoshop CS4 ships with all the relevant "G7" profiles (GRACoL Coated1 and SWOP Coated3/5). Previous versions can simply download them from the IDEAlliance website and install them. No more reason to use the ugly Photoshop Custom CMYK settings!

Just a FYI- the "G7" profiles that ship with the CS4 apps are not the same profiles that are available for download from IDEAlliance. The black start, TAC, and the amount of GCR differ.
Best regards,
Todd

 

[disbellj]

tmiller,

Not only that, but the Magenta is about 3% lower in the 10% area, which makes me wonder about using the Adobe GRACoL profile at all. See attached Excel doc. Press on top is GRACoL2006_Coated1v2, and press at bottom is Adobe's GRACoL profile that came in CS4.

Don

Hi Dan, Photoshop CS4 ships with all the relevant "G7" profiles (GRACoL Coated1 and SWOP Coated3/5). Previous versions can simply download them from the IDEAlliance website and install them. No more reason to use the ugly Photoshop Custom CMYK settings!

Just a FYI- the "G7" profiles that ship with the CS4 apps are not the same profiles that are available for download from IDEAlliance. The black start, TAC, and the amount of GCR differ.
Best regards,
Todd

 

[tmiller_iluvprinting]

Hi Don,
I am going to continue to use the official GRACol profile and not the Adobe version.
Best regards,
Todd

 

[meddington]

I think the discrepancy may be the result of rounding when obtaining the Lab values (for the 10% Magenta) rather than any true or significant difference between the two profiles. Comparing lab values rendered from an IT874 using both profiles, the delta values are negligible:


dE Report

Number of Samples: 1617

Delta-E Formula dE76

Overall - (1617 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 0.12
Max dE: 0.76
Min dE: 0.00
StdDev dE: 0.07

Best 90% - (1454 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 0.10
Max dE: 0.21
Min dE: 0.00
StdDev dE: 0.05

Worst 10% - (163 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 0.27
Max dE: 0.76
Min dE: 0.21
StdDev dE: 0.07

--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------

 

[disbellj]

Thanks Michael!

Thanks Michael!

Michael,

I recently saw in ReadMe 2009 IDEAlliance 12647-7e how to get 16-bit readings in PhotoShop, and did so for the problem area, using Bruce Lindbloom's LabDotGainCalculator2, just using 16-bit readings instead of 8-bit in Info palette. Plugged those numbers in Excel, with a little math, and what was dE of 1 and needing dot gain adjustment on plate of -3.08 to get from Adobe GRACoL to GRACol, now being more precise because using 16-bit, is seen as dE of .353 and needing to only change -1.05 dot gain on plate to get from Adobe GRACoL to GRACoL. And this was the biggest difference between the two when using 8-bit, so I can see why you say there is no worries.

Thanks again Michael!

Don