One CMYK-profile to rule them all?

[Deleted member 16349]

I must admit living outside of the pre-press/pre-media room makes me less aware of all the difficulties of editing/color correcting a file before it hits the printer. My thoughts on LAB as standard colorspace comes from the thought that if the majority of ICC profiles are using LAB as the connection space it would eliminate a conversion.

I'm assuming Margulis using LAB over XYZ was just a limitation of the software?
What are your thoughts on why XYZ would be a better design space than LAB?

I don't mean that people should be actually working with XYZ but that the colour data describing any image should be in something like XYZ. I said earlier that this was due to scalability. If you have lots of very small points of colour, as in a file, at some time these have to be turned into larger areas of colour for the purpose of screening or other needs of an output device. That means that if you have a number of these points, each with its own colour value, you want the total average colour to be reasonably accurate for the area of the larger number of points.

The general problem is in the math and the physics. If you average the multiple XYZ values of all the points, both physically and mathematically, you basically get an accurate value for the combined colour of all these points. This does not work for Lab values. Averaging the L, a, and b values does not give you an average value of Lab that represents the actual resulting colour.

 

[cementary]

I don't mean that people should be actually working with XYZ but that the colour data describing any image should be in something like XYZ. I said earlier that this was due to scalability. If you have lots of very small points of colour, as in a file, at some time these have to be turned into larger areas of colour for the purpose of screening or other needs of an output device. That means that if you have a number of these points, each with its own colour value, you want the total average colour to be reasonably accurate for the area of the larger number of points.

The general problem is in the math and the physics. If you average the multiple XYZ values of all the points, both physically and mathematically, you basically get an accurate value for the combined colour of all these points. This does not work for Lab values. Averaging the L, a, and b values does not give you an average value of Lab that represents the actual resulting colour.

Can you provide any "real world" example, an image for instance, that will actually win from being in XYZ?

 

[Puch]

We use eciRGBv2 as an internal standard RGB color space for more than 5 years, with glaring success. And, we use Dan Margulis' LAB editing methods as a daily routine. That two rare attachements of mine gives us a head start over any other imaging company in our area.

On the other hand, we always hand out data which can be used by the most obscure systems. Just as 'cementary' mentioned, most of the CTP systems (and not only in Eastern Europe, but in ever so increasing numbers at the 1st world, too) doesn't get the needed updates to handle abstract graphic data like we have in PDF/X-4 and above. So PDF/X-1a will not die, it's alive and well.

The new eciCMYK initiative might help a bit in that regard, and I understand clearly what Magnus tried to emphasize. Eg. today we use FOGRA 39 as the standard output color space as that is the process most of the printers in Europe embraced with a great effort. On the other hand, we get more and more negative feedback, where the root cause can be tracked down to two topics already mentioned here. A.) the paper white of the FOGRA 39 isn't good for today's OBA stuffed papers, so the screen-to-press or the proof-to-press match can't happen. B.) Even high-profile printers don't have the means and knowledge to repurpose data according to the used paper stock.

I imagine that a CMKY color space with a bluish white point, limited to 280 percent TAC with an agressive GCR might make life much more easier for those folks, who just want to 'print'. That's what eciCMYK is all about.

 

[cementary]

I imagine that a CMKY color space with a bluish white point, limited to 280 percent TAC with an agressive GCR might make life much more easier for those folks, who just want to 'print'. That's what eciCMYK is all about.

Maybe so, but for all others it will create one more annoying request from customers:
"Can you work from ecicmyk? We've got a bunch of images in eciCMYK that we've created from sRGB on uncalibrated monitor in ProofMode with U.S. Web coated v2 in saturation RI (but we wont tell you 'bout it 'cause it's our professional secret for creating jingle colors).
...
Can you please make a colorproof for us. Target profile? eciCMYK of course — our designer said it's most trending colorspace. Yes, colorspace, you've heard me right.
...
And of course your printing press, alined with PSO Uncoated v3, should show the same colors as proof with eciCMYK. It's a MUST.
...
What da you meen you can't achieve that on our newspaper paper? Previous run (printed in Canada on UVLED press BTW) was just fine and our bosses were jolly as hell!
...
Yes, it was printed on glossy coated 200 gsm paper, so what? Oh, you're so unprofessional.

 

[cementary]

If you don't trust this kind of analytical approach, then I can't help you. Maybe you can test it on a monitor in some way with software but one would need to be sure it is calculating properly.

Erik, with all due respect, if it doesn't make any difference, that customer can see/feel/measure that's just pointless.
There is a lot of mathematical and analytical stuff one can calculate. JohnTheMathGuy definitely can give a lot more examples in color math and dE's calculations.
But it doesn't change a thing — if result can't be measured "visually" as improvement — why bother?

 

[Deleted member 16349]

Erik, with all due respect, if it doesn't make any difference, that customer can see/feel/measure that's just pointless.
There is a lot of mathematical and analytical stuff one can calculate. JohnTheMathGuy definitely can give a lot more examples in color math and dE's calculations.
But it doesn't change a thing — if result can't be measured "visually" as improvement — why bother?

There is no point discussing this. You couldn't follow the logic.

I deleted my post with the calculations trying to explain the problem, since this forum is not suitable.

 

[arossetti]

There is no point discussing this. You couldn't follow the logic.

I deleted my post with the calculations trying to explain the problem, since this forum is not suitable.

For what it is worth I was listening.

 

[cementary]

There is no point discussing this. You couldn't follow the logic.

I deleted my post with the calculations trying to explain the problem, since this forum is not suitable.

That's kinda rude, don't you think? You're adressing my incompetence in logic and deleting your post without attempt to explain your point in detail? Maybe other forum members could argue my point and support yours. Why not given them a chance? Maybe that's arrogance rather than rudeness?
anyway, i'm always open to other opinions. Pm is still an option, please don't act in such way

​​​​

 

[Ozkan Hangisi]

I couldn't read all the entries but Fogra53 looks pretty good approach. In my country half of print customers are not aware of color management and all of their Adobe applications have default USWebCoatedSWOP CMYK profile on color settings (They have no idea what a profile is and why it must be readjusted). The other half are aware and they have Fogra39 or ISO_Coated_V2 CMYK profile for coated paper jobs. Fogra51 is in use but rare choice at the moment. They convert RGB images under Photoshop with "Mode CMYK", use them in layout applications and then finally produce PDF files. In most cases none of CMYK images or graphics have included source profile in PDF also there is no output intent available. This makes very difficult to usage of destination profiles. Now I assume at near future, Fogra53 will be set up as default CMYK profile all over the world for all Adobe and similar applications. So printinghouses all the time be sure about CMYK source profile of the customer jobs. They will be able to convert jobs according to their working conditions. On the otherhand Fogra53 profile color space should cover all common coated CMYK process profiles but must be slightly wider (not much). After convertion to custom or a suitable process profile for coated paper, color loss must be minimal.

 

[cementary]

Now I assume at near future, Fogra53 will be set up as default CMYK profile all over the world for all Adobe and similar applications. So printinghouses all the time be sure about CMYK source profile of the customer jobs. They will be able to convert jobs according to their working conditions. On the otherhand Fogra53 profile color space should cover all common coated CMYK process profiles but must be slightly wider (not much). After convertion to custom or a suitable process profile for coated paper, color loss must be minimal.

But why would you assume that? Did you see any eci-profiles in Adobe Apps recently? Maybe long live eciRGB v.2, which is ISO 22028 btw?
One still need to go to eci website to download profiles because they aren't proprietary Adobe profiles. And if you do, it would be good first step in world of color management.
I'd like to state my point again, for Magnus, exclusevly - no magical super druper profile will help you and your customers if they don't know what they're doing. On contrary it can make things worse.
So my point is - relax and be ready to educate you customers. On demand, of course. If they don't want - don't bother, you'll save some nerves

 

[Magnus]

I'd like to state my point again, for Magnus, exclusevly - no magical super druper profile will help you and your customers if they don't know what they're doing. On contrary it can make things worse.
So my point is - relax and be ready to educate you customers. On demand, of course. If they don't want - don't bother, you'll save some nerves

Magical super duper profile? It's just an CMYK ICC-profile with a large gamut. We ARE educating our customers on daily basis and I'm also holding classes on this topic.

I get your point and understand what you are saying, but I'm not very fond of your pessimistic tone. Since this forum attracts people with technical knowledge I was hoping for a open minded colormanagement discussion.

 

[cementary]

I get your point and understand what you are saying, but I'm not very fond of your pessimistic tone. Since this forum attracts people with technical knowledge I was hoping for a open minded colormanagement discussion.

Why do you think it's pessimistic? From my experience customers with enough colormanagement knowledge are the growing community — more of them every year.
Yet there are customers who just don't want to learn or change the way they work for years. Are you honestly believe you can change that?

Maybe i'm missing a point, but in your posts in this thread you're making lots of assumptions and state things which i cannot agree, i'm sorry. E.g. you've said that fogra39 is already replaced by fogra51 — but that's not true, at least in Russia. Most printers (who know colormanagement - not so much of them) still use fogra39 as a target characterization set and don't even think about moving to fogra51. They just don't want to do that because there is no demand from customers. They are all happy with what they've got today and don't see much improvement.
Again maybe in your country things are different, i don't know. But the last time i've been on GUA in poland with lots of kodak customers from all over the Europe i've heard from them just same things.

BTW, in our printing house we're using fogra39 as a target charset for sheetfed presses, and making proofs on oba-free paper from gmg. Even with slight difference in b value of papers we're hitting our proofs, made to ISO_coated_v2, and 95% of patches from characterization data set are below 5 dE76 from fogra39 set. 88% below 4 dE76.

We've implemented staccato 20m, created all sorts of DVL profiles — fitted for fogra39, wider than that etc. Do you think many customers are willing to print staccato? 10 runs in past year. 5 in this. They just don't need it.

But ok, let's suppose it's true — Adobe has eciCMYK profile now.
How can you be sure that customers monitor is calibrated, profiled and ambient lights are set up just right? RI is ok or not?
how will you explain to your customer that proof made to eciCMYK profile doesn't exactly the same as the print result? Do you and your customer need that complications?
If your digital press have bigger gamut than eciCMYK, will that help you?
Should your customer work in RGB under eciCMYK proof profile mode? Or in eciCMYK native? I'm sure you're understand that even 100% tones in eciCMYK will look differently under compared to the fogra51 or 39. So from rgb customer should convert to what profile?

 

[Magnus]

Thanks for your input Cementary, I tried to answer most of your questions below.

Why do you think it's pessimistic? From my experience customers with enough colormanagement knowledge are the growing community — more of them every year.
Yet there are customers who just don't want to learn or change the way they work for years. Are you honestly believe you can change that?

I think that this (a good generic CMYK profile like F53) might make it easier for the designer/customers in the long term. Our typical customer are exporting files for alot of different media, web/video/social media and also for print. I think that alot of customers would be happy if we told them that they only need to use ONE single CMYK profile and only ONE PDF-export setting when they are creatimg print files. If they are picky we can send them proofs (or soft proofs if) that simulates the final print. I really don't think I can change much, I just see the potential of eciCMYK/Fogra51.

Maybe i'm missing a point, but in your posts in this thread you're making lots of assumptions and state things which i cannot agree, i'm sorry. E.g. you've said that fogra39 is already replaced by fogra51 — but that's not true, at least in Russia. Most printers (who know colormanagement - not so much of them) still use fogra39 as a target characterization set and don't even think about moving to fogra51.

ISO, Fogra and ECI have replaced Fogra39 with Fogra51. Right now there is a transition phase from ISO 12647-2:2004 to ISO 12647-2:2013. That doesn't mean that every printer and customer have made the leap yet, but they have to if they want to follow the industry standard. It's not something I'm making up.

https://www.iso.org/standard/57833.html

BTW, in our printing house we're using fogra39 as a target charset for sheetfed presses, and making proofs on oba-free paper from gmg. Even with slight difference in b value of papers we're hitting our proofs, made to ISO_coated_v2, and 95% of patches from characterization data set are below 5 dE76 from fogra39 set. 88% below 4 dE76.

Good work! I'm guessing you will get even better visual results with PSO Coated v3, M1 measurments and OBA papers in the future.

But ok, let's suppose it's true — Adobe has eciCMYK profile now. How can you be sure that customers monitor is calibrated, profiled and ambient lights are set up just right? RI is ok or not?

You can't. I don't understand, I've never suggested that eciCMYK would change that matter.

how will you explain to your customer that proof made to eciCMYK profile doesn't exactly the same as the print result? Do you and your customer need that complications?

I would not send them an eciCMYK proof, I would send them a proof thats simulating the final product (after conversion).

An eciCMYK proof could be made if the customer is making a campaign and going to print their artwork on many different techniques and substrates maybe even in many different countries. Then they can use the eciCMYK proof as a sort of master copy for review. Of course knowing that variations will occure because of different gamuts and whitepoints etc.

Should your customer work in RGB under eciCMYK proof profile mode? Or in eciCMYK native? I'm sure you're understand that even 100% tones in eciCMYK will look differently under compared to the fogra51 or 39. So from rgb customer should convert to what profile?

The customer should not convert from RGB to CMYK, they should (in this scenario) export a RGB+CMYK PDF/X-4 file with eciCMYK as the output intent profile. The printer would then convert the file (both CMYK and RGB) for the specific printing method/device.

I'm not saying that anybody need or have to work this way. I just think that it could be a good approach and it's really interesting to read others thoughts about it.

 

[cementary]

I think that this (a good generic CMYK profile like F53) might make it easier for the designer/customers in the long term. Our typical customer are exporting files for alot of different media, web/video/social media and also for print. I think that alot of customers would be happy if we told them that they only need to use ONE single CMYK profile and only ONE PDF-export setting when they are creatimg print files. If they are picky we can send them proofs (or soft proofs if) that simulates the final print. I really don't think I can change much, I just see the potential of eciCMYK/Fogra51.

Well thats a good point. I just don't understand why this is gonna be better than e.g. iso_coated_v2 or pso_coated_v3? You can always create bunch of dvl profiles to suite all you needs.

ISO, Fogra and ECI have replaced Fogra39 with Fogra51. Right now there is a transition phase from ISO 12647-2:2004 to ISO 12647-2:2013. That doesn't mean that every printer and customer have made the leap yet, but they have to if they want to follow the industry standard. It's not something I'm making up.

I don't think you're making it up — i think that lots of printers are trying to fulfill their customer expectations on color of the final product. And i don't believe that 12647-2:2004 or 2013 will help them much. Being an UCE i should probably support 12647 series, and i do, but not on color. I prefer 15339 series thinking and substrate corrected printing. Also i don't realy fond of M1 from x-rite.

I would not send them an eciCMYK proof, I would send them a proof thats simulating the final product (after conversion).
An eciCMYK proof could be made if the customer is making a campaign and going to print their artwork on many different techniques and substrates maybe even in many different countries. Then they can use the eciCMYK proof as a sort of master copy for review. Of course knowing that variations will occure because of different gamuts and whitepoints etc.

This will probably increase production time. Our customers won't like that.

The customer should not convert from RGB to CMYK, they should (in this scenario) export a RGB+CMYK PDF/X-4 file with eciCMYK as the output intent profile. The printer would then convert the file (both CMYK and RGB) for the specific printing method/device.

Again, you've said yourself in different thread that cmyk are just numbers — profile you need only when converting from rgb. In this scenario rgb+cmyk pdf/x-4, which i believe is the best way, eci-cmyk is an unnecessary step IMHO. There will be less color transformations without it.

 

[Correct Color]

Well since this has fired up again, I'll just add two cents having read along with some interest but not yet weighed in.

To me, it seems like a futile effort. I downloaded the thing and had a look awhile back, and yes, it's a big CMYK space. But...

So? As far as I can see, it doesn't define any actual printing condition. And even if it does, it's still only one. It's got a white point and primary chroma values just like any other CMYK color space, and just like any other CMYK color space, if those don't happen to be the white point and primary chroma values of your final printing color space, then it's no more valid than any other CMYK space for any purpose.

I did read somewhere -- I forget now whether it was in this thread or in the blurb as I was downloading the thing -- that it was at least in part an effort to respond to the typically larger gamuts of large format inkjet. But at least in large format inkjet, where there are no common white points and no common primary chroma values, it is particularly important not to convert to CMYK until print time. And while it's true that the gamut size of this space is in the range of several large format printers printing on -- say -- gloss vinyls, it's of course not exactly any of them.

If you're in litho and printing on coated stock and your final output is going to be somewhere in the vicinity of GRAcol or SWOP, then working in this space and sending out proofs that are not converted to whatever your actual space is beforehand seems to me like it'd be begging for problems. So if you feel you have to work in CMYK, why not work in your final space to begin with. If you don't know the final destination or it's multiples and includes everything from the Sunday supplement to vehicle wraps, then I can't see any reason to be in CMYK at all.

At least if you're in RGB, then everyone in the chain has a pretty good understanding that there will at some point be a conversion to the print space. Put this thing out there as a CMYK space to rule all, and lots of people will read that as one size fits all and act accordingly.

But it doesn't, of course, and it never will.



Mike Adams


Correct Color

 

[Puch]

Well since this has fired up again, I'll just add two cents having read along with some interest but not yet weighed in.

If you don't know the final destination or it's multiples and includes everything from the Sunday supplement to vehicle wraps, then I can't see any reason to be in CMYK at all.

Correct Color

Now that's apparently too much for most of the folks out there. We've spent the '90s evangelizing 'convert to CMYK', as the only usable integrator application (QuarkXPress) produced inferior quality from RGB input. I had spent a great time & effort to revert this back, trying to sell the idea to leave the images in RGB because now we have InDesign, which consumes everything. Sorry to say, converting to CMYK right at the start got a very strong foothold, even among the photographers themselves, who don't need to bother with any such things by definition.

BTW, in our printing house we're using fogra39 as a target charset for sheetfed presses, and making proofs on oba-free paper from gmg. Even with slight difference in b value of papers we're hitting our proofs, made to ISO_coated_v2, and 95% of patches from characterization data set are below 5 dE76 from fogra39 set. 88% below 4 dE76.

We've implemented staccato 20m, created all sorts of DVL profiles — fitted for fogra39, wider than that etc. Do you think many customers are willing to print staccato? 10 runs in past year. 5 in this. They just don't need it.

That's the main reason why the change will happen very slowly. Many printing houses invested a lot of money and effort to reach FOGRA 39. Without seeing a real benefit, they won't move forward, as the 'leap' needs a lot of investment – again. Software updates, new instruments must be bought, user guides for customers must be written and a thorough re-evaulation of all the processes must be performed. If the gain is minimal (say +/- 2 ticks in the b of the white point) there is no such big drive to spit ourselves in the face.

Apart that, Adobe has the key in its pocket: if they make an 'all-around' profile like Fogra 53 to be the 'worldwide' default in the CC applications (instead of the local standards, which not many people touch), that would be great.

 

[cementary]

That's the main reason why the change will happen very slowly. Many printing houses invested a lot of money and effort to reach FOGRA 39. Without seeing a real benefit, they won't move forward, as the 'leap' needs a lot of investment – again. Software updates, new instruments must be bought, user guides for customers must be written and a thorough re-evaulation of all the processes must be performed. If the gain is minimal (say +/- 2 ticks in the b of the white point) there is no such big drive to spit ourselves in the face.

A lot of money? You're gotta be kidding. Effort? Well if you call that effort I dunno. Making impositions is quite an effort to? Or printing? Plate outputting?
And your best one - investments to move forward. I'd like to remind you that printers do not print for themselves but for customers. If customers want f39 we'll fulfill their expectations on colour. If 95% of customers creates files to iso_coated_v2 do you honestly believe that printer should calibrate to smth else. Most of Our customers buying color, not lab numbers or charsets.

Apart that, Adobe has the key in its pocket: if they make an 'all-around' profile like Fogra 53 to be the 'worldwide' default in the CC applications (instead of the local standards, which not many people touch), that would be great.

Aye, women will be smiling and children happily wandering around. Adobe is responsible, yep.

 

[Correct Color]

I agree completely about Adobe.

Here in the US, the equivalent of Forgra 39 is GRACoL 2006. And many of the evangelists of G7 in large format -- a group which most emphatically does not include me -- sing its praises and encourage clients to set it as their incoming CMYK space in their RIP's.

I don't quite share their awe, since it's still just a sheetfed press on coated stock, and a much smaller gamut than any even reasonably well-profiled large format printer printing on coated stock; but aside from that, my response is always that when Adobe changes their CMYK defaults to GRACoL, the I'll start setting up RIP's that way. Until then, if you get a file from a client that's already CMYK, there's about a 99.9% chance that it's SWOP. And it's not going to help it any at all to pretend it's something else.

A lot of money? You're gotta be kidding. Effort? Well if you call that effort I dunno. Making impositions is quite an effort to? Or printing? Plate outputting?

Well, effort always translates into money. And I'd point out that all the things you describe are effort true enough, but all of them are billable. Making this change would not be. And while there's no huge capital expenditure required, I can see a good deal of time (money) being spent on implementation and training, all of which would not be billable. So as with anything else, the question is always if the money spent is going to bring a return.

In this case, I just don't see it.



Mike

 

[cementary]

Here in the US, the equivalent of Forgra 39 is GRACoL 2006. And many of the evangelists of G7 in large format -- a group which most emphatically does not include me -- sing its praises and encourage clients to set it as their incoming CMYK space in their RIP's.

In Russia there is kinda unwritten standard between customers to send files with no ICC included and no OI embedded. Maybe due to big printers in early 2000 didn't manage to understand color management so they claim all icc-profiles to be bad as hell.
We're decided that "who we are to change the market" and made a trick — when customer sings the contract there is an annex in which we're state that we believe that every CMYK-file customer sending to us is created with iso_coated_v2 in mind. And if customer didn't thought about that profile — it's not our problem. If customer needs a proof — proof is created to the same iso_coated_v2. Then we print on press aligned to fogra39 charset. Proof matches press — everybody happy. For these years i can remember two, maybe three customers, willing to print to GRACol, but they as you've said "evangelists of G7" and System Brunner fan-club. After all they also were pleased with our print work.

Well, effort always translates into money. And I'd point out that all the things you describe are effort true enough, but all of them are billable. Making this change would not be. And while there's no huge capital expenditure required, I can see a good deal of time (money) being spent on implementation and training, all of which would not be billable. So as with anything else, the question is always if the money spent is going to bring a return.

In this case, I just don't see it.

I'd like to clarify. I don't believe that cash-positive printer is not capable investing about 10-15K $ (max) to implement new 2013 standard with new fogra charset and pso v3 profiles. I think that there is too much to be cared for to run to the previous and today's standard at the same time. So there can be a situation when printer is long time ready to print to pso_v3, but customer don't. And by switching completely to fogra51 one can actually loose customers.

That's what i call standard delay of standards.
2004 - 12647-2 second edition
2008 - iso_coated_v2 profile
2013 - new version of 12647-2.
2014 - most of printers made it to the iso_coated_v2. Most of designers too
2015 - pso_v3 is out

i think that by the time we'll all accept v3 profiles there will be new ISO, and maybe v4 and v5 profiles.