P A N T O N E Thoughts on 9/11

[meddington]

Discontinuing the current Pantone guide, would be an excellent start. Pantone should only offer and license GOE. And I cannot wait for 2 weeks until Gordo gets to feast his eyes on PANTONE 123.

GOE has many advantages over PMS, but it doesn't address the issues your describing with PMS123 (other than the fact that there IS no pms123).
I suspect that you'll see similar differences between coated and uncoated with
GOE defined warm-yellows as you do with PMS.

 

[Lukas Engqvist]

There is an alternative system describing colour called teh NCS system (NCS - Natural Color System). They have a way of describing colour, and one set of swatch books, but they do not make ink, and their CMYK swatches do not consider substrate differences, and I have seen some very poor "official" values from colours and when I talked to them they were not aware of the standards within print. It is only recently that Pantone was aquired by Xrite, and colour management is still developing.

 

[D Ink Man]

Thank you Lukas and Meddington

Meddinton, One Note: Part of the GOE systems attributes being hailed by Pantone is that the ink films, or density are much more balanced versus the current guide. Also, the pigments are stable and mostly chemical resistant, which is a great property with the upward trend of sheet fed presses aqueous coating on a regular basis. Balanced ink films and ability to apply both water based and ultraviolet coatings is a move in the correct direction. And it doesn't really matter that there are fewer color choices with GOE, it is actually a positive, with less chance of failure in the food chain, from the designer to the final print customer. There will always be 'Match Colors' that will needed to be custom matched, and that's OK. Thanks men.

 

[Bob Peterson]

D Ink Man,

I agree with your observation of the current Pantone coated and uncoated guides pertaining to 123 yellow. I took density readings of the both books D50 2* Status T Absolute. The coated book reads .80 and the uncoated is .93 . This is a substantial difference in ink film required as we both know that most uncoated substrates will dry back .15-.25 points in density, where as coated stocks typically only dry back .05-.10 depending on the various ink pigmentation and ink vehicle composition.

The only way Pantone achieved the 123 yellow in the uncoated book, using the same ink printed on the coated book, was to run 3-mils or more of ink film which is double the amount a offset press can carry with a single hit. Therefore, the only way the color could be achieved would be by a double hit or reformulating the ink to match. If I were to match the coated book using Pantone's suggested formula I would have to cut it with 50% transparent white to achieve the saturation.

I have been an ink tech for 28-years and this is nothing new from Pantone and therefore it doesn't surprise me. As far as the GOE guide is concerned, Pantone has made a step in the right direction with regards to creating a color guide with colors that can be made using coatable pigments. However, I have already encountered colors in the GOE guide that were printed with an excessive ink film thickness.

My 2 Cents!

Bob

 

[Deleted member 16349]

D Ink Man,

I agree with your observation of the current Pantone coated and uncoated guides pertaining to 123 yellow. I took density readings of the both books D50 2* Status T Absolute. The coated book reads .80 and the uncoated is .93 . This is a substantial difference in ink film required as we both know that most uncoated substrates will dry back .15-.25 points in density, where as coated stocks typically only dry back .05-.10 depending on the various ink pigmentation and ink vehicle composition.





Bob

Density values are not directly related to ink film thickness. One can have the same ink film on one substrate as on another and the densities will most likely not be the same. Density values are a nice indicator of the relative changes in ink film thickness when one is dealing with the same ink and paper combination.

From what I understand from the best explanation I have heard, dry back is not related to the ink film thickness so much but to the reflection properties on the surface of the ink film as it dries and goes from a glossier surface to a less glossier surface, which tends to reflect more of the light from the light source in the densitometer back up to the receptor causing the density reading to drop as the ink dries. With this explanation it makes sense that ink on a less smooth substrate (uncoated) would have a greater dry back than ink on a smooth substrate (coated).

Your measurements of the densities of PMS 123 on coated and uncoated are interesting and probably Pantone has done something strange but there might also be other explanations.

 

[Bob Peterson]

Density values are not directly related to ink film thickness. One can have the same ink film on one substrate as on another and the densities will most likely not be the same. Density values are a nice indicator of the relative changes in ink film thickness when one is dealing with the same ink and paper combination.

I have to absolutley agree with this. My reference to density is purely to demonstrate that something was done to the film weight of the ink run on the uncoated Pantone book. For example: If you were to have a 123 yellow to color on a gloss coated sheet and then just swap out the stock to uncoated without any changes to the press settings the color would lack saturation and obviously the density would be lower due to the difference in the stocks pigment holdout. With this in mind, you would have to increase film weight to increase saturation and density to come close to matching the uncoated PMS book that D Ink Man was referencing.

From what I understand from the best explanation I have heard, dry back is not related to the ink film thickness so much but to the reflection properties on the surface of the ink film as it dries and goes from a glossier surface to a less glossier surface, which tends to reflect more of the light from the light source in the densitometer back up to the receptor causing the density reading to drop as the ink dries. With this explanation it makes sense that ink on a less smooth substrate (uncoated) would have a greater dry back than ink on a smooth substrate (coated).

Couldn't have put it better myself!

Your measurements of the densities of PMS 123 on coated and uncoated are interesting and probably Pantone has done something strange but there might also be other explanations.

Something is definetly a miss with the current printing of the Pantone coated & uncoated books pertaining to the PMS 123 yellow. The coated version lacks saturation, looks washed out, for a color that is full strength. If you don't have a current edition to view, I can only describe the difference as if you look at 123 coated and compare it to 165 coated. The difference would represent what the 123 coated looks like versus the 123 uncoated in the current edition. The same ink will not look this different from coated to uncoated at the same film weight.

Bob

 

[D Ink Man]

Thank you very much Mr. Bob Peterson for your reply. I actually swelled up with tears when I read it, as I finally got a practical, logical answer to this original post. It is just so astonishing that it took 3 pages of replies and 5 days to get someone to fortify the proclamation about the vivid shortcomings of Pantone.. Again, thank you Mr. Peterson. Sincerely. D Ink Man

 

[Luc St-Pierre]

Pantone color matching system (ans similar systems) exists because of one and only one reason. The color model that the printing industry uses (CMYK) was designed before world war, has become obsolete and offers a very poor gamut. Therefore, spot colors are there to expand the color capacities. Today my kids print better images from their computers (RGB originals) to a tabletop 19$ inkjet than a top-of-the-notch offset press !!!! The flexo industry makes tremendous efforts to experiment with many different extended gamut color models and, in my opinion, offset industry is kind of snoozing on the subject. Some private color models (6 or 7 colorants) I have seen working on a flexo press can handle 90 to 95% of the Pantone book without having to clean the whole machine from run to run. Moving to new color models is the only way out of having to use spot colors and to get rid of scary amounts of ink pots in huge ink rooms that only are money sitting and waiting to be thrown out in the environment.

 

[meddington]

Hi Bob,

Something is definetly a miss with the current printing of the Pantone coated & uncoated books pertaining to the PMS 123 yellow. The coated version lacks saturation, looks washed out, for a color that is full strength.

PMS123C fits fairly well visually in between PMS122C and PMS124C, and IMO, is printed at a reasonable ink film thickness (based on samples we've done with PMS123...more below). Why would you decide it looks washed out? Moreover, PMS123U also fits between PMS122U and PMS124U. This issues in question between coated and uncoated occur in more than just PMS123.

If you don't have a current edition to view, I can only describe the difference as if you look at 123 coated and compare it to 165 coated.The difference would represent what the 123 coated looks like versus the 123 uncoated in the current edition.

That example is pretty extreme from what I'm seeing in the multiple versions of PMS guides I have here. The differences I'm seeing are more like PMS123c to PMS137C, but your point is taken, its a significant visual difference.

The same ink will not look this different from coated to uncoated at the same film weight.

Depends on how you define weight...if by density, than I disagree. If by ink film/volume...well, I still disagree.

I'm trying to keep an open mind here, but now you went and made me get all inky. We happen to have a can of PMS123, and after tapping out some samples, I'm sticking with my original story and attribute these results almost entirely on paper attributes. We don't have a Little Joe draw down machine on site (which, btw has a larger ink volume for use with uncoated paper), so this was done by hand, and therefore not very scientific, but the results were pretty evident to my press guys and I, and I maintain that PMS123 will look significantly different, along the same lines as the Pantone book examples, when printed on uncoated stock versus coated stock.

I took density readings of the both books D50 2* Status T Absolute. The coated book reads .80 and the uncoated is .93.

This was taken using the filter with the highest value no doubt, which is yellow. Although this is a "yellow" ink, this may or may not be the most appropriate filter for a Pantone color. If we use the "visual" filter, the densty values are likely much closer...I'm getting approx .015 and .021 for coated and uncoated. If we take the "Special" color channel reported by Xrite's MeasureTool with an i1Pro spectro, the results are 1.14 and 1.14 for coated and uncoated (a value derived from 410nm reflectance). So what manner was Pantone using to measure density, if any? We don't know, but the results are ambiguous anyway.

But lets say we match the yellow filter density between PMS123 printed on coated and uncoated from the samples I created with my ink and paper:

PMS123 on Coated
Density
C: .07
M: .30
Y: .87
K: .17

Lab values
L*: 83.38
a*: 14.3
b*: 71.34

PMS123 on Uncoated
Density
C: .09
M: .44
Y: .89
K: .23

Lab values
L*: 77.41
a*: 25.79
b*: 61.13

delta E comparisons between the two yeild a deE76 = 16.52 (dE2K = 9.75)

So, if we stop look at the density filter readings where we get the highest values, we see that the yellow filter gave us the highest value, but there is a significant difference in the magenta filter values. If we then target the magenta filter for an aim:

Density of PMS123 on Uncoated
C: .08
M: .29
Y: .62
K: .17

Lab values of PMS123 on coated
L*: 82.94
a*: 15.36
b*: 48.89

delta E comparisons between the two yeild a deE76 = 22.5 (dE2K = 7.09)

Note that the dE2000 value was lowered, indicating a somewhat closer visual result, but the sample still looks redder as the yellow (b*) value is way down.

Now, as far as ink film thickness, I had PMS123 tapped out on uncoated, and over the edge onto a matte coated stock, yeilding the same ink film over the two substrates. The Lab values differed significantly:

Lab values of PMS123 on Uncoated
L*: 80.9
a*: 19.3
b*: 54.2

Lab values of PMS123 on Matte
L*: 78.8
a*: 19.1
b*: 80.7

So at the same ink film thickness (again, not a scientific test) the L* and a* values are fairly close, but the b* value for uncoated is much lower and looks much redder.


In short, from my actual ink and paper samples, the PMS guide is not at all far off from reality.

from Mike's PMS123 stained keyboard.

 

[D Ink Man]

Meddinton:

I respect to tell you you are totally off base on your reply and also have killed a fly with a sledge hammer with your reply. My tears have dried up, thanks to you sir. Sincerely. D Ink Man

 

[meddington]

Meddinton:

I respect to tell you you are totally off base on your reply and also have killed a fly with a sledge hammer with your reply.

Fly's dead, ain't it?

My tears have dried up, thanks to you sir. Sincerely. D Ink Man

Sorry you feel that way and that I didn't tell you what you'd like to hear.. Thought you might like data from actual ink on paper rather than conjecture and speculation. I was able to match both the pantone coated and uncoated swatches under two delta E on the respective stocks, and it was clear to me (and others here) that matching the coated swatch on uncoated paper was not possible (and vice versa at reasonable/run-able ink films), but what do I know. Feel free to keep staring at your pantone guides in disgust if that's what you'd prefer.

 

[D Ink Man]

One ink at "THE SAME INK FILM THICKNESS" will not match Pantone 123, COATED guide versus UNCOATED guide as "PANTONE PROCLAIMS". They are quote "PANTONE Wet Samples" at "CONTROLLED COLOR STRENGTH" that you can purchase from Pantone for around $400 USD for each primary base. They come in a nifty corrugated board box with a round hole for each of the 11 bases. They include BASE Yellow, Warm Red, Rubine Red, Rhodamine Red, Purple, Violet, Procees Blue, Reflex Blue, Green, Neutral Black and yes, even, Transparent White. Pantone has 2 Standard Pantone guides, COATED and UNCOATED. Look at the formulas in the two guides, COATED and UNCOATED. THEY ARE "I D E N T I C A L". Do you understand to this point Meddinton???

Now, call Pantone in the United States of America where they are located in Moonachie, New Jersey. Talk to the technical liason and they will repeat what I've just stated. SAME FORMULA, SAME INK, SAME INK FILM THICKNESS in and on Both the COATED and UNCOATED guide. If you cannot understand that this a fleecing and arrogant STATEMENT by PANTONE that they can do what they want to do, then shame on you. They have no domestic competition and virtually have a MONOPOLY on COLOR. I repeat COLOR. They do not have to manufacture the ink for these COLORS and they do not have to lithograph to produce these COLORS. All they sell is COLOR and it is OFF STANDARD COLOR. Pantone 123 being just 'one example'. I f you cannot comprehend and understand this, I believe 1 of 2 things. You either are employed by Pantone or you need to take off the rose colored sunglasses you have on in your avatar, because buddy your BLIND. Bob Peterson explained it perfectlty, my whole point of this post. Read it, and be open minded. This is Graphic ARTS, not Graphic Science what you and many others may have tried to make it. So get off your apple and orange Lab comparison, C to U, and become PRACTICAL. This PRINT PLANET of ours needs more practicalitly and a reversal to old world craftsmanship. If this were done, it would help preserve the world of print and quality lithographing. Wake up!

 

[meddington]

I really think your misunderstanding my point. I never said that these guides were printed at the same ink film thickness. Uncoated paper stock will absorb more ink than coated, so its my opinion that the uncoated guide likely did use more ink, but the point is moot Irregardless of ink film differences, more, the same, or less, there will be significant visual differences between PMS123 printed on coated and uncoated, much like what the guides are showing. And yes, I understand that the formulae are the same between coated and uncoated.

My opinion, backed up by measurable data, is that these guides are not grossly far off in the prediction of appearance on coated and uncoated stocks. At nearly any reasonable ink film, the uncoated PMS123 sample will appear significantly redder than the coated sample. I'm not trying to defend pantone (trust me, there's no love lost between us), but neither am I trying to bash them. And no, I don't work for pantone.

You may want to re-read my post. And I would appreciate if you would drop the patronizing tone.

 

[D Ink Man]

Med, Firstly I would like to apologize if I seemed patronizing in my reply to you. We don't need that in this forum. Again, sorry. But I go back Bob Peterson's reply and would like to drive the point home to this. 2X (minimum) ink film needed for Uncoated guide, and 50% weaker by book formula for Coated guide. 'Pantone's 123 formula. This is again the point sir. It is an arrogant and a most dastardly act by Pantone to show they can get away with it. The people who use the guide are the ones who suffer. Pantone needs some competition. Respectully, D

Quote from Bob Peterson:
D Ink Man,

I agree with your observation of the current Pantone coated and uncoated guides pertaining to 123 yellow. I took density readings of the both books D50 2* Status T Absolute. The coated book reads .80 and the uncoated is .93 . This is a substantial difference in ink film required as we both know that most uncoated substrates will dry back .15-.25 points in density, where as coated stocks typically only dry back .05-.10 depending on the various ink pigmentation and ink vehicle composition.

The only way Pantone achieved the 123 yellow in the uncoated book, using the same ink printed on the coated book, was to run 3-mils or more of ink film which is double the amount a offset press can carry with a single hit. Therefore, the only way the color could be achieved would be by a double hit or reformulating the ink to match. If I were to match the coated book using Pantone's suggested formula I would have to cut it with 50% transparent white to achieve the saturation.
I have been an ink tech for 28-years and this is nothing new from Pantone and therefore it doesn't surprise me. As far as the GOE guide is concerned, Pantone has made a step in the right direction with regards to creating a color guide with colors that can be made using coatable pigments. However, I have already encountered colors in the GOE guide that were printed with an excessive ink film thickness.

My 2 Cents!

 

[meddington]

Thanks for that D ink. I have read Bob's post several times, and it seems very logical. I just happen to disagree based on my experience with coated and uncoated. This is why I chose to test this myself.

Its my feeling that the guides are readily achievable for both coated and uncoated at reasonable ink films. In short, I can hit them on press. What I can't do is make the uncoated look like the coated sample. This isn't the goal anyway. If you look at the colors that lead up to PMS123 and the ones that follow, PMS123 doesn't grossly jump out out of line. I could see that pantone might have increased ink weight to give more symmetry to the uncoated guide, but the point is, it can be printed. Those who disagree, that's fine, but feel free to try it before hurling tomatoes at pantone (or me).

 

[D Ink Man]

Thanks for that D ink. P have read Bob's post several times, and it seems very logical. I just happen to disagree based on my experience with coated and uncoated. This is why I chose to test this myself.

Its my feeling that the guides are readily achievable for both coated and uncoated at reasonable ink films. In short, I can hit them on press. What I can't do is make the uncoated look like the coated sample. This isn't the goal anyway. If you look at the colors that lead up to PMS123 and the ones that follow, PMS123 doesn't grossly jump out out of line. I could see that pantone might have increased ink weight to give more symmetry to the uncoated guide, but the point is, it can be printed. Those who disagree, that's fine, but feel free to try it before hurling tomatoes at pantone (or me).

Med,
I have already tried it. You CANNOT achieve the Pantone Coated Color, Density and the Pantone Uncoated Color, Density, and this is "THE KEY", with ONE INK with a single impression. IMPOSSIBLE on any Lithographic Press on the Planet. Do you understand now, or do I need a third opinion to break this stalemate? Keep your mind open and your thinking positive. This is not a 'tomato hurled' it is just FACT sir. D

 

[rapid3]

Here is another wrench that can be thrown into this discussion.
Pantone colors from different ink manufactures are different.
They don't all have the same pigment strength and/or vehicle.
Therefore, using density is a relative term. Some inks require a
higher density and some a lower density. Like I said before, the
Pantone book shows how a particular brand of ink prints on a
particular substrate. I myself have run PMS 123 on coated and
uncoated stocks and have had no problems matching the book.

 

[meddington]

Med,
I have already tried it. You CANNOT achieve the Pantone Coated Color, Density and the Pantone Uncoated Color, Density, and this is "THE KEY", with ONE INK with a single impression. IMPOSSIBLE on any Lithographic Press on the Planet. Do you understand now, or do I need a third opinion to break this stalemate? Keep your mind open and your thinking positive. This is not a 'tomato hurled' it is just FACT sir. D

Hardly a fact and hardly impossible. Different stocks will yield different results, and perhaps yours is not optimal for this, but it can be done.

 

[D Ink Man]

...An the beat goes on. I wonder if Gordo or some other practical soul has pulled up into Pantone Drive yet? I hope so soon, because the scenic view is magnifico. D

 

[Bob Peterson]

Popcorn anyone!