PMS 280: conversion to CMYK

[Funkhauser]

Hello all:
I need one of you experts to help me with this:
My client supplied me with a file in which he wanted to print PMS 280 in CMYK equivelent. The file was created by HIS designer. The 280 portion of the job printed way to dark - almost black. the values supplied in the file were:
100C 94M 28Y 23K
which I believe was obtained from InDesign.
It seems that there are many different CMYK combinations for PMS 280 - it depends where you look (Quark, Illustrator, Pantone Colour Bridge, etc). How do you know which is going to print proerly?
Now the client is asking for my advice as to a more accurate conversion for 280.
I would appreciate some direction because I don't know what to tell him.
All future jobs will be printed on coated stock, mostly Silk text or cover. All will be printed sheet fed offset.

 

[Stephen Marsh]

Three things to keep in mind:

There is a source recipe in Lab colour numbers - so which “Pantone” recipe is the source?

There is a destination recipe in CMYK colour numbers, which “CMYK” profile/space is the destination? The same Lab colours can be created using many different mixtures of CMYK.

And last but not least, is your printing actually to the same condition as the conversion destination?


Stephen Marsh

 

[PrintingFocus]

Spot Colour PMS 280 is not a CMYK Match

Spot Colour PMS 280 is not a CMYK Match

Hello,

CMYK is not a supported Pantone conversion.

Simply, you can't create an exact match to PMS 280 using CMYK.

If your client is not prepared to pay for spot colour print, then they must accept some colour change.

You should not be getting close to black colours though?!?

What is your print method litho/digital? Different substrates etc... I guess it must be litho otherwise you would not have asked! I guess your end client understands the difference between coated and uncoated and the difference this has from the same PMS 280?

Ask your client to use spot colour in their artwork but convert to CMYK prior to creating the PDF for print.

PANTONE themselves do not guarantee this colour match.

Mark.

 

[Louis Dery]

Best CMYK simulation, based on Pantone + Coated, with Gracol Coated 1 2006 (with strong GCR) should be:
C100 M92 Y0 K31

 

[roger]

If you own a recent Pantone PMS book, there is a code printed on it which will allow you to download their Color Manager app. Using this app, you can select a color from their 'books', select a profile representative of your printing condition and get the 'best' build for the spot color. (Ideally you use a profile made of your printing process and worthwhile if you really need to have great color match.) Screen capture attached showing regular GRACoL profile - Louis used a strong GCR which I recommend doing.

 

[Eric van der Kop]

Let the customer decide what color he wants by giving him examples.
If you have a workflow in which you can do color (re)mapping you can select all kinds of wrong specfied Pantone 280 and map that to the color you want. This can be done in the RIP but also in a workflow.

 

[sidneykidney]

You're absolutely right that every software gives you a different reading. I found a tool on the Pantone website which allows you to find the equivalent Pantone colour through the different colour systems (ink, CMYK, metalics, pastels, materials).
Go to: Graphics - Pantone Color Cross-reference

1 - Below the swatch image, click on the Pantone colour guide you are looking at (coated, uncoated)
2 - Click on 'Color' and select the Pantone Colour you require converting (Pantone 280C)
3 - Click 'X-Ref PANTONE Guide' and then go down to 'CMYK Coated'
4 - Click on the right hand side blue swatch and it shows you the CMYK values (C100 M94 Y0 K23)

I'm not sure how accurate the CMYK values are but at least you have a consistent CMYK value rather than every software giving you different readings...you can also blame Pantone if it's wrong

 

[John W]

There are several Pantone CMYK conversion books such as Bridge and Solid to Process guides printed over the years. IMO, even these books are now wrong for those colors that are hard to match in CMYK. From 2001, 280 shows as 100C, 72M, 0Y, 18K. From 2010, 280 shows as 100C, 78M, 5Y, 18K. From 2013, 280 shows as 100C, 85M, 5Y, 22K.
IMO, these changes reflect Pantone struggle to match 280 and still allow their creation of many new "four digit" colors showing a difference between them! Firstly, let me say this: No pure Blue dark or light should have yellow, period. Here is a website to see older and I think good values: CMYK → PANTONE. The problem here with process is the magenta; too much it turns too purplish blue, too little it turns greenish blue. You cannot win and the sensitivity of this during the print run can be killer. Having said that, I believe the best matches are the older GCR style values in the oldest books and the website above, (used in reverse in this case). Good Luck with it. BTW, isn't it interesting that 280 and 661 give the same cmyk values which makes my point above.

 

[PrintingFocus]

BTW, isn't it interesting that 280 and 661 give the same cmyk values which makes my point above.

Yes, very interesting John. Nice PMS find - just goes to show and good point you made in your full post.

280 & 661 are quite different colours to someone with a printers eye too!

 

[Trev Jost]

We spend all day, everyday, matching colour for our clients. We provide near perfect simulations in cmyk but ultimately their opinion is the final word. Provide a proof with varying swatches and let them choose. For the cleanest, most vibrant, avoid using the third colour, replacing it with black. For example: in blue - avoid yellow; red - avoid cyan and in green avoid magenta. There is no perfect recipe due to differences in ink sets, substrates, printing processes and viewing conditions. If they're still not satisfied, the only option is the PM$ route. After over 30 years of head banging, I'm still amazed anything ever gets approved and printed!

 

[Stephen Marsh]

As Pantone Plus 280 is out of gamut for ISO12647 printing conditions, it is then up to individual opinion on what is the “best” recipe to use. As CMYK is poor at reproducing rich blues, I personally prefer a version that is perhaps a little lighter and “cleaner” than is delivered by common profiles (say C100 M75 K30, as previously discussed, too much M and one gets purple and no yellow for purity).


Stephen Marsh

 

[rich apollo]

Oh, sure, pull the "gamut card", Mr. Wizard. Out of gamut is no excuse! Send somebody out for an extra jug of Luscious.

Know why CMYK is poor at reproducing rich blues?

'Cause Chuck Norris doesn't like blue!

 

[Repro_Pro]

So many variables come into play in some PMS/CMYK simulations, that no single objective answer exists.
There is also the fact that each persons' vision/color perception is different (sometimes there is noticeable difference in color perception between one persons' left and right eye...)!
Ultimately, the individual customer must decide on a sample that is preferable/nearer than others, to his/her vision (or "taste"?). It's a personal, subjective decision.
In the mid 1990's, after having coped with such situations many times, we finally wrote a small software program that allowed us to automatically create a set of "visually close" color variations around a sample CMYK combination, all on a single sheet, and made a hard-copy proof, now let the customer choose.
That did help in shortening the (hesitation...) decision cycle.
This approach may still be practical if a reliable, hard-copy digital proof is available.

 

[Stephen Marsh]

In the mid 1990's, after having coped with such situations many times, we finally wrote a small software program that allowed us to automatically create a set of "visually close" color variations around a sample CMYK combination, all on a single sheet, and made a hard-copy proof, now let the customer choose.

Yes, been there done that many times!

The blend tool in Illustrator is good for that, or one can use a script in InDesign (file attached).


Stephen Marsh

 

[Stephen Marsh]

Oh, sure, pull the "gamut card", Mr. Wizard. Out of gamut is no excuse! Send somebody out for an extra jug of Luscious.

Know why CMYK is poor at reproducing rich blues?

'Cause Chuck Norris doesn't like blue!

Rich, I have problems with CMYK blue turning purple when using magenta - and now you are throwing Luscious into the recipe?! Give me a break! Have you any idea what they charge for a Luscious filter to retrofit onto a spectro? Those Luscious conversion formulas just don’t seem to cut it, I much prefer the filter, but they can only be used once before they are burned out from absorbing the Lusciousness. It’s a tough job, I have had to start wearing a welders mask to cope with even small amounts of Luscious - and you want a whole JUG?


Stephen Marsh

 

[gordo]

Rich, I have problems with CMYK blue turning purple when using magenta - and now you are throwing Luscious into the recipe?! Give me a break! Have you any idea what they charge for a Luscious filter to retrofit onto a spectro? Those Luscious conversion formulas just don’t seem to cut it, I much prefer the filter, but they can only be used once before they are burned out from absorbing the Lusciousness. It’s a tough job, I have had to start wearing a welders mask to cope with even small amounts of Luscious - and you want a whole JUG?


Stephen Marsh

Luscious is manageable if you use a UV cut filter.

Gordo

 

[Stephen Marsh]

Luscious is manageable if you use a UV cut filter.

Gordo

Gordo, when it comes to Luscious - there is no way that I am going trust just a regular old UV filter. Have you taken a look at the spectral plot for Luscious?


Stephen Marsh

 

[gordo]

Gordo, when it comes to Luscious - there is no way that I am going trust just a regular old UV filter. Have you taken a look at the spectral plot for Luscious?


Stephen Marsh

OK, I know the spectral plot looks like the Apple stock chart - but that's how you separate the true pros from the wannabees!

Gordo