Soft proofing

[Jam]

HI,

New question gentlemen.

Do you or have you used a 'soft proofing' solution on press and if so what were your experiences?


J

 

[gordo]

HI,

New question gentlemen.

Do you or have you used a 'soft proofing' solution on press and if so what were your experiences?

J

I have only seen it used at a few print shops - mostly webpress magazine printers and mostly to check the separations (i.e. individual plate contents) something you can't do with a composite inkjet proof. It was also used to consolidate into a single proof, all the various proofs the magazines would get from ad agencies. The soft proofs were not used for color checking. The presses ran to the SWOP numbers and target - the advertisers got the color the presses delivered as a result.

If you are doing color critical work, I don't believe that soft proofing is very effective. Not because the monitors can't be color managed, but because you can't do a critical side by side comparison of press sheet to proof. Also, being emissive, means that the monitor proof won't react under different lighting conditions the same way a press sheet does.

best, gordon p

 

[Ian Mackenzie]

Jam -

Your question, while simple at the outset, requires some detailed background info if you are to get some helpful responses.

The short answer is, yes, it works. Many printers and publishers have very successful soft proofing systems in place that deliver benefits. BUT....it takes a commitment, the least of which is the actual capital investment.

1. Please define "Soft Proofing" in the context of what you are seeking. Is it a monitor proof for content, is it a contract proof for color, etc?
2. Do you have printing presses or do you send your magazines to a printer?
3. Do your editors and color techs believe in this or will they always require a hard proof for color OKs?
4. Do your pressmen (if applicable) belive in this?
5. Are you prepared to make the total press-side investment: Soft proofing system, monitors, racks for (overhead)monitors, viewing booths or lighting for monitors, training for all involved....? It can be a battle.
6. Will editors and content creators adjust to monitor proofs? Will they actually invest in "real" monitors (Eizo, NEC) and not just Apple Cinema displays?

We have been directly involved in several projects where softproofing was implemented to - in many cases - completely replace hard copy proofing. It works. You can make color critical decisions. The monitors/systems are SWOP certified like hard copy proofs. Yes, it seems to be a publishing and magazine phenomenon mostly with web presses.

as for choices , it comes to these systems....

1. ICS Remote Director
2. Kodak Insite
3. Serendipity/Blackmagic

If you have a Prinergy workflow, then go with Kodak. If not, then ICS does a great job and their people in the US are the best.

Good luck. You will need it.
Ian

 

[gordo]

[SNIP]You can make color critical decisions.[SNIP]

Just a niggling comment. I agree that you can make critical color decisions if you're using the monitor as a proof for massaging images in PShop. However I don't believe that you can make critical color decisions if you're using the monitor at the press as a proof for aligning presswork to proof or making ink key adjustments. This is because of a well established fact: humans do not have color memory. As soon as you look away from the monitor to a press sheet the color you saw on the monitor is lost. This is why press operators cut press sheets through color critical areas and lay the cut sheet over the proof to make the comparison and to evaluate the match. I have seen press operators try to do that with a soft proof, but the emissive nature of the monitor doesn't allow for that kind of check.

In magazine work there is usually no need to try and make such a critical match - it would be impractical anyway. So, for those types of environment soft proofing at press can be very useful - but not for critical color and hence no need for fancy color managed displays - so Apple Cinema is fine. At least in my experience.

best, gordon p

 

[Ian Mackenzie]

Just a niggling comment. I agree that you can make critical color decisions if you're using the monitor as a proof for massaging images in PShop. However I don't believe that you can make critical color decisions if you're using the monitor at the press as a proof for aligning presswork to proof or making ink key adjustments. This is because of a well established fact: humans do not have color memory. As soon as you look away from the monitor to a press sheet the color you saw on the monitor is lost. This is why press operators cut press sheets through color critical areas and lay the cut sheet over the proof to make the comparison and to evaluate the match. I have seen press operators try to do that with a soft proof, but the emissive nature of the monitor doesn't allow for that kind of check.

In magazine work there is usually no need to try and make such a critical match - it would be impractical anyway. So, for those types of environment soft proofing at press can be very useful - but not for critical color and hence no need for fancy color managed displays - so Apple Cinema is fine. At least in my experience.

best, gordon p

Gordo, I apprecitae your perspective.
Our first-hand experience says otherwise. Good monitors, good software (in our case ICS...in 2006,2007 and 2008) and we have seen this done successfully.

You would be amazed at how many BIG printers have retired hard proofs. Tough to name names here. But this is done every day. Apple displays are nice and pretty but you wont find them in a press room very often. Waaay too bright. Quato, Eizo, NEC are the best in the world.

 

[meddington]

This is why press operators cut press sheets through color critical areas and lay the cut sheet over the proof to make the comparison and to evaluate the match.

But Gordo, if you could get press operators and clients to refrain from doing that, you'd probably get an approval faster.

One of the issues I see for color critical softproofing is with sample matching in catalog work. Fabric samples and hard copy proofs are routed to sometimes many different people for approval, which gets a bit tricky, or cumbersome with softproofing, not to mention the desire to lay the fabric swatch down on the proof for comparison. Another area is spot colors...gamut aside, the issues brought up in another post regarding overprint simulation present a challenge.

I will admit though that at Drupa and other trade shows, Eizo has displayed a press sheet next to a monitor, with everthing hidden but the images, and challenged the viewer to determine which was which. Without getting right up there inches away, it was hard. impressive.

 

[gordo]

Gordo, I apprecitae your perspective.
Our first-hand experience says otherwise. Good monitors, good software (in our case ICS...in 2006,2007 and 2008) and we have seen this done successfully.
You would be amazed at how many BIG printers have retired hard proofs. Tough to name names here. But this is done every day. Apple displays are nice and pretty but you wont find them in a press room very often. Waaay too bright. Quato, Eizo, NEC are the best in the world.

Ian, I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing.
I have no disagreement with soft proofing in the pressroom nor big printers retiring hard proofs. What I said was that they are not using it for color critical work for the reasons I explained.
My concern is not with the capability of monitor color management nor with the displays themselves - those are great. My issue is that of human vision. And, AFAIK, that hasn't changed for quite some time. You (a human) cannot look at a monitor display - no matter how well color managed - and then look at a press sheet and say that they match or don't match, or match in some areas but not in others. In fact, you could even have two identical press sheets on display, and you would have the same problem. That's just a well tested and documented fact of how human vision works.
Is your experience different? Are they are using soft proofing for color critical work to align presswork with proof in the pressroom? If so how do they get around the lack of color memory?

End of.

best, gordon p

 

[gordo]

@meddigton:

Yes to your comments. As far as Eizo displaying a press sheet next to a monitor - that's the problem. Although it seems reasonable - "next to" does not work in a production environment for color critical work. It's marketing shim sham.

If you've ever worked with PShop and tried cloning a color area into another you'll hit a similar problem. What colors you think should match within an image turn out not to match when you clone them.

If you had color memory all I'd have to do is show you a patch of color once and you'd be able to reproduce it in your media of choice using your memory as the reference.

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. The fault is not with the technology - it is within ourselves. Or maybe you'd be happy to have your customers doing press approvals based on their memory of the proof you sent them for sign off?

Mark Geeves (ex Bestcolor and whoever they turned into) when giving his presentations on their color products used to randomly include slides that were a solid field of color. He would ask "what color is this?" The audience would reply "Magenta!" And at the end of his presentation he'd show color patches from those color field slides - and yes, you guessed it, none of the colors were the same and none of them looked like magenta when magenta was included in the grouping.

Bottom line, if you cannot make a literal one on top of the other comparison then you cannot evaluate the color match. And because emissive devices don't allow for one on top of the other comparisons then they cannot be used to evaluate color match. Granted, useful for other things - but not color match. And because they can't be used for color match (because of the wetware) - it doesn't matter if they're Eizos or Cinema displays. Color managed or not.

So yes, not surprisingly, your customers wanting to lay fabric samples over hard copy proofs is quite right (in principle) and not really doable with softproofing.

best gordon p

 

[Jam]

HI,

Background.

Firstly this is not an advertisement for a particular product just the thinking about softproofing
for printers.
I have a fair bit of experience with Remote Director. This was tested and trailed for a long time before the up take and developed with the distributor and ICS directly.
I've personally seen this used in live production for sometime in Gravure printing and the result is exceptional (matching the section to the screen) fortunately the printer in question is an outstanding printer so there have been almost no problems with the quality.
I spend a lot of time at various printers who produce large volumes of magazine work for us and as I mentioned in another post I'm not a printer but I am very familiar with the processes involved and the limitations ect..

Really my question was, Is anyone using a 'soft proofing' solution on a day to day basis and what was it like for a printer to do away with contract proofs and rely on a screen? (this is of course if your using the proofs supplied at all.... )


I use a just lighting box where the monitor is mounted at eye level with a angled platform for the section/ proof so the head movement is minimal and almost the same if you where looking at sections and proofs. What is important is the monitor and the angle of acuity so it is important to stand correctly to get a 'true' observation and result.

Again it's a new forum and I pride myself on asking people questions within the industry who do different jobs to me but work side by side for me to gain a better grasp of what you guys think.


J

 

[Jam]

Jam -



1. Please define "Soft Proofing" in the context of what you are seeking. Is it a monitor proof for content, is it a contract proof for color, etc?
2. Do you have printing presses or do you send your magazines to a printer?
3. Do your editors and color techs believe in this or will they always require a hard proof for color OKs?
4. Do your pressmen (if applicable) belive in this?
5. Are you prepared to make the total press-side investment: Soft proofing system, monitors, racks for (overhead)monitors, viewing booths or lighting for monitors, training for all involved....? It can be a battle.
6. Will editors and content creators adjust to monitor proofs? Will they actually invest in "real" monitors (Eizo, NEC) and not just Apple Cinema displays?

Ian

1- Replacement for contract proofs.
2- Sorry but this is a difficult thing for me to answer at the moment.
3- We have proven that it is a benefit to the way they work (time scales) proofs will be a thing of the past (economic reasons)
4 - Those who do think it's good, politics mean it's difficult for me to gage all feedback from press crews hence my general question to the forum.
5- This has been done previously.
6- Me and my colleagues all have EIZO Coloredge screens publications have a mix of NEC & Apple depending on the needs.


J