Unless the printer in question can give you a custom profile for their proofing system, your only recourse is to separate to CMYK using US prepress defaults and hope for the best.
I would definitely talk to the printer and see if they will provide their profile – then softproof using that profile.
"we have a rather officious company Prod. Mgr I have to go through who knows everything about printing and nothing about computers or color matching monitors to printers"
That sounds rather counter productive, and rather familiar.
And rather typical.
If the job is going direct to press or direct to plate, you need to have your keylines of at least .5 point size. Otherwise, it will vaporize on press.
An Iris is a stochastic screen dot that may not yield an accurate proof for a halftone press sheet.
Also, soft proofing to an Iris and Brisque uses, device link profiles that may or may not be built correctly. The Creo/Scitex Profile Wizard software to generate profiles is less than stellar.
btw, I threw the software CD’s in the trash. (not kidding)
mo
IMO it is essential that you create a good hard copy proof that looks the way you want it to look. Frankly, "highend 600dpi HP DesignJet 5500 printer here but the colors are very far off" does not sound high end to me, it sounds like a recipe for disaster. My experience has been that when you are the customer it is not hard to successfully insist on the printer matching (or even improving on) your (non-SWOP) proof. But you gotta have a decent proof!
Many folks on this Forum are big on creating files that perfectly suit the final output device, but when you are the client that may not be necssary or even feasible. Some jobs are complete and out to bid not knowing who will print it; and, even if you do know the exact output device usually the printer does LOTS of tweaking! Without a hard copy proof that you like, you are screwed, although "I do get to press check" can be a great salvation. After all, the printer does want to do a good job. The press check may save you.
IMO it is essential that you create a good hard copy proof that looks the way you want it to look.
And then if the same numbers sent to the printers proofer does not match your proof, then what?
Do you expect that the proof is somehow going to provide the proper guidance to the printer?
Just giving them a proof that you somehow managed to produce to your liking is a guarantee of nothing.
Unless everybody is on the same page, a fully color-managed workflow is just a twinkling in the eye of a bunch of color geeks (sorry Bruce, Chris, Mike)
company Prod. Mgr I have to go through who knows everything about printing
and nothing about computers or color matching monitors to printers.
Maybe you could offer to readup on the subject and report back?
Yes, I do "expect that the proof is somehow going to provide the proper guidance to the printer." IMO that is one of the things printers get paid to do: match to proofs. There is more to this, obviously, for instance the submitted file needs to be reasonable, and if inordinate amounts of color adjusting is necessary I tell the printer we will pay reasonable charges. But in scores of *RGB* submitted jobs no printer has come back yet to ask for extra charges for color adjustment.
Note that this is just my work flow: I am the client to the printer. If the printer did not like it I could choose another of the 10,000 printers out there, but not one printer has complained yet. I do realize that many folks do not have such control over the printer, but it does sound like 150mph is also client to the printer.
Copy that is submitted with each print job hard proof is as below:
============================================================ ====== An inkjet proof has been printed from the RGB Photoshop file submitted digitally as our ad copy. That inkjet proof is attached. In all likelihood significant color corrections will need to be made by your printer as our submitted file is converted to CMYK and adjusted for output on each different specific print output device. If additional charges are required for such color correction, please advise.
FINAL OUTPUT MUST APPROXIMATE THE HARD COPY PROOF SUBMITTED.
Please provide a SWOP proof if your workflow permits. We are willing to pay a reasonable extra proof charge. If additional charges are required for such a proof, please advise.
We have invested considerable time and money in "branding" our stores. As such, the quality of EVERY ad is very important to us; a poorly produced ad denigrates our brand, costing us far more in brand image deterioration than the cost of the advertising itself. If for any reason your workflow is not capable of fairly closely matching the hard copy inkjet proof submitted with the ad please contact us immediately to discuss how we might jointly resolve any problems. In a worst case scenario we would rather cancel the ad than allow poor quality copy to be produced.
Color matching to our proof need not be perfect. In fact due to the nature of inkjet inks it can not be a perfect match. We ask simply that a trained professional compare to our proof as final output is created. In our experience final output typically looks as good or better than our proof, so long as that final eyeball correction is professionally made.
Please note that when additional time is required for color correction we are willing to pay reasonable charges accordingly.
John,
Color mgmt., at its current stage is not mature enough to deal with real world conditions at the commercial level. If you are an individual that has an understanding of the process and you are in control of your job, than yes, it works well.
It takes a LONG time to get the engineers to realize this and then it takes even longer to get it changed.
Especially when they think it’s a done deal.
;o\
OT, but maybe pertinent to 150mph
5 THINGS TO KNOW BEFORE YOU DRIVE 150 MPH
This assumes you are a professional driver on a legal track or safe private road.
1. SIT RIGHT.
Never mind the straight-arm posture you see in action movies. With your shoulders against the seatback, you should be able to rest your wrists atop the wheel. Hold it firmly but with your fingers, not in a baseball-bat death grip.
2. ITS THE TIRES, STUPID.
They should be ZR-rated, of course (capable of a sustained 150 mph), but they should also be dynamically balanced for high speeds, in flawless condition, and inflated to halfway between the carmakers comfort recommendation and the tire makers max inflation pressure (on the sidewall).
3. GET IT IN LINE.
Have your suspension aligned by experts for maximum straight-line speed and stability, which will mean zero camber front and rear and just a touch of front toe-in.
4. LOSE THE SPOILER.
Bad aerodynamics can put you in the weeds before you can say airbag. Some ill-advised Porsche owners, for example, put trendy after-market whale tails on their 911 s without first adding a front air dam. That car will fly. Literally.
5. DONT FORGET TO BRAKE.
Particularly if youre going to make multiple runs, bleed the brake system, install new pads, and bed them in: six moderate decelerations from 60 to 20, six hard stops from 80, and one max-effort stop from 120.
POPULAR SCIENCE MARCH 2004
(Sorry, I couldn’t resist.)
–>We’ll order an Iris print for matching, but at $100 a pop, I’ll only get one and I want it to be as right on as possible the first time. I do get to press check.
So this is what your printer is using as the contract proof? Whatever he’s using, profile for that. A custom profile is likely the key although if you are sure (a big assumption) that the final printed job really will conform to SWOP (which is a pretty generic term all printers use), then you could in theory use the SWOP v2 profile. That profile by the way really IS built to conform to about the closest "standard" we have for true SWOP (TR001). I’ve seen absolutely superb color from this profile when the process really does conform to TR001 (rather than that generic answer most printers give you "sure we print SWOP" when in fact they are not anywhere near that aimpoint).
Sort of that, a custom profile built for the contract proof is what to aim for. As long as you get the contract proof nailed, it’s up to the printer to match that (that’s why after all it’s called a contract proof)! Of course you do need to know something about the process like what total ink coverage (TAC) and GCR/UCR settings the printer prefers when building the profile. Getting these answers isn’t always easy (communications with printers, Mo aside <g>) is like getting blood from a rock.
Allen:
OK so you know what you are doing.
That does not define all the designers who send hard copy.
I once had a customer whose laserjet printed very very dark, so they kept lightening a CMYK file (ignoring their monitor) and when they finally got a laserprint they liked, they sent that off as if it would automatically make the file print like the laserprint.
And there was no wonderful disclaimer like the one you sent.
It was submitted as computer-ready art.
Hey but what do I know, I’m just one of the 10,000 dime-a-dozen printers.
John-
No insult was intended. I am just one of 100,000 dime-a-dozen photogs/designers when I am the vendor rather than the client. My point was that the client/vendor relationship is actually part of what determines what a designer needs to provide.
Submitting work to publishers when I am the vendor not the client, the shoe changes feet and I must meet the publisher’s often super-specific guidelines. And I hate it, because I get driven into selecting output settings that (not being a printer) I do not understand. And creating CMYK files for the publisher’s output device, while my hard proof is from an RGB input Epson SP2200. And me having no control over the tweaking by the printer. When I can I get real time press proofs, and I have watched the tiny tweaks that printers do that have huge affects on color.
Your point about the laserprint is of course right on.
and I have watched the tiny tweaks that printers do that have huge affects on color.
It is that very instability at the heart of offset lithography that makes profiling presses a foolish endeavor IMHO.
Profile the proofer, then "match" the proof on press.
Here’s the funny thing (OK well maybe it isn’t funny).
In a totally uncolormanaged environment you could send a single set of CMYK numbers to a variety or proofing devices and get a variety of results.
Then, you could take all of those proofs, with their slight color variations, on a press run of the same numbers and you could do a fair job of matching each of the proofs in succession, by adjusting the press.
I suck at color profiles and matching monitors to final printing . I’m
rarely satisfied with the color I get back from the printer
You should be able to view your color accurately on your monitor without doubt. File’s SourceSpace is Converted to "calibrated" MonitorRGB.
You should be able to SoftProof your press CMYK on your monitor. View> Proof Setup> Custom: PressCMYK
MonitorRGB simulates what PressCMYK will look like based on the profiles.
The experts here tell us color management works.
In my experience it works.
But I can only imagine why it’s not working there…?
(communications with printers, Mo aside <g>) is like getting blood from a rock. <
In general, printers only profile devices if they absolutely have to. They usually use canned profiles and fight the job the rest of the way due to the nature of the beast and or hard headdedness of such animal, mineral or vegetable.
;o)
In a totally uncolormanaged environment you could send a single set of CMYK numbers to a variety or proofing devices and get a variety of results. <
First, there is no such thing as an uncolormanaged environment. There is such a thing as not converting files that are specifically tuned for a given output device, which I think John was referring to.
When we get a color tweener built into the App or better yet have an RGB prebinding optional workflow, then we will be able to compensate for calibration variables between devices with greater ease. Right now, it’s a ball buster, this color matching stuff between devices with standing CMYK files.
BTW.
This, converting files for specific devices is a pipe dream that’s not happening.
I’ve written Actions that run a set of scripts to deal with TIL with existing CMYK files. I know it’s an ass backwards process, but it works pretty well considering that my job is totally ass backwards along with the people who work in it. An alternative is needed like a tweener, but a tweener doesn’t address the global problem of the constant destruction of files by users.
I’m still working on Bruce. He still thinks I have delusions of grandeur.
Everyone is doing there best to make it better. It’s a hard road to sell…….
Then, you could take all of those proofs, with their slight color variations, on a press run of the same numbers and you could do a fair job of matching each of the proofs in succession, by adjusting the press. <
I think the key word here John is "slight"
I’ve been in situations where as a neutral 3 or 4 color gray calibration went from a blue cast, to green to neutral then red.
There is no frikin way that a press can match a twisted calibration from a, whatever, proofing device.
As long as you have grey balance in the file and the proof is what the file is, then dealing with dot gain numbers is a realistic "slight" obtainable goal on a good press.
You also have to remember that ink hues and proof hues WILL distort the perceptual look of the proof vs. press sheet using those same numbers between the two devices because it wasn’t cross rendered.
so……………….
