Good morning,
I have a question about the measurement conditions in web- and sheet offset production.
We print on a great amount of papers in web offset: standard newsprint, improved newsprint, SC, SC-B, MFC, LWC-Improved, LWC-standard, coated and uncoated.
In sheetfed offset we print on coated and uncoated paper.
With the arrival of the new M1 measurement condition, we replaced all our illuminant A lamps into D50 lamps. The problem is, we don't have M1 measurement references for the older web offset profiles.
So now we have new lamps (M1), a capable measurement device (M0 + M1) but we have mostly M0 reference values (exceptions are the newer profiles F51, F52 and F54).
Will there come a publication with new M1 references for the older web offset profiles? And when yes: is there already a date of publication?
Thank you in advance.
Met vriendelijke groet,
Michiel Verbeemen
Prepress Productieleiding
Email: Michiel-Verbeemen(a)emdejong.nl
Telefoon: +31 13 507 5585
[cid:image001.png@01CE8DD3.09F83380]
Voordelig en snel uw drukwerk bestellen? Kijk dan nu op onze nieuwe website emdejongdirect.nl<http://emdejongdirect.nl/> !
On 23. Jun 2020, at 14:32, Jorge Hernández Valiñani - Estudio Fénix <jorge(a)estudiofenix.com> wrote:
Hi.
In Adobe InDesign 2020, when exporting to PDF/X-4, selecting certain ICC profiles in Output Intent Profile Name autofills the fields Output Condition Identifier and Registry Output section with the corresponding data. As an example, selecting the Adobe’s “Coated FOGRA27 (ISO 12647-2:2004)” autofills:
• Output Condition Identifier: FOGRA27
• Registry Output: http://www.color.org
Not so when selecting “ISO Coated v2 300% (ECI)”, downloaded from eci.org, as Output Intent. I would have expected that selecting “ISO Coated v2 300% (ECI)” would autofill:
• Output Condition Identifier: FOGRA39
• Registry Output: http://www.color.org
but it does not.
Are those two fields important data that a PDF/X-4 would be good to have and if so, how come InDesign is not able to autofill them when using “ISO Coated v2 300% (ECI)” as Output Intent but is with others?
Best,
Jorge Hernández Valiñani
Estudio Fénix
Hello,
I am a technologist at the University of Verona, I am implementing a workflow for digitizing the rare book collection of the Capitolare library in Verona. I am deciding which color space to use for the master files of the digitized manuscripts. I am trying to decide between Adobe 1998 and eciRGB_v2.
I would like to use eciRGB_v2 but I can't find the specification of eciRGB_v2 on ECI website, in particular how to convert RGB to normalized XYZ values, while the specification of Adobe 1998 is available online and seems more documented regarding these aspects.
I would like to ask you if eciRGB_v2 specifications are available for free? And if there are any documents or guideline for the adoption of the eciRGB_v2 in artwork digitalization projects?
Thanks a lot!
Best regards,
Giacomo Marchioro
Danke shön, Her Hoffstadt!
Im sure Giaccomo will find all the information he needs in your post.
/ Roger
From: eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com
<eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com> On Behalf Of Hanno Hoffstadt
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 12:51 PM
To: eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Subject: Re: [ECI-EN] eciRGB_v2 space color for digitization of ancient
manuscripts
Dear Giacomo,
we do not have a technical document on eciRGB_v2 on the ECI website (as far
as I know).
However, the profile itself is provided for free, and in conjunction with
the ICC profile specification, it is possible to uniquely identify the
desired transformation.
I will just do that for you, and I hope that is enough of a reference. (It
might be a good idea that we also upload this to the ECI website.)
The matrix M in XYZ = M * RGB consists of the primary colors encoded as
32-bit (s15.fixed16) XYZ numbers stored in the rXYZ, gXYZ, bXYZ tags. These
are:
rXYZ: 0000.A678, 0000.51FE, 0000.0000
gXYZ: 0000.2D94, 0000.9A20, 0000.115D
bXYZ: 0000.22C9, 0000.13E2, 0000.C1D0
or converted to decimal floating-point:
0.A678 = 42616 / 65536 = 0.65026855...
0.51FE = 20990 / 65536 = 0.32028198...
0.0000 = 0
0.2D94 = 11668 / 65536 = 0.17803955...
0.9A20 = 39456 / 65536 = 0.60205078...
0.115D = 4445 / 65536 = 0.06782531...
0.22C9 = 8905 / 65536 = 0.13587951...
0.13E2 = 5090 / 65536 = 0.07766723...
0.C1D0 = 49616 / 65536 = 0.75708007...
So I would recommend to write the calculation from linear RGB to XYZ, both
in range [0,1] as
[ X ] 1 [ 42616 11668 8905 ] [ Rlin ]
[ Y ] = ------ * [ 20990 39456 5090 ] * [ Glin ]
[ Z ] 65536 [ 0 4445 49616 ] [ Blin ]
This is completely exact (if I made no typos), and it is also identical for
version 1, 2, and the ICC v4 version of v2.
By the way, yes, eciRGB is larger in red than AdobeRGB. That was necessary
in order to include the yellow ink from offset printing.
Also, the white point of eciRGB is D50 (in the ICC version), which can be
seen by setting RGBlin = (1 1 1), or summing the rows: XYZ = 1/65536 *
(63189, 65536, 54061) = (0.9642, 1.0, 0.8249)
The white point of AdobeRGB is D65.
The second part of the calculation is the tone reproduction curve which maps
linear RGB to the final RGB in the document.
This was a simple gamma 1.8 for version 1, but we thought that using an L*
curve would make the gray axis visually equidistant and thus could provide
slight advantages from 8-bit encoding.
For the ICC v4 version of v2 we could use so-called "parametric curves" and
simply put in the parameters of the L* formula to get a calculated L* curve.
For the ICC v2 version (eciRGB_v2), we had to use a tabulated L* curve. A
table is linearly interpolated in CMMs, which causes minimal rounding errors
compared to a true L*.
I tried to minimize them by choosing the optimal number of curve points,
which turned out to be 700 - in case someone wonders about this seemingly
arbitrary resolution of the rTRC, gTRC, bTRC tags :-)
For the sake of our specification, we use the intended algebraic L* formula:
The L*-related formula for R in the range of [0,1], and same for G, B, is:
if ( Rlin < (24 / 116)^3 ): R = Rlin * 116 * 841 / 108
else R = (116 * Rlin^(1/3) - 16) / 100
Again, this is written to be exact, using only integer constants. Multiply
the resulting RGB with 255 for the usual RGB scaling, and you are done.
Best regards
Hanno Hoffstadt
Am 17.03.2020 um 18:01 schrieb Giacomo Marchioro <giacomo.marchioro(a)univr.it
<mailto:giacomo.marchioro@univr.it> >:
Hello,
I am a technologist at the University of Verona, I am implementing a
workflow for digitizing the rare book collection of the Capitolare library
in Verona. I am deciding which color space to use for the master files of
the digitized manuscripts. I am trying to decide between Adobe 1998 and
eciRGB_v2.
I would like to use eciRGB_v2 but I can't find the specification of
eciRGB_v2 on ECI website, in particular how to convert RGB to normalized XYZ
values, while the specification of Adobe 1998 is available online and seems
more documented regarding these aspects.
I would like to ask you if eciRGB_v2 specifications are available for free?
And if there are any documents or guideline for the adoption of the
eciRGB_v2 in artwork digitalization projects?
Thanks a lot!
Best regards,
Giacomo Marchioro
_______________________________________________
ECI-EN mailing list
ECI-EN(a)lists.callassoftware.com <mailto:ECI-EN@lists.callassoftware.com>
http://lists.callassoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/eci-en
Caro Giacomo,
I would adopt eciRGB_v2. Are you converting in Photoshop?
/ Ruggero
From: eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com
<eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com> On Behalf Of Giacomo Marchioro
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 1:02 PM
To: eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Subject: [ECI-EN] eciRGB_v2 space color for digitization of ancient
manuscripts
Hello,
I am a technologist at the University of Verona, I am implementing a
workflow for digitizing the rare book collection of the Capitolare library
in Verona. I am deciding which color space to use for the master files of
the digitized manuscripts. I am trying to decide between Adobe 1998 and
eciRGB_v2.
I would like to use eciRGB_v2 but I can't find the specification of
eciRGB_v2 on ECI website, in particular how to convert RGB to normalized XYZ
values, while the specification of Adobe 1998 is available online and seems
more documented regarding these aspects.
I would like to ask you if eciRGB_v2 specifications are available for free?
And if there are any documents or guideline for the adoption of the
eciRGB_v2 in artwork digitalization projects?
Thanks a lot!
Best regards,
Giacomo Marchioro
Good day
This comment caught my attention:
*Dear Matthias, You are right, the Fogra51 paper is blueish, because it has
very much OBA. But if you compare an F51 proof with an F39 proof under D50
lightening you will find the F39 colors are reddish and F51 will be much
closer to the result on the printed material. And the F39 paper simulation
is not usable for F51 papers, because the paper color is yellowish. The
press operators like F51 proofs for Type 1 papers. *
*If this is true - i.e. that if you print out a proof of a file that was
prepared for printing on Fogra 39 substrate and output according to Fogra
39 (using the ISO Coated v2 icc profile when you prepare the job and simply
convert all colours to CMYK before you save it) and then proof it according
to Fogra 39 on Fogra 39 approved proofing media.*
*- and then take the same document and prepare it for printing according to
Fogra 51, convert all colours to CMYK and proof it according to Fogra 51 on
Fogra 51 approved proofing media, you should get the SAME visual result in
all colours.*
*If the fact is that you get a "reddish" / warmer outcome visually when
comparing these two proofs in D50 light, something is wrong with the
profiles and needs to be corrected.*
*The statement "Fogra 51 will be much closer to the result on the printed
material" is hopefully only true if the destination print material has a
white point in accordance with Fogra 51 (?) *
Best regards
Ingi Karlsson
þri., 17. mar. 2020 kl. 11:01 skrifaði <
eci-en-request(a)lists.callassoftware.com>:
> Send ECI-EN mailing list submissions to
> eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.callassoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/eci-en
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> eci-en-request(a)lists.callassoftware.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> eci-en-owner(a)lists.callassoftware.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ECI-EN digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: ECI-EN Digest, Vol 90, Issue 3 (Pal Bekesy)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 13:32:41 +0100
> From: Pal Bekesy <bekesyp(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [ECI-EN] ECI-EN Digest, Vol 90, Issue 3
> To: eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAOpU6Nbe9dvpLrSKQcvNfzqOPBx5rxcqhEYF3biYTVFB5sK5EQ(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear Matthias,
>
> You are right, the Fogra51 paper is blueish, because it has very much OBA.
> But if you compare an F51 proof with an F39 proof under D50 lightening you
> will find the F39 colors are reddish and F51 will be much closer to the
> result on the printed material. And the F39 paper simulation is not usable
> for F51 papers, because the paper color is yellowish. The press operators
> like F51 proofs for Type 1 papers.
>
> I do not understand the problem. F51 proof for OBA papers, and F39 for non
> OBA papers. And always will be a little difference between F39 and F51
> proofs. But not big difference. It is normal. (Of course, the files were
> made with the right color profile for the proofs.)
>
>
> Regards,
> Pal Bekesy
> Hungary
>
> <eci-en-request(a)lists.callassoftware.com> ezt ?rta (id?pont: 2020. m?rc.
> 16., H, 12:02):
>
> > Send ECI-EN mailing list submissions to
> > eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > http://lists.callassoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/eci-en
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > eci-en-request(a)lists.callassoftware.com
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > eci-en-owner(a)lists.callassoftware.com
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of ECI-EN digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> > 1. Re: Fogra51 and 52 looks warmer compared to 39L (Matthias Wessman)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 08:12:02 +0000
> > From: Matthias Wessman <mawe(a)dgli.se>
> > Subject: Re: [ECI-EN] Fogra51 and 52 looks warmer compared to 39L
> > To: "eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com"
> > <eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com>
> > Message-ID: <7F3E8EB2-4018-4193-AC68-4921FE100604(a)dgli.se>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >
> > Hello,
> > I had the same problem when implementing F51 (EPSON printer w M1
> > Spectroproofer and CGS ORIS RIP). It was the paper white simulation from
> > the profile/measurement data that added red to both objects and images.
> It
> > wasn?t always easy to see but sometimes completely disturbing in
> highlights.
> >
> > The resolution to this was to remove the paper white simulation from the
> > calibration completely and also switch to another F51 approved paper
> brand.
> >
> > If anything the F51 should look ?cooler? than F39.
> >
> > BR
> > Matthias Wessman
> >
> >
> >
> > Fr?n: <eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com> p? uppdrag av Studio <
> > studio(a)dawkinscolour.co.uk>
> > Svara till: "eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com" <
> > eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com>
> > Datum: fredag 13 mars 2020 18:44
> > Till: "eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com" <eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
> >
> > ?mne: Re: [ECI-EN] Fogra51 and 52 looks warmer compared to 39L
> >
> > Thanks for your reply.
> >
> > We have been extensively testing different environments/viewers, ways of
> > converting images/profiles etc.
> > No matter what we do they always seem warmer/more red compared to what
> > we?re used to with 39L
> >
> > Have you heard of this problem from anyone/anywhere else?
> >
> > Many thanks
> > Simon
> >
> >
> > On 13 Mar 2020, at 17:36, <graxx(a)videotron.ca<mailto:graxx@videotron.ca
> >>
> > <graxx(a)videotron.ca<mailto:graxx@videotron.ca>> wrote:
> > It looks like you have all the "components" correct.
> > M1 measurements.
> > Fogra51 and 52 approved proofing media.
> > ISO-3669:2009 illumination.
> > Are you comparing:
> > a) images converted to Fogra39 and proofed on Fogra39 approved proofing
> > media
> > to
> > b) images converted to Fogra51 and Fogra52 proofed on Fogra51 and Fogra52
> > approved media?
> > Out of curiosity, please try compare your proofs under direct sunlight...
> > / Roger
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com<mailto:
> > eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com> <
> > eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com<mailto:
> > eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com>> On Behalf Of Studio
> > Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 1:31 PM
> > To: eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com<mailto:
> eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
> > >
> > Subject: Re: [ECI-EN] Fogra51 and 52 looks warmer compared to 39L
> > Yes we are, it?s built into our Epson machines
> > On 13 Mar 2020, at 17:03, <graxx(a)videotron.ca<mailto:graxx@videotron.ca
> >>
> > <graxx(a)videotron.ca<mailto:graxx@videotron.ca>> wrote:
> > Are you using an M1 measuring device on your proofer?
> > / Roger
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com<mailto:
> > eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com> <
> > eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com<mailto:
> > eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com>> On Behalf Of Studio
> > Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 1:02 PM
> > To: eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com<mailto:
> eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
> > >
> > Subject: Re: [ECI-EN] Fogra51 and 52 looks warmer compared to 39L
> > No we?re proofing on Fogra 51 and 52 approved paper.
> > On 13 Mar 2020, at 16:39, <graxx(a)videotron.ca<mailto:graxx@videotron.ca
> >>
> > <graxx(a)videotron.ca<mailto:graxx@videotron.ca>> wrote:
> > Are you proofing Fogra 51L and 52L on "Fogra approved 39L stock"?
> > MfG / Roger Breton
> > www.graxx.ca
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com<mailto:
> > eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com> <
> > eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com<mailto:
> > eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com>> On Behalf Of Studio
> > Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 12:04 PM
> > To: eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com<mailto:
> eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
> > >
> > Cc: John Bodkin <john.bodkin(a)dawkinscolour.co.uk<mailto:
> > john.bodkin(a)dawkinscolour.co.uk>>
> > Subject: [ECI-EN] Fogra51 and 52 looks warmer compared to 39L
> > I wonder if you can help me.
> > We have recently upgraded our Epson proofers and EFI RIP in order to have
> > the facility to produce Fogra certified proofs to 51L and 52L
> > specifications.
> > Having spent quite a long while creating media profiles for both of these
> > plus 39L, it seems that all Fogra 51 and 52 proofs appear ?warmer? than
> 39L
> > results.
> > We have been using 39L for many years now and have superb results. Part
> of
> > our work is fine art photography reproduction, so accurate colour is
> > essential.
> > When proofing on our Fogra approved 39L stock, the results are as we
> would
> > expect. Not so with 51 and 52.
> > We have a viewing booth fitted with the latest generation VeriVide tubes
> > conforming to ISO 3664:2009 conditions.
> > All proofs we produce pass Fogra certification with very low deltaE
> > values, but 51 and 52 proofs always differ from 39L.
> > I have had proofs made by a qualified third party and their results
> mirror
> > ours.
> > Could you give me any advice as to whether this problem can be resolved?
> > Yours Faithfully,
> > John Bodkin
> >
> >
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL:
> >
> http://lists.callassoftware.com/pipermail/eci-en/attachments/20200316/3a05a…
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ECI-EN mailing list
> > ECI-EN(a)lists.callassoftware.com
> > http://lists.callassoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/eci-en
> >
> > End of ECI-EN Digest, Vol 90, Issue 3
> > *************************************
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://lists.callassoftware.com/pipermail/eci-en/attachments/20200316/759cb…
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ECI-EN mailing list
> ECI-EN(a)lists.callassoftware.com
> http://lists.callassoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/eci-en
>
> End of ECI-EN Digest, Vol 90, Issue 4
> *************************************
>
Dear Matthias,
You are right, the Fogra51 paper is blueish, because it has very much OBA.
But if you compare an F51 proof with an F39 proof under D50 lightening you
will find the F39 colors are reddish and F51 will be much closer to the
result on the printed material. And the F39 paper simulation is not usable
for F51 papers, because the paper color is yellowish. The press operators
like F51 proofs for Type 1 papers.
I do not understand the problem. F51 proof for OBA papers, and F39 for non
OBA papers. And always will be a little difference between F39 and F51
proofs. But not big difference. It is normal. (Of course, the files were
made with the right color profile for the proofs.)
Regards,
Pal Bekesy
Hungary
<eci-en-request(a)lists.callassoftware.com> ezt írta (időpont: 2020. márc.
16., H, 12:02):
> Send ECI-EN mailing list submissions to
> eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.callassoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/eci-en
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> eci-en-request(a)lists.callassoftware.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> eci-en-owner(a)lists.callassoftware.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ECI-EN digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Fogra51 and 52 looks warmer compared to 39L (Matthias Wessman)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 08:12:02 +0000
> From: Matthias Wessman <mawe(a)dgli.se>
> Subject: Re: [ECI-EN] Fogra51 and 52 looks warmer compared to 39L
> To: "eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com"
> <eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com>
> Message-ID: <7F3E8EB2-4018-4193-AC68-4921FE100604(a)dgli.se>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hello,
> I had the same problem when implementing F51 (EPSON printer w M1
> Spectroproofer and CGS ORIS RIP). It was the paper white simulation from
> the profile/measurement data that added red to both objects and images. It
> wasn?t always easy to see but sometimes completely disturbing in highlights.
>
> The resolution to this was to remove the paper white simulation from the
> calibration completely and also switch to another F51 approved paper brand.
>
> If anything the F51 should look ?cooler? than F39.
>
> BR
> Matthias Wessman
>
>
>
> Fr?n: <eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com> p? uppdrag av Studio <
> studio(a)dawkinscolour.co.uk>
> Svara till: "eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com" <
> eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com>
> Datum: fredag 13 mars 2020 18:44
> Till: "eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com" <eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com>
> ?mne: Re: [ECI-EN] Fogra51 and 52 looks warmer compared to 39L
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> We have been extensively testing different environments/viewers, ways of
> converting images/profiles etc.
> No matter what we do they always seem warmer/more red compared to what
> we?re used to with 39L
>
> Have you heard of this problem from anyone/anywhere else?
>
> Many thanks
> Simon
>
>
> On 13 Mar 2020, at 17:36, <graxx(a)videotron.ca<mailto:graxx@videotron.ca>>
> <graxx(a)videotron.ca<mailto:graxx@videotron.ca>> wrote:
> It looks like you have all the "components" correct.
> M1 measurements.
> Fogra51 and 52 approved proofing media.
> ISO-3669:2009 illumination.
> Are you comparing:
> a) images converted to Fogra39 and proofed on Fogra39 approved proofing
> media
> to
> b) images converted to Fogra51 and Fogra52 proofed on Fogra51 and Fogra52
> approved media?
> Out of curiosity, please try compare your proofs under direct sunlight...
> / Roger
> -----Original Message-----
> From: eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com<mailto:
> eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com> <
> eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com<mailto:
> eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com>> On Behalf Of Studio
> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 1:31 PM
> To: eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com<mailto:eci-en@lists.callassoftware.com
> >
> Subject: Re: [ECI-EN] Fogra51 and 52 looks warmer compared to 39L
> Yes we are, it?s built into our Epson machines
> On 13 Mar 2020, at 17:03, <graxx(a)videotron.ca<mailto:graxx@videotron.ca>>
> <graxx(a)videotron.ca<mailto:graxx@videotron.ca>> wrote:
> Are you using an M1 measuring device on your proofer?
> / Roger
> -----Original Message-----
> From: eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com<mailto:
> eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com> <
> eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com<mailto:
> eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com>> On Behalf Of Studio
> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 1:02 PM
> To: eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com<mailto:eci-en@lists.callassoftware.com
> >
> Subject: Re: [ECI-EN] Fogra51 and 52 looks warmer compared to 39L
> No we?re proofing on Fogra 51 and 52 approved paper.
> On 13 Mar 2020, at 16:39, <graxx(a)videotron.ca<mailto:graxx@videotron.ca>>
> <graxx(a)videotron.ca<mailto:graxx@videotron.ca>> wrote:
> Are you proofing Fogra 51L and 52L on "Fogra approved 39L stock"?
> MfG / Roger Breton
> www.graxx.ca
> -----Original Message-----
> From: eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com<mailto:
> eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com> <
> eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com<mailto:
> eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com>> On Behalf Of Studio
> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 12:04 PM
> To: eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com<mailto:eci-en@lists.callassoftware.com
> >
> Cc: John Bodkin <john.bodkin(a)dawkinscolour.co.uk<mailto:
> john.bodkin(a)dawkinscolour.co.uk>>
> Subject: [ECI-EN] Fogra51 and 52 looks warmer compared to 39L
> I wonder if you can help me.
> We have recently upgraded our Epson proofers and EFI RIP in order to have
> the facility to produce Fogra certified proofs to 51L and 52L
> specifications.
> Having spent quite a long while creating media profiles for both of these
> plus 39L, it seems that all Fogra 51 and 52 proofs appear ?warmer? than 39L
> results.
> We have been using 39L for many years now and have superb results. Part of
> our work is fine art photography reproduction, so accurate colour is
> essential.
> When proofing on our Fogra approved 39L stock, the results are as we would
> expect. Not so with 51 and 52.
> We have a viewing booth fitted with the latest generation VeriVide tubes
> conforming to ISO 3664:2009 conditions.
> All proofs we produce pass Fogra certification with very low deltaE
> values, but 51 and 52 proofs always differ from 39L.
> I have had proofs made by a qualified third party and their results mirror
> ours.
> Could you give me any advice as to whether this problem can be resolved?
> Yours Faithfully,
> John Bodkin
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://lists.callassoftware.com/pipermail/eci-en/attachments/20200316/3a05a…
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ECI-EN mailing list
> ECI-EN(a)lists.callassoftware.com
> http://lists.callassoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/eci-en
>
> End of ECI-EN Digest, Vol 90, Issue 3
> *************************************
>
It looks like you have all the "components" correct.
M1 measurements.
Fogra51 and 52 approved proofing media.
ISO-3669:2009 illumination.
Are you comparing:
a) images converted to Fogra39 and proofed on Fogra39 approved proofing media
to
b) images converted to Fogra51 and Fogra52 proofed on Fogra51 and Fogra52 approved media?
Out of curiosity, please try compare your proofs under direct sunlight...
/ Roger
-----Original Message-----
From: eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com <eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com> On Behalf Of Studio
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 1:31 PM
To: eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Subject: Re: [ECI-EN] Fogra51 and 52 looks warmer compared to 39L
Yes we are, it’s built into our Epson machines
> On 13 Mar 2020, at 17:03, <graxx(a)videotron.ca> <graxx(a)videotron.ca> wrote:
>
> Are you using an M1 measuring device on your proofer?
>
> / Roger
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com <eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com> On Behalf Of Studio
> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 1:02 PM
> To: eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
> Subject: Re: [ECI-EN] Fogra51 and 52 looks warmer compared to 39L
>
> No we’re proofing on Fogra 51 and 52 approved paper.
>
>
>> On 13 Mar 2020, at 16:39, <graxx(a)videotron.ca> <graxx(a)videotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Are you proofing Fogra 51L and 52L on "Fogra approved 39L stock"?
>>
>> MfG / Roger Breton
>> www.graxx.ca
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com <eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com> On Behalf Of Studio
>> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 12:04 PM
>> To: eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
>> Cc: John Bodkin <john.bodkin(a)dawkinscolour.co.uk>
>> Subject: [ECI-EN] Fogra51 and 52 looks warmer compared to 39L
>>
>> I wonder if you can help me.
>>
>> We have recently upgraded our Epson proofers and EFI RIP in order to have the facility to produce Fogra certified proofs to 51L and 52L specifications.
>>
>> Having spent quite a long while creating media profiles for both of these plus 39L, it seems that all Fogra 51 and 52 proofs appear ‘warmer’ than 39L results.
>>
>> We have been using 39L for many years now and have superb results. Part of our work is fine art photography reproduction, so accurate colour is essential.
>>
>> When proofing on our Fogra approved 39L stock, the results are as we would expect. Not so with 51 and 52.
>>
>> We have a viewing booth fitted with the latest generation VeriVide tubes conforming to ISO 3664:2009 conditions.
>>
>> All proofs we produce pass Fogra certification with very low deltaE values, but 51 and 52 proofs always differ from 39L.
>>
>> I have had proofs made by a qualified third party and their results mirror ours.
>>
>> Could you give me any advice as to whether this problem can be resolved?
>>
>> Yours Faithfully,
>>
>> John Bodkin
>> _______________________________________________
>> ECI-EN mailing list
>> ECI-EN(a)lists.callassoftware.com
>> http://lists.callassoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/eci-en
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ECI-EN mailing list
>> ECI-EN(a)lists.callassoftware.com
>> http://lists.callassoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/eci-en
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ECI-EN mailing list
> ECI-EN(a)lists.callassoftware.com
> http://lists.callassoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/eci-en
>
> _______________________________________________
> ECI-EN mailing list
> ECI-EN(a)lists.callassoftware.com
> http://lists.callassoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/eci-en
_______________________________________________
ECI-EN mailing list
ECI-EN(a)lists.callassoftware.com
http://lists.callassoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/eci-en
Hi John,
you do everything right. One question remains: how do you produce the content which is proofed? If they're originated directly from Photoshop (or from InDesign), using the official PSO Coated v3 profile, you see what many other people (including me) see.
In our practice, we continue to normalize everything into FOGRA 39, then convert the material to FOGRA 51 or 52 with a device link application, to avoid the magenta-ish tint.
Kind regards,
Péter Nagy
Colorcom Media
>
Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 16:04:23 +0000
> From: Studio " target="_blank"><studio(a)dawkinscolour.co.uk>
> Subject: [ECI-EN] Fogra51 and 52 looks warmer compared to 39L
> To: eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
> Cc: John Bodkin " target="_blank"><john.bodkin(a)dawkinscolour.co.uk>
> Message-ID: " target="_blank"><9813254B-23F7-432F-B3F3-D614D363C581(a)dawkinscolour.co.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> I wonder if you can help me.
>
> We have recently upgraded our Epson proofers and EFI RIP in order to have the facility to produce Fogra certified proofs to 51L and 52L specifications.
>
> Having spent quite a long while creating media profiles for both of these plus 39L, it seems that all Fogra 51 and 52 proofs appear ?warmer? than 39L results.
>
> We have been using 39L for many years now and have superb results. Part of our work is fine art photography reproduction, so accurate colour is essential.
>
> When proofing on our Fogra approved 39L stock, the results are as we would expect. Not so with 51 and 52.
>
> We have a viewing booth fitted with the latest generation VeriVide tubes conforming to ISO 3664:2009 conditions.
>
> All proofs we produce pass Fogra certification with very low deltaE values, but 51 and 52 proofs always differ from 39L.
>
> I have had proofs made by a qualified third party and their results mirror ours.
>
> Could you give me any advice as to whether this problem can be resolved?
>
> Yours Faithfully,
>
> John Bodkin
>
>
>
My friend, Refik Tehan, suggested experimenting with M2 Fogra51 and 52 profiles?
He might jump in with his experience.
/ Roger
-----Original Message-----
From: eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com <eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com> On Behalf Of Studio
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 1:44 PM
To: eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Subject: Re: [ECI-EN] Fogra51 and 52 looks warmer compared to 39L
Thanks for your reply.
We have been extensively testing different environments/viewers, ways of converting images/profiles etc.
No matter what we do they always seem warmer/more red compared to what we’re used to with 39L
Have you heard of this problem from anyone/anywhere else?
Many thanks
Simon
> On 13 Mar 2020, at 17:36, <graxx(a)videotron.ca> <graxx(a)videotron.ca> wrote:
>
> It looks like you have all the "components" correct.
> M1 measurements.
> Fogra51 and 52 approved proofing media.
> ISO-3669:2009 illumination.
>
> Are you comparing:
>
> a) images converted to Fogra39 and proofed on Fogra39 approved
> proofing media to
> b) images converted to Fogra51 and Fogra52 proofed on Fogra51 and Fogra52 approved media?
>
> Out of curiosity, please try compare your proofs under direct sunlight...
>
> / Roger
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com
> <eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com> On Behalf Of Studio
> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 1:31 PM
> To: eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
> Subject: Re: [ECI-EN] Fogra51 and 52 looks warmer compared to 39L
>
> Yes we are, it’s built into our Epson machines
>
>
>> On 13 Mar 2020, at 17:03, <graxx(a)videotron.ca> <graxx(a)videotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Are you using an M1 measuring device on your proofer?
>>
>> / Roger
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com
>> <eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com> On Behalf Of Studio
>> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 1:02 PM
>> To: eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
>> Subject: Re: [ECI-EN] Fogra51 and 52 looks warmer compared to 39L
>>
>> No we’re proofing on Fogra 51 and 52 approved paper.
>>
>>
>>> On 13 Mar 2020, at 16:39, <graxx(a)videotron.ca> <graxx(a)videotron.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> Are you proofing Fogra 51L and 52L on "Fogra approved 39L stock"?
>>>
>>> MfG / Roger Breton
>>> www.graxx.ca
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com
>>> <eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com> On Behalf Of Studio
>>> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 12:04 PM
>>> To: eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
>>> Cc: John Bodkin <john.bodkin(a)dawkinscolour.co.uk>
>>> Subject: [ECI-EN] Fogra51 and 52 looks warmer compared to 39L
>>>
>>> I wonder if you can help me.
>>>
>>> We have recently upgraded our Epson proofers and EFI RIP in order to have the facility to produce Fogra certified proofs to 51L and 52L specifications.
>>>
>>> Having spent quite a long while creating media profiles for both of these plus 39L, it seems that all Fogra 51 and 52 proofs appear ‘warmer’ than 39L results.
>>>
>>> We have been using 39L for many years now and have superb results. Part of our work is fine art photography reproduction, so accurate colour is essential.
>>>
>>> When proofing on our Fogra approved 39L stock, the results are as we would expect. Not so with 51 and 52.
>>>
>>> We have a viewing booth fitted with the latest generation VeriVide tubes conforming to ISO 3664:2009 conditions.
>>>
>>> All proofs we produce pass Fogra certification with very low deltaE values, but 51 and 52 proofs always differ from 39L.
>>>
>>> I have had proofs made by a qualified third party and their results mirror ours.
>>>
>>> Could you give me any advice as to whether this problem can be resolved?
>>>
>>> Yours Faithfully,
>>>
>>> John Bodkin
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ECI-EN mailing list
>>> ECI-EN(a)lists.callassoftware.com
>>> http://lists.callassoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/eci-en
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ECI-EN mailing list
>>> ECI-EN(a)lists.callassoftware.com
>>> http://lists.callassoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/eci-en
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ECI-EN mailing list
>> ECI-EN(a)lists.callassoftware.com
>> http://lists.callassoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/eci-en
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ECI-EN mailing list
>> ECI-EN(a)lists.callassoftware.com
>> http://lists.callassoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/eci-en
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ECI-EN mailing list
> ECI-EN(a)lists.callassoftware.com
> http://lists.callassoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/eci-en
>
> _______________________________________________
> ECI-EN mailing list
> ECI-EN(a)lists.callassoftware.com
> http://lists.callassoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/eci-en
_______________________________________________
ECI-EN mailing list
ECI-EN(a)lists.callassoftware.com
http://lists.callassoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/eci-en
