On Monday, Aug 4, 2003, at 11:41 Europe/Copenhagen, Olaf Druemmer wrote:
Nevertheless there are often also pages ending up on
the same sheet that have significantly different characteristics.
Applying a heuristic to improve one of the pages will deteriorate one
of
the other pages on the same sheet.
The good thing about a PDF/X-3 workflow with RGB device to CMYK device
profiles is that ink limiting and black generation is the same for all
objects in the page, in the document, and in the imposition. No need to
worry about whether to favour advertising or favour editorial in the
press run. Without density control in the separations there is no color
control on the press, either. Because there is a clean division of
labour and division of responsibilities between the page designer and
the press operator, the RGB model is the nicest and safest, if as
Darrian wrote the page designer and press operator know the basics of
an RGB workflow.
In the early ICC implementation period from 1996 to 2000 when the
industry was shifting from the idea of targetting proofing systems to
the idea of targetting press printing conditions, there was a concept
of separating to no more than a score of reference printing conditions
in the prepress stage. In the printing stage the CMYK document would be
reseparated using a device link to the house printing condition. This
idea is still alive and seems to drive demands for special processing
solutions. People who advocate device links need to read / re-read the
ICC Specification IMHO. What is often overlooked is that device links
may not be embedded and are thus incapable of supporting an
object-oriented color management model, or even a document color
management model.
Best regards,
Henrik Holmegaard