2:25 p.m.
Dear Erwin,
ISO12647-2:2013 has not to be revised.
The parameters described in this paper are relevant.
With Appendix-B in 12647-2:2013 we already have a description how to adapt to different
paper shades
... the only thing that we would need is maybe an addendum to make all relevant (like
how-to to trace brighteners and measurement technology) adjustments traceable.
We will always have a kind of moving target with the production papers which, depending on
the regional flavor and other fashions will change through the years.
The targets in 12647-2 are basically to be taken spot-on, if the substrate measures as
described.
The actual FOGRAbeta candidates are based on spot-on data how they are described in
12647-2:2013. Just moved to a suggested better average of the production papers.
With the old generation of 12647-2 we were handling strict targets. Printers struggled to
reach those references if the paper was far from the reference. The reference value (e.g.
L*95, a*0, b*-2 on white backing with the related primary and secondary color tergets) as
such was compromising between legacy viewing conditions and legacy measurement technology.
Most of the production papers were not very close to the reference values.
I have seen several times how printers were looking for specific printing paper when they
prepared for a certification, just as the standard did not cover their daily business
environment.
With the revision of 12647-2 in 2013 we can see significant improvement with the
classification of the substrates and with the references and tolerances described... plus
the new and needed flexibility to consider other papers than those that fit perfectly to
THE reference values described.
With the know-how and the tools we are having today it is just logical that it is not the
IS0 to describe static references but dynamic tools and rules to handle printing jobs to a
even better predictability and accuracy.
Kind regards
Juergen
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Dpwg [mailto:dpwg-bounces@lists.fogra.org] Im Auftrag von Erwin Widmer
Gesendet: Montag, 14. Juli 2014 10:36
An: eci(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Cc: Mailinglist for DPWG Members; eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Betreff: Re: [Dpwg] [ECI] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
Dear Jürgen,
Thank you for your input.
What you say here means we should revise the standard first before we discuss
characterization data and profiles. I think if the standard (12647-2:2013) and the
characterization data and profiles don't fit together we lose creditability anyway.
Regards,
Erwin Widmer
Deputy Managing Director
Ugra | Lerchenfeldstr. 5 | 9014 St. Gallen | Switzerland
Tel: +41 (0)71 552 02 42 | Fax: +41 (0)71 552 02 49
E-Mail: widmer@ugra.ch<mailto:widmer@ugra.ch> | WebSite:
www.ugra.ch<http://www.ugra.ch
Am 07.07.2014 um 17:31 schrieb Juergen Seitz
<Juergen.Seitz@gmgcolor.com<mailto:Juergen.Seitz@gmgcolor.com>>:
> Von:
eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com<mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com
> <image001.png
> R16 roman16 bvdm Reference Images www.roman16.com<http://www.roman16.com
>
>
>
> > Internet:
www.fogra.org<http://www.fogra.org<http://www.fogra.org%3chttp:/www.f…
>
>
_______________________________________________
Dpwg mailing list
Dpwg@lists.fogra.org<mailto:Dpwg@lists.fogra.org
http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg
Hello dear friends,
we (GMG) are actually successfully providing seminars
where we explain the relation and the correlation between the several actual standards
that are the most important for our prepress color communication.
-there is the color measurement with its measurement
conditions
(ISO13655:2009 with M0, M1, M2 and M3) -the viewing
conditions with
their significant change towards a better D50 alike
viewing (according
ISO3664:2009) -and finally we have the updated
references for Offset
printing in 12647-2:2013
... and if you know these 3 areas and their
correlation (which should finally end in a perfect color communication!), I am really
wondering that there are still some of you in favor of a suboptimal solution. Right now at
this momentum where we could really improve color communication to a new level in quality!
Knowing the correlations between the 3 named standards
also means to understand the areas where the correlation is not so good:
If we compare an average of printing substrates from
the market with the reference values for the more fluorescent papers in 12647-2:2013, it
is getting obvious that there is no good match. When in PS1 it is not dramatic, it is
really obvious in PS5 (please see attached .jpg).
When we measured a mass of Woodfree Coated Papers, we
can see a significant number with around b*-6 to -7 measured in M1. Spot-on with a b* of
-4 is not far away but just enough to confuse and degrade the potential quality in color
communication.
With the comparison of the two competing candidates
for Woodfree Uncoated Paper, it is just becoming cristal clear that those spot-on data are
a valid reference maybe for a precess control but no solution that seem to be ment to be
really color accurate.
The M1-targets written in 12647-2:2013 seem to be
written at a time when we did not have the experience with M1-measurement as we have it
today... and that's why an uncertainty of potential side effects and impacts may have
led to chose very conservative values... basically just a kind of translation of M0 to M1,
without any real adjustment to be more relevant to real world production paper (e.g. an
Lab from Fogra39, defined in M0 with 95/0/-2 would look something like 95/1/-3.5 in M1 if
the bluishness comes from fluorescence; almost spot on with the actual ISO value).
If we go for spot-on, we will hardly see any
difference between legacy M0 and new M1-proofs ... even though this was one important
criteria in the past, that Gracol or FOGRA39 were too yellowish compared to production
stock!?
More than just looking at the references from above,
we have to consider a significant impact of some measurement device manufacturers work for
a better traceability of the color measurement between different devices. Here we could
mention the significant impact on color measurement in prepress that became obvious with
the introduction of Xrites traceability approach, with their XRGA.
The Lab-values for the primaries, written in
12647-2:2013 are unfortunately based on color measurement before Xrite had worked out a
better traceability. This means that we are referencing to Lab-values that would already
today measure some different color angle with actual measurement technology. If we keep in
mind that e.g. the difference between an old Gretag-measurement (GMDI) shows up to 2,5
DeltaE compared to a new Xrite measurement, we can see that there is an implicit risk to
fail, even in process control.
With the 2 FOGRA-candidates 51 and 52, we can see a
very responsible handling of the involved variables as we can see them in daily practice.
A significantly higher consideration of fluorescent
agents, just as it can be seen in the market place. ... and an adjustment that recognizes
the improvents in traceability of our industries measurement technologies.
I really hope that we will not publish spot-on as THE
reference, just because it sounds more coherent. Latest with the usecases around
brightened uncoated papers, we would lose all credibility.
PS: ... one feedback that I have heard from the US,
where they have started much earlier to push M1-references with e.g. the new Gracol2013,
indicates where we are going to be with the spot-on-set:
"Establishing ideal aims / char data for high-OBA
conditions via easy-to-use tools. With regard to this, I wonder if 12647-2 and 15339 have
been published pre-maturely, before we have settled the OBA related workflow issues."
Kind regards
Juergen
[mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com] Im
Auftrag von
Meinecke, Karl Michael (bvdm)
Gesendet: Montag, 7. Juli 2014 10:41
An: Mailinglist for DPWG Members
> Cc: eci@lists.callassoftware.com<mailto:eci@lists.callassoftware.com>;
eci-en@lists.callassoftware.com<mailto:eci-en@lists.callassoftware.com Betreff: Re: [ECI-EN] [Dpwg] ISO 12647-2 printing
tests
Hi Claas, all,
simply spoken: if we are not providing a "spot
on" printing condition (Characterisation Data, Profile), the revised ISO 12647-2:2013
is no longer a valid reference.
Why is the given value in the new standard (b*-4) and
our printing condition shows a different value (b*-6)?? Nobody will understand this.
The print tests (more than 15 series already finalized
at various printers, Fogra, Heidelberg) produced good results for PC1 with the "spot
on" printing condition. I see no preference for FOGRA51beta.
Best regards
Karl Michael
Freundliche Gru:sse - Best Regards
Karl Michael Meinecke
Referat Technik + Forschung
Bundesverband Druck und Medien e.V. (bvdm) German
Printing and Media
Industries Federation (bvdm) Friedrichstrasse 194-199
| DE-10117
Berlin Fon +49 (0) 30 20 91 39 162 | Fax +49 (0) 30 20
91 39 113
> mailto:km@bvdm-online.de | URL www.bvdm-online.de<http://www.bvdm-online.de NEU Altona Test Suite Application Kit
www.altonatestsuite.com<http://www.altonatestsuite.com> NEU
ProzessStandard Offsetdruck
www.prozess-standard.com<http://www.prozess-standard.com> PSO
> ProcessStandard Offset ISO 12647 www.pso-insider.de<http://www.pso-insider.de CO2 Klimainitiative vdm - Climate initiative
www.klima-druck.de<http://www.klima-druck.de> MSD
> MedienStandard Druck
www.point-online.de/download/pdf/free/86035.pdf<http://www.point-online.… -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Dpwg [mailto:dpwg-bounces@lists.fogra.org] Im
Auftrag von Claas
Bickeböller
Gesendet: Montag, 7. Juli 2014 10:05
An: Mailinglist for DPWG Members
> Cc: eci@lists.callassoftware.com<mailto:eci@lists.callassoftware.com>;
eci-en@lists.callassoftware.com<mailto:eci-en@lists.callassoftware.com Betreff: Re: [Dpwg] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
Hi Andy, All,
I'm surprised that SpotOn is preferred.
The b* value of the majority of the analyzed
production papers (from Fogra 60.055) show a range of -4 to -8.
Thus I'd expect better proof to print matches
using FOGRA51beta with a b* of -6.
Can people opting for SpotOn (b*= -4) enlighten me/us
why SpotOn is preferred?
Thanks and best regards
Claas
Am 07.07.2014 um 08:53 schrieb Andreas Kraushaar
<Kraushaar@fogra.org<mailto:Kraushaar@fogra.org>>:
> Dear members of the DPWG,
> > the printing tests regarding the characterization
data that correspond to the new printing conditions defined in ISO 12647-2 are under way.
For the most important printing condition, PC 1 - offset printing on coated stock, there
are two candidates available (PC1 Spot on and a more blueish version currently labeled
"FOGRA51beta"). We would like to quickly respond to the market needs and we see
(from the participating folks) a motion toward Spot On.
> Our findings also indicate that the colour
differences between both candidates are too small to justify individual printing
conditions. So from Fogra point of view FOGRA51 will either cover the current candidate
(the result from the research project 60.055) or the PC1 Spot On dataset.
> > So please consult Fred15
(http://www.eci.org/en/projects/fred15) and let us know you findings, comments.
> > regards
> Andy Kraushaar
> > PS: The ECI mailing list can be also be used for
sure :-)
> > Follow us on Twitter -
> > twitter.com/fogra.org<http://twitter.com/fogra.org > Dr.-Ing. Andreas Kraushaar
> Dept. Prepress
> > Fogra Graphic Technology Research Association
Streitfeldstrasse 19
> 81673 Munich, Germany
> > Telefon: +49 89. 431 82 - 335
> Telefax: +49 89. 431 82 - 100
> > E-mail:
kraushaar@fogra.org<mailto:kraushaar@fogra.org<mailto:kraushaar@fogra.org%3cmailto:kraushaar@fogra.org> >
-----------------------------------------------------------------
> > This e-mail message may contain confidential
and/or privileged information.
> If you are not an addressee or otherwise
authorized to receive this
> message, you should not use, copy, disclose or
take any action based
> on this e-mail or any information contained in
the message. If you
> have received this material in error, please
advise the sender
> immediately by reply e-mail and delete this
message.
> > Managing Director: Dr. Eduard Neufeld |
Registered Office: Munich |
> Register of Associations: VR 4909
> > _______________________________________________
> Dpwg mailing list
> > Dpwg@lists.fogra.org<mailto:Dpwg@lists.fogra.org _______________________________________________
Dpwg mailing list
> Dpwg@lists.fogra.org<mailto:Dpwg@lists.fogra.org
<all-in.jpg>_______________________________________________
ECI mailing list
> ECI@lists.callassoftware.com<mailto:ECI@lists.callassoftware.com
3:19 p.m.
New subject: [Dpwg] [ECI] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
Dear Juergen,
When you write « The targets in 12647-2 are basically to be taken spot-on
, do you mean to refer the Spot-On software as in http://spotonpress.com?
Roger Breton
From: eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com
[mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com] On Behalf Of Juergen Seitz
Sent: 16 juillet 2014 08:26
To: Mailinglist for DPWG Members; eci(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Cc: eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Subject: Re: [ECI-EN] [Dpwg] [ECI] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
Dear Erwin,
ISO12647-2:2013 has not to be revised.
The parameters described in this paper are relevant.
With Appendix-B in 12647-2:2013 we already have a description how to adapt
to different paper shades
... the only thing that we would need is maybe an addendum to make all
relevant (like how-to to trace brighteners and measurement technology)
adjustments traceable.
We will always have a kind of moving target with the production papers
which, depending on the regional flavor and other fashions will change
through the years.
The targets in 12647-2 are basically to be taken spot-on, if the substrate
measures as described.
The actual FOGRAbeta candidates are based on spot-on data how they are
described in 12647-2:2013. Just moved to a suggested better average of the
production papers.
With the old generation of 12647-2 we were handling strict targets. Printers
struggled to reach those references if the paper was far from the reference.
The reference value (e.g. L*95, a*0, b*-2 on white backing with the related
primary and secondary color tergets) as such was compromising between legacy
viewing conditions and legacy measurement technology. Most of the production
papers were not very close to the reference values.
I have seen several times how printers were looking for specific printing
paper when they prepared for a certification, just as the standard did not
cover their daily business environment.
With the revision of 12647-2 in 2013 we can see significant improvement with
the classification of the substrates and with the references and tolerances
described
plus the new and needed flexibility to consider other papers than
those that fit perfectly to THE reference values described.
With the know-how and the tools we are having today it is just logical that
it is not the IS0 to describe static references but dynamic tools and rules
to handle printing jobs to a even better predictability and accuracy.
Kind regards
Juergen
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Dpwg [mailto:dpwg-bounces@lists.fogra.org] Im Auftrag von Erwin Widmer
Gesendet: Montag, 14. Juli 2014 10:36
An: eci(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Cc: Mailinglist for DPWG Members; eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
<mailto:eci-en@lists.callassoftware.com
Betreff: Re: [Dpwg] [ECI] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
Dear Jürgen,
Thank you for your input.
What you say here means we should revise the standard first before we
discuss characterization data and profiles. I think if the standard
(12647-2:2013) and the characterization data and profiles don't fit together
we lose creditability anyway.
Regards,
Erwin Widmer
Deputy Managing Director
Ugra | Lerchenfeldstr. 5 | 9014 St. Gallen | Switzerland
Tel: +41 (0)71 552 02 42 | Fax: +41 (0)71 552 02 49
E-Mail: <mailto:widmer@ugra.ch> widmer(a)ugra.ch | WebSite:
<http://www.ugra.ch> www.ugra.ch
Am 07.07.2014 um 17:31 schrieb Juergen Seitz <
<mailto:Juergen.Seitz@gmgcolor.com> Juergen.Seitz(a)gmgcolor.com>gt;:
Hello dear friends,
we (GMG) are actually successfully providing seminars
where we explain the
relation and the correlation between the several actual
standards that are
the most important for our prepress color communication.
-there is the color measurement with its measurement
conditions
(ISO13655:2009 with M0, M1, M2 and M3) -the viewing
conditions with
their significant change towards a better D50 alike
viewing (according
ISO3664:2009) -and finally we have the updated
references for Offset
printing in 12647-2:2013
and if you know these 3 areas and their correlation (which should
finally end in a
perfect color communication!), I am really wondering that
there are still some of you in favor of a suboptimal solution. Right now at
this momentum where we could really improve color communication to a new
level in quality!
Knowing the correlations between the 3 named standards
also means to
understand the areas where the correlation is not so good:
If we compare an average of printing substrates from
the market with the
reference values for the more fluorescent papers in
12647-2:2013, it is
getting obvious that there is no good match. When in PS1 it is not dramatic,
it is really obvious in PS5 (please see attached .jpg).
When we measured a mass of Woodfree Coated Papers, we
can see a
significant number with around b*-6 to -7 measured in M1. Spot-on with a
b*
of -4 is not far away but just enough to confuse and degrade the potential
quality in color communication.
With the comparison of the two competing candidates
for Woodfree Uncoated
Paper, it is just becoming cristal clear that those spot-on
data are a valid
reference maybe for a precess control but no solution that seem to be ment
to be really color accurate.
The M1-targets written in 12647-2:2013 seem to be
written at a time when
we did not have the experience with M1-measurement as we have
it today
and
thats why an uncertainty of potential side effects and impacts may have led
to chose very conservative values
basically just a kind of translation of
M0 to M1, without any real adjustment to be more relevant to real world
production paper (e.g. an Lab from Fogra39, defined in M0 with 95/0/-2 would
look something like 95/1/-3.5 in M1 if the bluishness comes from
fluorescence; almost spot on with the actual ISO value).
If we go for spot-on, we will hardly see any
difference between legacy M0
and new M1-proofs
even though this was one important criteria in the past,
that Gracol or FOGRA39 were too yellowish compared to production stock!?
More than just looking at the references from above,
we have to consider a
significant impact of some measurement device manufacturers
work for a
better traceability of the color measurement between different devices. Here
we could mention the significant impact on color measurement in prepress
that became obvious with the introduction of Xrites traceability approach,
with their XRGA.
The Lab-values for the primaries, written in
12647-2:2013 are
unfortunately based on color measurement before Xrite had worked
out a
better traceability. This means that we are referencing to Lab-values that
would already today measure some different color angle with actual
measurement technology. If we keep in mind that e.g. the difference between
an old Gretag-measurement (GMDI) shows up to 2,5 DeltaE compared to a new
Xrite measurement, we can see that there is an implicit risk to fail, even
in process control.
With the 2 FOGRA-candidates 51 and 52, we can see a
very responsible
handling of the involved variables as we can see them in daily
practice.
A significantly higher consideration of fluorescent
agents, just as it can
be seen in the market place.
and an adjustment that recognizes the
improvents in traceability of our industries measurement technologies.
I really hope that we will not publish spot-on as THE
reference, just
because it sounds more coherent. Latest with the usecases around
brightened
uncoated papers, we would lose all credibility.
PS:
one feedback that I have heard from the US, where they have started
much earlier to
push M1-references with e.g. the new Gracol2013, indicates
where we are going to be with the spot-on-set:
Establishing ideal aims / char data for high-OBA
conditions via
easy-to-use tools. With regard to this, I wonder if 12647-2 and 15339
have
been published pre-maturely, before we have settled the OBA related workflow
issues.
Kind regards
Juergen
Von:
<mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com>
eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com
[
<mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com>
mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com] Im Auftrag von
Meinecke, Karl Michael (bvdm)
Gesendet: Montag, 7. Juli 2014 10:41
An: Mailinglist for DPWG Members
Cc: <mailto:eci@lists.callassoftware.com>
eci(a)lists.callassoftware.com;
<mailto:eci-en@lists.callassoftware.com>
eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Betreff: Re: [ECI-EN] [Dpwg] ISO 12647-2 printing
tests
Hi Claas, all,
simply spoken: if we are not providing a "spot
on" printing condition
(Characterisation Data, Profile), the revised ISO
12647-2:2013 is no longer
a valid reference.
Why is the given value in the new standard (b*-4) and
our printing
condition shows a different value (b*-6)?? Nobody will understand
this.
The print tests (more than 15 series already finalized
at various
printers, Fogra, Heidelberg) produced good results for PC1 with the
"spot
on" printing condition. I see no preference for FOGRA51beta.
Best regards
Karl Michael
Freundliche Gru:sse Best Regards
Karl Michael Meinecke
Referat Technik + Forschung
<image001.png>
Bundesverband Druck und Medien e.V. (bvdm) German
Printing and Media
Industries Federation (bvdm) Friedrichstrasse 194-199
| DE-10117
Berlin Fon +49 (0) 30 20 91 39 162 | Fax +49 (0) 30 20
91 39 113
<mailto:km@bvdm-online.de>
mailto:km@bvdm-online.de | URL
<http://www.bvdm-online.de> www.bvdm-online.de
NEU Altona Test Suite Application Kit
<http://www.altonatestsuite.com>
www.altonatestsuite.com NEU
ProzessStandard Offsetdruck
<http://www.prozess-standard.com>
www.prozess-standard.com PSO
ProcessStandard Offset ISO 12647
<http://www.pso-insider.de>
www.pso-insider.de
R16 roman16 bvdm Reference Images
<http://www.roman16.com>
www.roman16.com
CO2 Klimainitiative vdm - Climate initiative
<http://www.klima-druck.de>
www.klima-druck.de MSD
MedienStandard Druck
<http://www.point-online.de/download/pdf/free/86035.pdf>
www.point-online.de/download/pdf/free/86035.pdf
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Dpwg [
<mailto:dpwg-bounces@lists.fogra.org>
mailto:dpwg-bounces@lists.fogra.org] Im
Auftrag von Claas
Bickeböller
Gesendet: Montag, 7. Juli 2014 10:05
An: Mailinglist for DPWG Members
Cc: <mailto:eci@lists.callassoftware.com>
eci(a)lists.callassoftware.com;
<mailto:eci-en@lists.callassoftware.com>
eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Betreff: Re: [Dpwg] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
Hi Andy, All,
I'm surprised that SpotOn is preferred.
The b* value of the majority of the analyzed
production papers (from Fogra
60.055) show a range of -4 to -8.
Thus I'd expect better proof to print matches
using FOGRA51beta with a b*
of -6.
Can people opting for SpotOn (b*= -4) enlighten me/us
why SpotOn is
preferred?
Thanks and best regards
Claas
Am 07.07.2014 um 08:53 schrieb Andreas Kraushaar <
<mailto:Kraushaar@fogra.org> Kraushaar(a)fogra.org>gt;:
> Dear members of the DPWG,
>
> the printing tests regarding the characterization
data that correspond
to the new printing conditions defined in ISO 12647-2 are under
way. For the
most important printing condition, PC 1 - offset printing on coated stock,
there are two candidates available (PC1 Spot on and a more blueish version
currently labeled FOGRA51beta). We would like to quickly respond to the
market needs and we see (from the participating folks) a motion toward Spot
On.
> Our findings also indicate that the colour
differences between both
candidates are too small to justify individual printing
conditions. So from
Fogra point of view FOGRA51 will either cover the current candidate (the
result from the research project 60.055) or the PC1 Spot On dataset.
>
> So please consult Fred15 (
<http://www.eci.org/en/projects/fred15>
http://www.eci.org/en/projects/fred15)
and let us know you findings,
comments.
>
> regards
> Andy Kraushaar
>
>
> PS: The ECI mailing list can be also be used for
sure :-)
>
>
> Follow us on Twitter -
> twitter.com/fogra.org<
<http://twitter.com/fogra.org>
http://twitter.com/fogra.org>
>
> Dr.-Ing. Andreas Kraushaar
> Dept. Prepress
>
> Fogra Graphic Technology Research Association
Streitfeldstrasse 19
> 81673 Munich, Germany
>
> Telefon: +49 89. 431 82 - 335
> Telefax: +49 89. 431 82 - 100
> E-mail:
<mailto:kraushaar@fogra.org%3cmailto:kraushaar@fogra.org>
kraushaar@fogra.org<mailto:kraushaar@fogra.org>
> Internet:
<http://www.fogra.org%3chttp:/www.fogra.org>
www.fogra.org<http://www.fogra.org>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This e-mail message may contain confidential
and/or privileged
information.
> If you are not an addressee or otherwise
authorized to receive this
> message, you should not use, copy, disclose or
take any action based
> on this e-mail or any information contained in
the message. If you
> have received this material in error, please
advise the sender
> immediately by reply e-mail and delete this
message.
>
> Managing Director: Dr. Eduard Neufeld |
Registered Office: Munich |
> Register of Associations: VR 4909
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dpwg mailing list
> <mailto:Dpwg@lists.fogra.org>
Dpwg(a)lists.fogra.org
> <http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg>
http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg
_______________________________________________
Dpwg mailing list
<mailto:Dpwg@lists.fogra.org>
Dpwg(a)lists.fogra.org
<http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg>
http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg
<all-in.jpg>_______________________________________________
ECI mailing list
<mailto:ECI@lists.callassoftware.com>
ECI(a)lists.callassoftware.com
<http://lists.callassoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/eci>
http://lists.callassoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/eci
_______________________________________________
Dpwg mailing list
<mailto:Dpwg@lists.fogra.org> Dpwg(a)lists.fogra.org
<http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg> http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg
3:27 p.m.
New subject: [Dpwg] [ECI] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
:)
No, Roger,
if you read the documentation the field test carefully (
http://www.eci.org/en/projects/fred15 ), you can find "spot on" as a naming for
the characterization data and ICC-profiles that are perfectly aligned to the reference
values from ISO12647-2:2013
kind regards
Juergen
Von: eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com
[mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com] Im Auftrag von Roger Breton
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. Juli 2014 15:20
An: eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Betreff: Re: [ECI-EN] [Dpwg] [ECI] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
Dear Juergen,
When you write « The targets in 12647-2 are basically to be taken spot-on ...", do
you mean to refer the Spot-On software as in http://spotonpress.com?
Roger Breton
From:
eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com<mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com>
[mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com] On Behalf Of Juergen Seitz
Sent: 16 juillet 2014 08:26
To: Mailinglist for DPWG Members;
eci@lists.callassoftware.com<mailto:eci@lists.callassoftware.com Cc:
eci-en@lists.callassoftware.com<mailto:eci-en@lists.callassoftware.com Subject: Re: [ECI-EN] [Dpwg] [ECI] ISO 12647-2
printing tests
Dear Erwin,
ISO12647-2:2013 has not to be revised.
The parameters described in this paper are relevant.
With Appendix-B in 12647-2:2013 we already have a description how to adapt to different
paper shades
... the only thing that we would need is maybe an addendum to make all relevant (like
how-to to trace brighteners and measurement technology) adjustments traceable.
We will always have a kind of moving target with the production papers which, depending on
the regional flavor and other fashions will change through the years.
The targets in 12647-2 are basically to be taken spot-on, if the substrate measures as
described.
The actual FOGRAbeta candidates are based on spot-on data how they are described in
12647-2:2013. Just moved to a suggested better average of the production papers.
With the old generation of 12647-2 we were handling strict targets. Printers struggled to
reach those references if the paper was far from the reference. The reference value (e.g.
L*95, a*0, b*-2 on white backing with the related primary and secondary color tergets) as
such was compromising between legacy viewing conditions and legacy measurement technology.
Most of the production papers were not very close to the reference values.
I have seen several times how printers were looking for specific printing paper when they
prepared for a certification, just as the standard did not cover their daily business
environment.
With the revision of 12647-2 in 2013 we can see significant improvement with the
classification of the substrates and with the references and tolerances described... plus
the new and needed flexibility to consider other papers than those that fit perfectly to
THE reference values described.
With the know-how and the tools we are having today it is just logical that it is not the
IS0 to describe static references but dynamic tools and rules to handle printing jobs to a
even better predictability and accuracy.
Kind regards
Juergen
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Dpwg [mailto:dpwg-bounces@lists.fogra.org] Im Auftrag von Erwin Widmer
Gesendet: Montag, 14. Juli 2014 10:36
An: eci@lists.callassoftware.com<mailto:eci@lists.callassoftware.com Cc: Mailinglist for DPWG Members;
eci-en@lists.callassoftware.com<mailto:eci-en@lists.callassoftware.com Betreff: Re: [Dpwg] [ECI] ISO 12647-2 printing
tests
Dear Jürgen,
Thank you for your input.
What you say here means we should revise the standard first before we discuss
characterization data and profiles. I think if the standard (12647-2:2013) and the
characterization data and profiles don't fit together we lose creditability anyway.
Regards,
Erwin Widmer
Deputy Managing Director
Ugra | Lerchenfeldstr. 5 | 9014 St. Gallen | Switzerland
Tel: +41 (0)71 552 02 42 | Fax: +41 (0)71 552 02 49
E-Mail: widmer@ugra.ch<mailto:widmer@ugra.ch> | WebSite:
www.ugra.ch<http://www.ugra.ch
Am 07.07.2014 um 17:31 schrieb Juergen Seitz
<Juergen.Seitz@gmgcolor.com<mailto:Juergen.Seitz@gmgcolor.com>>:
> Von:
eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com<mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com
> <image001.png
> R16 roman16 bvdm Reference Images www.roman16.com<http://www.roman16.com
>
>
>
> > Internet:
www.fogra.org<http://www.fogra.org<http://www.fogra.org%3chttp:/www.f…
>
>
_______________________________________________
Dpwg mailing list
Dpwg@lists.fogra.org<mailto:Dpwg@lists.fogra.org
http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg
Hello dear friends,
we (GMG) are actually successfully providing seminars
where we explain the relation and the correlation between the several actual standards
that are the most important for our prepress color communication.
-there is the color measurement with its measurement
conditions
(ISO13655:2009 with M0, M1, M2 and M3) -the viewing
conditions with
their significant change towards a better D50 alike
viewing (according
ISO3664:2009) -and finally we have the updated
references for Offset
printing in 12647-2:2013
... and if you know these 3 areas and their
correlation (which should finally end in a perfect color communication!), I am really
wondering that there are still some of you in favor of a suboptimal solution. Right now at
this momentum where we could really improve color communication to a new level in quality!
Knowing the correlations between the 3 named standards
also means to understand the areas where the correlation is not so good:
If we compare an average of printing substrates from
the market with the reference values for the more fluorescent papers in 12647-2:2013, it
is getting obvious that there is no good match. When in PS1 it is not dramatic, it is
really obvious in PS5 (please see attached .jpg).
When we measured a mass of Woodfree Coated Papers, we
can see a significant number with around b*-6 to -7 measured in M1. Spot-on with a b* of
-4 is not far away but just enough to confuse and degrade the potential quality in color
communication.
With the comparison of the two competing candidates
for Woodfree Uncoated Paper, it is just becoming cristal clear that those spot-on data are
a valid reference maybe for a precess control but no solution that seem to be ment to be
really color accurate.
The M1-targets written in 12647-2:2013 seem to be
written at a time when we did not have the experience with M1-measurement as we have it
today... and that's why an uncertainty of potential side effects and impacts may have
led to chose very conservative values... basically just a kind of translation of M0 to M1,
without any real adjustment to be more relevant to real world production paper (e.g. an
Lab from Fogra39, defined in M0 with 95/0/-2 would look something like 95/1/-3.5 in M1 if
the bluishness comes from fluorescence; almost spot on with the actual ISO value).
If we go for spot-on, we will hardly see any
difference between legacy M0 and new M1-proofs ... even though this was one important
criteria in the past, that Gracol or FOGRA39 were too yellowish compared to production
stock!?
More than just looking at the references from above,
we have to consider a significant impact of some measurement device manufacturers work for
a better traceability of the color measurement between different devices. Here we could
mention the significant impact on color measurement in prepress that became obvious with
the introduction of Xrites traceability approach, with their XRGA.
The Lab-values for the primaries, written in
12647-2:2013 are unfortunately based on color measurement before Xrite had worked out a
better traceability. This means that we are referencing to Lab-values that would already
today measure some different color angle with actual measurement technology. If we keep in
mind that e.g. the difference between an old Gretag-measurement (GMDI) shows up to 2,5
DeltaE compared to a new Xrite measurement, we can see that there is an implicit risk to
fail, even in process control.
With the 2 FOGRA-candidates 51 and 52, we can see a
very responsible handling of the involved variables as we can see them in daily practice.
A significantly higher consideration of fluorescent
agents, just as it can be seen in the market place. ... and an adjustment that recognizes
the improvents in traceability of our industries measurement technologies.
I really hope that we will not publish spot-on as THE
reference, just because it sounds more coherent. Latest with the usecases around
brightened uncoated papers, we would lose all credibility.
PS: ... one feedback that I have heard from the US,
where they have started much earlier to push M1-references with e.g. the new Gracol2013,
indicates where we are going to be with the spot-on-set:
"Establishing ideal aims / char data for high-OBA
conditions via easy-to-use tools. With regard to this, I wonder if 12647-2 and 15339 have
been published pre-maturely, before we have settled the OBA related workflow issues."
Kind regards
Juergen
[mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com] Im
Auftrag von
Meinecke, Karl Michael (bvdm)
Gesendet: Montag, 7. Juli 2014 10:41
An: Mailinglist for DPWG Members
> Cc: eci@lists.callassoftware.com<mailto:eci@lists.callassoftware.com>;
eci-en@lists.callassoftware.com<mailto:eci-en@lists.callassoftware.com Betreff: Re: [ECI-EN] [Dpwg] ISO 12647-2 printing
tests
Hi Claas, all,
simply spoken: if we are not providing a "spot
on" printing condition (Characterisation Data, Profile), the revised ISO 12647-2:2013
is no longer a valid reference.
Why is the given value in the new standard (b*-4) and
our printing condition shows a different value (b*-6)?? Nobody will understand this.
The print tests (more than 15 series already finalized
at various printers, Fogra, Heidelberg) produced good results for PC1 with the "spot
on" printing condition. I see no preference for FOGRA51beta.
Best regards
Karl Michael
Freundliche Gru:sse - Best Regards
Karl Michael Meinecke
Referat Technik + Forschung
Bundesverband Druck und Medien e.V. (bvdm) German
Printing and Media
Industries Federation (bvdm) Friedrichstrasse 194-199
| DE-10117
Berlin Fon +49 (0) 30 20 91 39 162 | Fax +49 (0) 30 20
91 39 113
> mailto:km@bvdm-online.de | URL www.bvdm-online.de<http://www.bvdm-online.de NEU Altona Test Suite Application Kit
www.altonatestsuite.com<http://www.altonatestsuite.com> NEU
ProzessStandard Offsetdruck
www.prozess-standard.com<http://www.prozess-standard.com> PSO
> ProcessStandard Offset ISO 12647 www.pso-insider.de<http://www.pso-insider.de CO2 Klimainitiative vdm - Climate initiative
www.klima-druck.de<http://www.klima-druck.de> MSD
> MedienStandard Druck
www.point-online.de/download/pdf/free/86035.pdf<http://www.point-online.… -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Dpwg [mailto:dpwg-bounces@lists.fogra.org] Im
Auftrag von Claas
Bickeböller
Gesendet: Montag, 7. Juli 2014 10:05
An: Mailinglist for DPWG Members
> Cc: eci@lists.callassoftware.com<mailto:eci@lists.callassoftware.com>;
eci-en@lists.callassoftware.com<mailto:eci-en@lists.callassoftware.com Betreff: Re: [Dpwg] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
Hi Andy, All,
I'm surprised that SpotOn is preferred.
The b* value of the majority of the analyzed
production papers (from Fogra 60.055) show a range of -4 to -8.
Thus I'd expect better proof to print matches
using FOGRA51beta with a b* of -6.
Can people opting for SpotOn (b*= -4) enlighten me/us
why SpotOn is preferred?
Thanks and best regards
Claas
Am 07.07.2014 um 08:53 schrieb Andreas Kraushaar
<Kraushaar@fogra.org<mailto:Kraushaar@fogra.org>>:
> Dear members of the DPWG,
> > the printing tests regarding the characterization
data that correspond to the new printing conditions defined in ISO 12647-2 are under way.
For the most important printing condition, PC 1 - offset printing on coated stock, there
are two candidates available (PC1 Spot on and a more blueish version currently labeled
"FOGRA51beta"). We would like to quickly respond to the market needs and we see
(from the participating folks) a motion toward Spot On.
> Our findings also indicate that the colour
differences between both candidates are too small to justify individual printing
conditions. So from Fogra point of view FOGRA51 will either cover the current candidate
(the result from the research project 60.055) or the PC1 Spot On dataset.
> > So please consult Fred15
(http://www.eci.org/en/projects/fred15) and let us know you findings, comments.
> > regards
> Andy Kraushaar
> > PS: The ECI mailing list can be also be used for
sure :-)
> > Follow us on Twitter -
> > twitter.com/fogra.org<http://twitter.com/fogra.org > Dr.-Ing. Andreas Kraushaar
> Dept. Prepress
> > Fogra Graphic Technology Research Association
Streitfeldstrasse 19
> 81673 Munich, Germany
> > Telefon: +49 89. 431 82 - 335
> Telefax: +49 89. 431 82 - 100
> > E-mail:
kraushaar@fogra.org<mailto:kraushaar@fogra.org<mailto:kraushaar@fogra.org%3cmailto:kraushaar@fogra.org> >
-----------------------------------------------------------------
> > This e-mail message may contain confidential
and/or privileged information.
> If you are not an addressee or otherwise
authorized to receive this
> message, you should not use, copy, disclose or
take any action based
> on this e-mail or any information contained in
the message. If you
> have received this material in error, please
advise the sender
> immediately by reply e-mail and delete this
message.
> > Managing Director: Dr. Eduard Neufeld |
Registered Office: Munich |
> Register of Associations: VR 4909
> > _______________________________________________
> Dpwg mailing list
> > Dpwg@lists.fogra.org<mailto:Dpwg@lists.fogra.org _______________________________________________
Dpwg mailing list
> Dpwg@lists.fogra.org<mailto:Dpwg@lists.fogra.org
<all-in.jpg>_______________________________________________
ECI mailing list
> ECI@lists.callassoftware.com<mailto:ECI@lists.callassoftware.com
4:05 p.m.
New subject: [Dpwg] [ECI] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
Dear Juergen,
I have not read the documentation yet but, when they claim « perfectly
aligned, surely they mean having measured the press sheet against the
characterization, presumably using the SAME exact instrument, with the SAME
exact paper for both the characterization stage and this verification stage?
I will take a look at the documentation ;-)
Thank you / Roger
From: eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com
[mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com] On Behalf Of Juergen Seitz
Sent: 16 juillet 2014 09:27
To: eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Subject: Re: [ECI-EN] [Dpwg] [ECI] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
:)
No, Roger,
if you read the documentation the field test carefully (
http://www.eci.org/en/projects/fred15 ), you can find spot on as a naming
for the characterization data and ICC-profiles that are perfectly aligned to
the reference values from ISO12647-2:2013
kind regards
Juergen
Von: eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com
<mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com>
[mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com] Im Auftrag von Roger Breton
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. Juli 2014 15:20
An: eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com <mailto:eci-en@lists.callassoftware.com>
Betreff: Re: [ECI-EN] [Dpwg] [ECI] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
Dear Juergen,
When you write « The targets in 12647-2 are basically to be taken spot-on
, do you mean to refer the Spot-On software as in http://spotonpress.com?
Roger Breton
From: eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com
<mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com>
[mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com] On Behalf Of Juergen Seitz
Sent: 16 juillet 2014 08:26
To: Mailinglist for DPWG Members; eci(a)lists.callassoftware.com
<mailto:eci@lists.callassoftware.com
Cc: eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com <mailto:eci-en@lists.callassoftware.com>
Subject: Re: [ECI-EN] [Dpwg] [ECI] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
Dear Erwin,
ISO12647-2:2013 has not to be revised.
The parameters described in this paper are relevant.
With Appendix-B in 12647-2:2013 we already have a description how to adapt
to different paper shades
... the only thing that we would need is maybe an addendum to make all
relevant (like how-to to trace brighteners and measurement technology)
adjustments traceable.
We will always have a kind of moving target with the production papers
which, depending on the regional flavor and other fashions will change
through the years.
The targets in 12647-2 are basically to be taken spot-on, if the substrate
measures as described.
The actual FOGRAbeta candidates are based on spot-on data how they are
described in 12647-2:2013. Just moved to a suggested better average of the
production papers.
With the old generation of 12647-2 we were handling strict targets. Printers
struggled to reach those references if the paper was far from the reference.
The reference value (e.g. L*95, a*0, b*-2 on white backing with the related
primary and secondary color tergets) as such was compromising between legacy
viewing conditions and legacy measurement technology. Most of the production
papers were not very close to the reference values.
I have seen several times how printers were looking for specific printing
paper when they prepared for a certification, just as the standard did not
cover their daily business environment.
With the revision of 12647-2 in 2013 we can see significant improvement with
the classification of the substrates and with the references and tolerances
described
plus the new and needed flexibility to consider other papers than
those that fit perfectly to THE reference values described.
With the know-how and the tools we are having today it is just logical that
it is not the IS0 to describe static references but dynamic tools and rules
to handle printing jobs to a even better predictability and accuracy.
Kind regards
Juergen
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Dpwg [mailto:dpwg-bounces@lists.fogra.org] Im Auftrag von Erwin Widmer
Gesendet: Montag, 14. Juli 2014 10:36
An: eci(a)lists.callassoftware.com <mailto:eci@lists.callassoftware.com Cc: Mailinglist for DPWG Members;
eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
<mailto:eci-en@lists.callassoftware.com
Betreff: Re: [Dpwg] [ECI] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
Dear Jürgen,
Thank you for your input.
What you say here means we should revise the standard first before we
discuss characterization data and profiles. I think if the standard
(12647-2:2013) and the characterization data and profiles don't fit together
we lose creditability anyway.
Regards,
Erwin Widmer
Deputy Managing Director
Ugra | Lerchenfeldstr. 5 | 9014 St. Gallen | Switzerland
Tel: +41 (0)71 552 02 42 | Fax: +41 (0)71 552 02 49
E-Mail: <mailto:widmer@ugra.ch> widmer(a)ugra.ch | WebSite:
<http://www.ugra.ch> www.ugra.ch
Am 07.07.2014 um 17:31 schrieb Juergen Seitz <
<mailto:Juergen.Seitz@gmgcolor.com> Juergen.Seitz(a)gmgcolor.com>gt;:
Hello dear friends,
we (GMG) are actually successfully providing seminars
where we explain the
relation and the correlation between the several actual
standards that are
the most important for our prepress color communication.
-there is the color measurement with its measurement
conditions
(ISO13655:2009 with M0, M1, M2 and M3) -the viewing
conditions with
their significant change towards a better D50 alike
viewing (according
ISO3664:2009) -and finally we have the updated
references for Offset
printing in 12647-2:2013
and if you know these 3 areas and their correlation (which should
finally end in a
perfect color communication!), I am really wondering that
there are still some of you in favor of a suboptimal solution. Right now at
this momentum where we could really improve color communication to a new
level in quality!
Knowing the correlations between the 3 named standards
also means to
understand the areas where the correlation is not so good:
If we compare an average of printing substrates from
the market with the
reference values for the more fluorescent papers in
12647-2:2013, it is
getting obvious that there is no good match. When in PS1 it is not dramatic,
it is really obvious in PS5 (please see attached .jpg).
When we measured a mass of Woodfree Coated Papers, we
can see a
significant number with around b*-6 to -7 measured in M1. Spot-on with a
b*
of -4 is not far away but just enough to confuse and degrade the potential
quality in color communication.
With the comparison of the two competing candidates
for Woodfree Uncoated
Paper, it is just becoming cristal clear that those spot-on
data are a valid
reference maybe for a precess control but no solution that seem to be ment
to be really color accurate.
The M1-targets written in 12647-2:2013 seem to be
written at a time when
we did not have the experience with M1-measurement as we have
it today
and
thats why an uncertainty of potential side effects and impacts may have led
to chose very conservative values
basically just a kind of translation of
M0 to M1, without any real adjustment to be more relevant to real world
production paper (e.g. an Lab from Fogra39, defined in M0 with 95/0/-2 would
look something like 95/1/-3.5 in M1 if the bluishness comes from
fluorescence; almost spot on with the actual ISO value).
If we go for spot-on, we will hardly see any
difference between legacy M0
and new M1-proofs
even though this was one important criteria in the past,
that Gracol or FOGRA39 were too yellowish compared to production stock!?
More than just looking at the references from above,
we have to consider a
significant impact of some measurement device manufacturers
work for a
better traceability of the color measurement between different devices. Here
we could mention the significant impact on color measurement in prepress
that became obvious with the introduction of Xrites traceability approach,
with their XRGA.
The Lab-values for the primaries, written in
12647-2:2013 are
unfortunately based on color measurement before Xrite had worked
out a
better traceability. This means that we are referencing to Lab-values that
would already today measure some different color angle with actual
measurement technology. If we keep in mind that e.g. the difference between
an old Gretag-measurement (GMDI) shows up to 2,5 DeltaE compared to a new
Xrite measurement, we can see that there is an implicit risk to fail, even
in process control.
With the 2 FOGRA-candidates 51 and 52, we can see a
very responsible
handling of the involved variables as we can see them in daily
practice.
A significantly higher consideration of fluorescent
agents, just as it can
be seen in the market place.
and an adjustment that recognizes the
improvents in traceability of our industries measurement technologies.
I really hope that we will not publish spot-on as THE
reference, just
because it sounds more coherent. Latest with the usecases around
brightened
uncoated papers, we would lose all credibility.
PS:
one feedback that I have heard from the US, where they have started
much earlier to
push M1-references with e.g. the new Gracol2013, indicates
where we are going to be with the spot-on-set:
Establishing ideal aims / char data for high-OBA
conditions via
easy-to-use tools. With regard to this, I wonder if 12647-2 and 15339
have
been published pre-maturely, before we have settled the OBA related workflow
issues.
Kind regards
Juergen
Von:
<mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com>
eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com
[
<mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com>
mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com] Im Auftrag von
Meinecke, Karl Michael (bvdm)
Gesendet: Montag, 7. Juli 2014 10:41
An: Mailinglist for DPWG Members
Cc: <mailto:eci@lists.callassoftware.com>
eci(a)lists.callassoftware.com;
<mailto:eci-en@lists.callassoftware.com>
eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Betreff: Re: [ECI-EN] [Dpwg] ISO 12647-2 printing
tests
Hi Claas, all,
simply spoken: if we are not providing a "spot
on" printing condition
(Characterisation Data, Profile), the revised ISO
12647-2:2013 is no longer
a valid reference.
Why is the given value in the new standard (b*-4) and
our printing
condition shows a different value (b*-6)?? Nobody will understand
this.
The print tests (more than 15 series already finalized
at various
printers, Fogra, Heidelberg) produced good results for PC1 with the
"spot
on" printing condition. I see no preference for FOGRA51beta.
Best regards
Karl Michael
Freundliche Gru:sse Best Regards
Karl Michael Meinecke
Referat Technik + Forschung
<image001.png>
Bundesverband Druck und Medien e.V. (bvdm) German
Printing and Media
Industries Federation (bvdm) Friedrichstrasse 194-199
| DE-10117
Berlin Fon +49 (0) 30 20 91 39 162 | Fax +49 (0) 30 20
91 39 113
<mailto:km@bvdm-online.de>
mailto:km@bvdm-online.de | URL
<http://www.bvdm-online.de> www.bvdm-online.de
NEU Altona Test Suite Application Kit
<http://www.altonatestsuite.com>
www.altonatestsuite.com NEU
ProzessStandard Offsetdruck
<http://www.prozess-standard.com>
www.prozess-standard.com PSO
ProcessStandard Offset ISO 12647
<http://www.pso-insider.de>
www.pso-insider.de
R16 roman16 bvdm Reference Images
<http://www.roman16.com>
www.roman16.com
CO2 Klimainitiative vdm - Climate initiative
<http://www.klima-druck.de>
www.klima-druck.de MSD
MedienStandard Druck
<http://www.point-online.de/download/pdf/free/86035.pdf>
www.point-online.de/download/pdf/free/86035.pdf
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Dpwg [
<mailto:dpwg-bounces@lists.fogra.org>
mailto:dpwg-bounces@lists.fogra.org] Im
Auftrag von Claas
Bickeböller
Gesendet: Montag, 7. Juli 2014 10:05
An: Mailinglist for DPWG Members
Cc: <mailto:eci@lists.callassoftware.com>
eci(a)lists.callassoftware.com;
<mailto:eci-en@lists.callassoftware.com>
eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Betreff: Re: [Dpwg] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
Hi Andy, All,
I'm surprised that SpotOn is preferred.
The b* value of the majority of the analyzed
production papers (from Fogra
60.055) show a range of -4 to -8.
Thus I'd expect better proof to print matches
using FOGRA51beta with a b*
of -6.
Can people opting for SpotOn (b*= -4) enlighten me/us
why SpotOn is
preferred?
Thanks and best regards
Claas
Am 07.07.2014 um 08:53 schrieb Andreas Kraushaar <
<mailto:Kraushaar@fogra.org> Kraushaar(a)fogra.org>gt;:
> Dear members of the DPWG,
>
> the printing tests regarding the characterization
data that correspond
to the new printing conditions defined in ISO 12647-2 are under
way. For the
most important printing condition, PC 1 - offset printing on coated stock,
there are two candidates available (PC1 Spot on and a more blueish version
currently labeled FOGRA51beta). We would like to quickly respond to the
market needs and we see (from the participating folks) a motion toward Spot
On.
> Our findings also indicate that the colour
differences between both
candidates are too small to justify individual printing
conditions. So from
Fogra point of view FOGRA51 will either cover the current candidate (the
result from the research project 60.055) or the PC1 Spot On dataset.
>
> So please consult Fred15 (
<http://www.eci.org/en/projects/fred15>
http://www.eci.org/en/projects/fred15)
and let us know you findings,
comments.
>
> regards
> Andy Kraushaar
>
>
> PS: The ECI mailing list can be also be used for
sure :-)
>
>
> Follow us on Twitter -
> twitter.com/fogra.org<
<http://twitter.com/fogra.org>
http://twitter.com/fogra.org>
>
> Dr.-Ing. Andreas Kraushaar
> Dept. Prepress
>
> Fogra Graphic Technology Research Association
Streitfeldstrasse 19
> 81673 Munich, Germany
>
> Telefon: +49 89. 431 82 - 335
> Telefax: +49 89. 431 82 - 100
> E-mail:
<mailto:kraushaar@fogra.org%3cmailto:kraushaar@fogra.org>
kraushaar@fogra.org<mailto:kraushaar@fogra.org>
> Internet:
<http://www.fogra.org%3chttp:/www.fogra.org>
www.fogra.org<http://www.fogra.org>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This e-mail message may contain confidential
and/or privileged
information.
> If you are not an addressee or otherwise
authorized to receive this
> message, you should not use, copy, disclose or
take any action based
> on this e-mail or any information contained in
the message. If you
> have received this material in error, please
advise the sender
> immediately by reply e-mail and delete this
message.
>
> Managing Director: Dr. Eduard Neufeld |
Registered Office: Munich |
> Register of Associations: VR 4909
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dpwg mailing list
> <mailto:Dpwg@lists.fogra.org>
Dpwg(a)lists.fogra.org
> <http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg>
http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg
_______________________________________________
Dpwg mailing list
<mailto:Dpwg@lists.fogra.org>
Dpwg(a)lists.fogra.org
<http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg>
http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg
<all-in.jpg>_______________________________________________
ECI mailing list
<mailto:ECI@lists.callassoftware.com>
ECI(a)lists.callassoftware.com
<http://lists.callassoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/eci>
http://lists.callassoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/eci
_______________________________________________
Dpwg mailing list
<mailto:Dpwg@lists.fogra.org> Dpwg(a)lists.fogra.org
<http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg> http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg
3:51 p.m.
New subject: [Dpwg] [ECI] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
Dear Roger,
spot on means, that the cielab values for the ink solids, overprints and paper perfectly
match the respective values stipulated in ISO12647-2:2013.
:)
Florian Suessl
--
Florian Süßl
Goßlerstraße 29
12161 Berlin
Am 16.07.2014 um 15:19 schrieb Roger Breton
<graxx(a)videotron.ca>ca>:
Dear Juergen,
When you write « The targets in 12647-2 are basically to be taken spot-on …”, do you mean
to refer the Spot-On software as in http://spotonpress.com?
Roger Breton
From: eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com
[mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com] On Behalf Of Juergen Seitz
Sent: 16 juillet 2014 08:26
To: Mailinglist for DPWG Members; eci(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Cc: eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Subject: Re: [ECI-EN] [Dpwg] [ECI] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
Dear Erwin,
ISO12647-2:2013 has not to be revised.
The parameters described in this paper are relevant.
With Appendix-B in 12647-2:2013 we already have a description how to adapt to different
paper shades
... the only thing that we would need is maybe an addendum to make all relevant (like
how-to to trace brighteners and measurement technology) adjustments traceable.
We will always have a kind of moving target with the production papers which, depending
on the regional flavor and other fashions will change through the years.
The targets in 12647-2 are basically to be taken spot-on, if the substrate measures as
described.
The actual FOGRAbeta candidates are based on spot-on data how they are described in
12647-2:2013. Just moved to a suggested better average of the production papers.
With the old generation of 12647-2 we were handling strict targets. Printers struggled to
reach those references if the paper was far from the reference. The reference value (e.g.
L*95, a*0, b*-2 on white backing with the related primary and secondary color tergets) as
such was compromising between legacy viewing conditions and legacy measurement technology.
Most of the production papers were not very close to the reference values.
I have seen several times how printers were looking for specific printing paper when they
prepared for a certification, just as the standard did not cover their daily business
environment.
With the revision of 12647-2 in 2013 we can see significant improvement with the
classification of the substrates and with the references and tolerances described… plus
the new and needed flexibility to consider other papers than those that fit perfectly to
THE reference values described.
With the know-how and the tools we are having today it is just logical that it is not the
IS0 to describe static references but dynamic tools and rules to handle printing jobs to a
even better predictability and accuracy.
Kind regards
Juergen
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Dpwg [mailto:dpwg-bounces@lists.fogra.org] Im Auftrag von Erwin Widmer
Gesendet: Montag, 14. Juli 2014 10:36
An: eci(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Cc: Mailinglist for DPWG Members; eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Betreff: Re: [Dpwg] [ECI] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
Dear Jürgen,
Thank you for your input.
What you say here means we should revise the standard first before we discuss
characterization data and profiles. I think if the standard (12647-2:2013) and the
characterization data and profiles don't fit together we lose creditability anyway.
Regards,
Erwin Widmer
Deputy Managing Director
Ugra | Lerchenfeldstr. 5 | 9014 St. Gallen | Switzerland
Tel: +41 (0)71 552 02 42 | Fax: +41 (0)71 552 02 49
E-Mail: widmer(a)ugra.ch | WebSite: www.ugra.ch
Am 07.07.2014 um 17:31 schrieb Juergen Seitz <Juergen.Seitz(a)gmgcolor.com>om>:
Hello dear friends,
we (GMG) are actually successfully providing seminars where we explain the relation and
the correlation between the several actual standards that are the most important for our
prepress color communication.
-there is the color measurement with its measurement conditions
(ISO13655:2009 with M0, M1, M2 and M3) -the viewing conditions with
their significant change towards a better D50 alike viewing (according
ISO3664:2009) -and finally we have the updated references for Offset
printing in 12647-2:2013
… and if you know these 3 areas and their correlation (which should finally end in a
perfect color communication!), I am really wondering that there are still some of you in
favor of a suboptimal solution. Right now at this momentum where we could really improve
color communication to a new level in quality!
Knowing the correlations between the 3 named standards also means to understand the areas
where the correlation is not so good:
If we compare an average of printing substrates from the market with the reference values
for the more fluorescent papers in 12647-2:2013, it is getting obvious that there is no
good match. When in PS1 it is not dramatic, it is really obvious in PS5 (please see
attached .jpg).
When we measured a mass of Woodfree Coated Papers, we can see a significant number with
around b*-6 to -7 measured in M1. Spot-on with a b* of -4 is not far away but just enough
to confuse and degrade the potential quality in color communication.
With the comparison of the two competing candidates for Woodfree Uncoated Paper, it is
just becoming cristal clear that those spot-on data are a valid reference maybe for a
precess control but no solution that seem to be ment to be really color accurate.
The M1-targets written in 12647-2:2013 seem to be written at a time when we did not have
the experience with M1-measurement as we have it today… and that’s why an uncertainty of
potential side effects and impacts may have led to chose very conservative values…
basically just a kind of translation of M0 to M1, without any real adjustment to be more
relevant to real world production paper (e.g. an Lab from Fogra39, defined in M0 with
95/0/-2 would look something like 95/1/-3.5 in M1 if the bluishness comes from
fluorescence; almost spot on with the actual ISO value).
If we go for spot-on, we will hardly see any difference between legacy M0 and new
M1-proofs … even though this was one important criteria in the past, that Gracol or
FOGRA39 were too yellowish compared to production stock!?
More than just looking at the references from above, we have to consider a significant
impact of some measurement device manufacturers work for a better traceability of the
color measurement between different devices. Here we could mention the significant impact
on color measurement in prepress that became obvious with the introduction of Xrites
traceability approach, with their XRGA.
The Lab-values for the primaries, written in 12647-2:2013 are unfortunately based on
color measurement before Xrite had worked out a better traceability. This means that we
are referencing to Lab-values that would already today measure some different color angle
with actual measurement technology. If we keep in mind that e.g. the difference between an
old Gretag-measurement (GMDI) shows up to 2,5 DeltaE compared to a new Xrite measurement,
we can see that there is an implicit risk to fail, even in process control.
With the 2 FOGRA-candidates 51 and 52, we can see a very responsible handling of the
involved variables as we can see them in daily practice.
A significantly higher consideration of fluorescent agents, just as it can be seen in the
market place. … and an adjustment that recognizes the improvents in traceability of our
industries measurement technologies.
I really hope that we will not publish spot-on as THE reference, just because it sounds
more coherent. Latest with the usecases around brightened uncoated papers, we would lose
all credibility.
PS: … one feedback that I have heard from the US, where they have started much earlier to
push M1-references with e.g. the new Gracol2013, indicates where we are going to be with
the spot-on-set:
“Establishing ideal aims / char data for high-OBA conditions via easy-to-use tools. With
regard to this, I wonder if 12647-2 and 15339 have been published pre-maturely, before we
have settled the OBA related workflow issues.”
Kind regards
Juergen
Von: eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com
[mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com] Im Auftrag von
Meinecke, Karl Michael (bvdm)
Gesendet: Montag, 7. Juli 2014 10:41
An: Mailinglist for DPWG Members
Cc: eci(a)lists.callassoftware.com; eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Betreff: Re: [ECI-EN] [Dpwg] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
Hi Claas, all,
simply spoken: if we are not providing a "spot on" printing condition
(Characterisation Data, Profile), the revised ISO 12647-2:2013 is no longer a valid
reference.
Why is the given value in the new standard (b*-4) and our printing condition shows a
different value (b*-6)?? Nobody will understand this.
The print tests (more than 15 series already finalized at various printers, Fogra,
Heidelberg) produced good results for PC1 with the "spot on" printing condition.
I see no preference for FOGRA51beta.
Best regards
Karl Michael
Freundliche Gru:sse – Best Regards
Karl Michael Meinecke
Referat Technik + Forschung
<image001.png>
Bundesverband Druck und Medien e.V. (bvdm) German Printing and Media
Industries Federation (bvdm) Friedrichstrasse 194-199 | DE-10117
Berlin Fon +49 (0) 30 20 91 39 162 | Fax +49 (0) 30 20 91 39 113
mailto:km@bvdm-online.de | URL www.bvdm-online.de
NEU Altona Test Suite Application Kit www.altonatestsuite.com NEU
ProzessStandard Offsetdruck www.prozess-standard.com PSO
ProcessStandard Offset ISO 12647 www.pso-insider.de
R16 roman16 bvdm Reference Images www.roman16.com
CO2 Klimainitiative vdm - Climate initiative www.klima-druck.de MSD
MedienStandard Druck www.point-online.de/download/pdf/free/86035.pdf
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Dpwg [mailto:dpwg-bounces@lists.fogra.org] Im Auftrag von Claas
Bickeböller
Gesendet: Montag, 7. Juli 2014 10:05
An: Mailinglist for DPWG Members
Cc: eci(a)lists.callassoftware.com; eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Betreff: Re: [Dpwg] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
Hi Andy, All,
I'm surprised that SpotOn is preferred.
The b* value of the majority of the analyzed production papers (from Fogra 60.055) show a
range of -4 to -8.
Thus I'd expect better proof to print matches using FOGRA51beta with a b* of -6.
Can people opting for SpotOn (b*= -4) enlighten me/us why SpotOn is preferred?
Thanks and best regards
Claas
Am 07.07.2014 um 08:53 schrieb Andreas Kraushaar <Kraushaar(a)fogra.org>rg>:
_______________________________________________
Dpwg mailing list
Dpwg(a)lists.fogra.org
http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg
_______________________________________________
ECI-EN mailing list
ECI-EN(a)lists.callassoftware.com
http://lists.callassoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/eci-en Dear members of the DPWG,
the printing tests regarding the characterization data that correspond to the new
printing conditions defined in ISO 12647-2 are under way. For the most important printing
condition, PC 1 - offset printing on coated stock, there are two candidates available (PC1
Spot on and a more blueish version currently labeled “FOGRA51beta”). We would like to
quickly respond to the market needs and we see (from the participating folks) a motion
toward Spot On.
Our findings also indicate that the colour differences between both candidates are too
small to justify individual printing conditions. So from Fogra point of view FOGRA51 will
either cover the current candidate (the result from the research project 60.055) or the
PC1 Spot On dataset.
So please consult Fred15 (http://www.eci.org/en/projects/fred15) and let us know you
findings, comments.
regards
Andy Kraushaar
PS: The ECI mailing list can be also be used for sure :-)
Follow us on Twitter -
twitter.com/fogra.org<http://twitter.com/fogra.org>
Dr.-Ing. Andreas Kraushaar
Dept. Prepress
Fogra Graphic Technology Research Association Streitfeldstrasse 19
81673 Munich, Germany
Telefon: +49 89. 431 82 - 335
Telefax: +49 89. 431 82 - 100
E-mail: kraushaar@fogra.org<mailto:kraushaar@fogra.org>
Internet: www.fogra.org<http://www.fogra.org>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail message may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
If you are not an addressee or otherwise authorized to receive this
message, you should not use, copy, disclose or take any action based
on this e-mail or any information contained in the message. If you
have received this material in error, please advise the sender
immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message.
Managing Director: Dr. Eduard Neufeld | Registered Office: Munich |
Register of Associations: VR 4909
_______________________________________________
Dpwg mailing list
Dpwg(a)lists.fogra.org
http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg
_______________________________________________
Dpwg mailing list
Dpwg(a)lists.fogra.org
http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg
<all-in.jpg>_______________________________________________
ECI mailing list
ECI(a)lists.callassoftware.com
http://lists.callassoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/eci
4:09 p.m.
New subject: [Dpwg] [ECI] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
Dear Florian,
Quantitatively, « spot on » means what? Within an average of 3 DeltaE76? Is that
considered “spot on”?
MfG / Roger
From: eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com
[mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com] On Behalf Of Florian Süßl
Sent: 16 juillet 2014 09:51
To: eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Subject: Re: [ECI-EN] [Dpwg] [ECI] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
Dear Roger,
spot on means, that the cielab values for the ink solids, overprints and paper perfectly
match the respective values stipulated in ISO12647-2:2013.
:)
Florian Suessl
--
Florian Süßl
Goßlerstraße 29
12161 Berlin
Am 16.07.2014 um 15:19 schrieb Roger Breton <graxx(a)videotron.ca
<mailto:graxx@videotron.ca> >:
Dear Juergen,
When you write « The targets in 12647-2 are basically to be taken spot-on …”, do you mean
to refer the Spot-On software as in http://spotonpress.com?
Roger Breton
From: eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com
<mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com>
[mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com] On Behalf Of Juergen Seitz
Sent: 16 juillet 2014 08:26
To: Mailinglist for DPWG Members; eci(a)lists.callassoftware.com
<mailto:eci@lists.callassoftware.com
Cc: eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com <mailto:eci-en@lists.callassoftware.com Subject: Re: [ECI-EN] [Dpwg] [ECI] ISO 12647-2
printing tests
Dear Erwin,
ISO12647-2:2013 has not to be revised.
The parameters described in this paper are relevant.
With Appendix-B in 12647-2:2013 we already have a description how to adapt to different
paper shades
... the only thing that we would need is maybe an addendum to make all relevant (like
how-to to trace brighteners and measurement technology) adjustments traceable.
We will always have a kind of moving target with the production papers which, depending on
the regional flavor and other fashions will change through the years.
The targets in 12647-2 are basically to be taken spot-on, if the substrate measures as
described.
The actual FOGRAbeta candidates are based on spot-on data how they are described in
12647-2:2013. Just moved to a suggested better average of the production papers.
With the old generation of 12647-2 we were handling strict targets. Printers struggled to
reach those references if the paper was far from the reference. The reference value (e.g.
L*95, a*0, b*-2 on white backing with the related primary and secondary color tergets) as
such was compromising between legacy viewing conditions and legacy measurement technology.
Most of the production papers were not very close to the reference values.
I have seen several times how printers were looking for specific printing paper when they
prepared for a certification, just as the standard did not cover their daily business
environment.
With the revision of 12647-2 in 2013 we can see significant improvement with the
classification of the substrates and with the references and tolerances described… plus
the new and needed flexibility to consider other papers than those that fit perfectly to
THE reference values described.
With the know-how and the tools we are having today it is just logical that it is not the
IS0 to describe static references but dynamic tools and rules to handle printing jobs to a
even better predictability and accuracy.
Kind regards
Juergen
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Dpwg [mailto:dpwg-bounces@lists.fogra.org] Im Auftrag von Erwin Widmer
Gesendet: Montag, 14. Juli 2014 10:36
An: eci(a)lists.callassoftware.com <mailto:eci@lists.callassoftware.com Cc: Mailinglist for DPWG Members;
eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com <mailto:eci-en@lists.callassoftware.com Betreff: Re: [Dpwg] [ECI] ISO 12647-2 printing
tests
Dear Jürgen,
Thank you for your input.
What you say here means we should revise the standard first before we discuss
characterization data and profiles. I think if the standard (12647-2:2013) and the
characterization data and profiles don't fit together we lose creditability anyway.
Regards,
Erwin Widmer
Deputy Managing Director
Ugra | Lerchenfeldstr. 5 | 9014 St. Gallen | Switzerland
Tel: +41 (0)71 552 02 42 | Fax: +41 (0)71 552 02 49
E-Mail: <mailto:widmer@ugra.ch> widmer(a)ugra.ch | WebSite:
<http://www.ugra.ch> www.ugra.ch
Am 07.07.2014 um 17:31 schrieb Juergen Seitz <
<mailto:Juergen.Seitz@gmgcolor.com> Juergen.Seitz(a)gmgcolor.com>gt;:
http://lists.callassoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/eci-en
Hello dear friends,
we (GMG) are actually successfully providing seminars
where we explain the relation and the correlation between the several actual standards
that are the most important for our prepress color communication.
-there is the color measurement with its measurement
conditions
(ISO13655:2009 with M0, M1, M2 and M3) -the viewing
conditions with
their significant change towards a better D50 alike
viewing (according
ISO3664:2009) -and finally we have the updated
references for Offset
printing in 12647-2:2013
… and if you know these 3 areas and their correlation
(which should finally end in a perfect color communication!), I am really wondering that
there are still some of you in favor of a suboptimal solution. Right now at this momentum
where we could really improve color communication to a new level in quality!
Knowing the correlations between the 3 named standards
also means to understand the areas where the correlation is not so good:
If we compare an average of printing substrates from
the market with the reference values for the more fluorescent papers in 12647-2:2013, it
is getting obvious that there is no good match. When in PS1 it is not dramatic, it is
really obvious in PS5 (please see attached .jpg).
When we measured a mass of Woodfree Coated Papers, we
can see a significant number with around b*-6 to -7 measured in M1. Spot-on with a b* of
-4 is not far away but just enough to confuse and degrade the potential quality in color
communication.
With the comparison of the two competing candidates
for Woodfree Uncoated Paper, it is just becoming cristal clear that those spot-on data are
a valid reference maybe for a precess control but no solution that seem to be ment to be
really color accurate.
The M1-targets written in 12647-2:2013 seem to be
written at a time when we did not have the experience with M1-measurement as we have it
today… and that’s why an uncertainty of potential side effects and impacts may have led to
chose very conservative values… basically just a kind of translation of M0 to M1, without
any real adjustment to be more relevant to real world production paper (e.g. an Lab from
Fogra39, defined in M0 with 95/0/-2 would look something like 95/1/-3.5 in M1 if the
bluishness comes from fluorescence; almost spot on with the actual ISO value).
If we go for spot-on, we will hardly see any
difference between legacy M0 and new M1-proofs … even though this was one important
criteria in the past, that Gracol or FOGRA39 were too yellowish compared to production
stock!?
More than just looking at the references from above,
we have to consider a significant impact of some measurement device manufacturers work for
a better traceability of the color measurement between different devices. Here we could
mention the significant impact on color measurement in prepress that became obvious with
the introduction of Xrites traceability approach, with their XRGA.
The Lab-values for the primaries, written in
12647-2:2013 are unfortunately based on color measurement before Xrite had worked out a
better traceability. This means that we are referencing to Lab-values that would already
today measure some different color angle with actual measurement technology. If we keep in
mind that e.g. the difference between an old Gretag-measurement (GMDI) shows up to 2,5
DeltaE compared to a new Xrite measurement, we can see that there is an implicit risk to
fail, even in process control.
With the 2 FOGRA-candidates 51 and 52, we can see a
very responsible handling of the involved variables as we can see them in daily practice.
A significantly higher consideration of fluorescent
agents, just as it can be seen in the market place. … and an adjustment that recognizes
the improvents in traceability of our industries measurement technologies.
I really hope that we will not publish spot-on as THE
reference, just because it sounds more coherent. Latest with the usecases around
brightened uncoated papers, we would lose all credibility.
PS: … one feedback that I have heard from the US,
where they have started much earlier to push M1-references with e.g. the new Gracol2013,
indicates where we are going to be with the spot-on-set:
“Establishing ideal aims / char data for high-OBA
conditions via easy-to-use tools. With regard to this, I wonder if 12647-2 and 15339 have
been published pre-maturely, before we have settled the OBA related workflow issues.”
Kind regards
Juergen
Von:
<mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com>
eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com
[
<mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com>
mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com] Im Auftrag von
Meinecke, Karl Michael (bvdm)
Gesendet: Montag, 7. Juli 2014 10:41
An: Mailinglist for DPWG Members
Cc: <mailto:eci@lists.callassoftware.com>
eci(a)lists.callassoftware.com; <mailto:eci-en@lists.callassoftware.com>
eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Betreff: Re: [ECI-EN] [Dpwg] ISO 12647-2 printing
tests
Hi Claas, all,
simply spoken: if we are not providing a "spot
on" printing condition (Characterisation Data, Profile), the revised ISO 12647-2:2013
is no longer a valid reference.
Why is the given value in the new standard (b*-4) and
our printing condition shows a different value (b*-6)?? Nobody will understand this.
The print tests (more than 15 series already finalized
at various printers, Fogra, Heidelberg) produced good results for PC1 with the "spot
on" printing condition. I see no preference for FOGRA51beta.
Best regards
Karl Michael
Freundliche Gru:sse – Best Regards
Karl Michael Meinecke
Referat Technik + Forschung
<image001.png>
Bundesverband Druck und Medien e.V. (bvdm) German
Printing and Media
Industries Federation (bvdm) Friedrichstrasse 194-199
| DE-10117
Berlin Fon +49 (0) 30 20 91 39 162 | Fax +49 (0) 30 20
91 39 113
<mailto:km@bvdm-online.de>
mailto:km@bvdm-online.de | URL <http://www.bvdm-online.de> www.bvdm-online.de
NEU Altona Test Suite Application Kit
<http://www.altonatestsuite.com> www.altonatestsuite.com NEU
ProzessStandard Offsetdruck
<http://www.prozess-standard.com> www.prozess-standard.com PSO
ProcessStandard Offset ISO 12647
<http://www.pso-insider.de> www.pso-insider.de
R16 roman16 bvdm Reference Images
<http://www.roman16.com> www.roman16.com
CO2 Klimainitiative vdm - Climate initiative
<http://www.klima-druck.de> www.klima-druck.de MSD
MedienStandard Druck
<http://www.point-online.de/download/pdf/free/86035.pdf>
www.point-online.de/download/pdf/free/86035.pdf
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Dpwg [
<mailto:dpwg-bounces@lists.fogra.org> mailto:dpwg-bounces@lists.fogra.org] Im
Auftrag von Claas
Bickeböller
Gesendet: Montag, 7. Juli 2014 10:05
An: Mailinglist for DPWG Members
Cc: <mailto:eci@lists.callassoftware.com>
eci(a)lists.callassoftware.com; <mailto:eci-en@lists.callassoftware.com>
eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Betreff: Re: [Dpwg] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
Hi Andy, All,
I'm surprised that SpotOn is preferred.
The b* value of the majority of the analyzed
production papers (from Fogra 60.055) show a range of -4 to -8.
Thus I'd expect better proof to print matches
using FOGRA51beta with a b* of -6.
Can people opting for SpotOn (b*= -4) enlighten me/us
why SpotOn is preferred?
Thanks and best regards
Claas
Am 07.07.2014 um 08:53 schrieb Andreas Kraushaar <
<mailto:Kraushaar@fogra.org> Kraushaar(a)fogra.org>gt;:
> Dear members of the DPWG,
>
> the printing tests regarding the characterization
data that correspond to the new printing conditions defined in ISO 12647-2 are under way.
For the most important printing condition, PC 1 - offset printing on coated stock, there
are two candidates available (PC1 Spot on and a more blueish version currently labeled
“FOGRA51beta”). We would like to quickly respond to the market needs and we see (from the
participating folks) a motion toward Spot On.
> Our findings also indicate that the colour
differences between both candidates are too small to justify individual printing
conditions. So from Fogra point of view FOGRA51 will either cover the current candidate
(the result from the research project 60.055) or the PC1 Spot On dataset.
>
> So please consult Fred15 (
<http://www.eci.org/en/projects/fred15> http://www.eci.org/en/projects/fred15) and
let us know you findings, comments.
>
> regards
> Andy Kraushaar
>
>
> PS: The ECI mailing list can be also be used for
sure :-)
>
>
> Follow us on Twitter -
> twitter.com/fogra.org
<http://twitter.com/fogra.org> < <http://twitter.com/fogra.org>
http://twitter.com/fogra.org>
>
> Dr.-Ing. Andreas Kraushaar
> Dept. Prepress
>
> Fogra Graphic Technology Research Association
Streitfeldstrasse 19
> 81673 Munich, Germany
>
> Telefon: +49 89. 431 82 - 335
> Telefax: +49 89. 431 82 - 100
> E-mail:
<mailto:kraushaar@fogra.org%3cmailto:kraushaar@fogra.org>
kraushaar@fogra.org<mailto:kraushaar@fogra.org>
> Internet:
<http://www.fogra.org%3chttp:/www.fogra.org>
www.fogra.org<http://www.fogra.org>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This e-mail message may contain confidential
and/or privileged information.
> If you are not an addressee or otherwise
authorized to receive this
> message, you should not use, copy, disclose or
take any action based
> on this e-mail or any information contained in
the message. If you
> have received this material in error, please
advise the sender
> immediately by reply e-mail and delete this
message.
>
> Managing Director: Dr. Eduard Neufeld |
Registered Office: Munich |
> Register of Associations: VR 4909
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dpwg mailing list
> <mailto:Dpwg@lists.fogra.org>
Dpwg(a)lists.fogra.org
> <http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg>
http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg
_______________________________________________
Dpwg mailing list
<mailto:Dpwg@lists.fogra.org>
Dpwg(a)lists.fogra.org
<http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg>
http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg
<all-in.jpg>_______________________________________________
ECI mailing list
<mailto:ECI@lists.callassoftware.com>
ECI(a)lists.callassoftware.com
<http://lists.callassoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/eci>
http://lists.callassoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/eci
_______________________________________________
Dpwg mailing list
<mailto:Dpwg@lists.fogra.org> Dpwg(a)lists.fogra.org
<http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg> http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg
_______________________________________________
ECI-EN mailing list
ECI-EN(a)lists.callassoftware.com <mailto:ECI-EN@lists.callassoftware.com
6:17 p.m.
New subject: [Dpwg] [ECI] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
Dear Roger,
spot on means Delta E zero
:)
All the best
Florian
Am 16.07.2014 um 16:09 schrieb Roger Breton <graxx(a)videotron.ca>ca>:
Dear Florian,
Quantitatively, « spot on » means what? Within an average of 3 DeltaE76? Is that
considered “spot on”?
MfG / Roger
From: eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com
[mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com] On Behalf Of Florian Süßl
Sent: 16 juillet 2014 09:51
To: eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Subject: Re: [ECI-EN] [Dpwg] [ECI] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
Dear Roger,
spot on means, that the cielab values for the ink solids, overprints and paper perfectly
match the respective values stipulated in ISO12647-2:2013.
:)
Florian Suessl
--
Florian Süßl
Goßlerstraße 29
12161 Berlin
Am 16.07.2014 um 15:19 schrieb Roger Breton <graxx(a)videotron.ca>ca>:
Dear Juergen,
When you write « The targets in 12647-2 are basically to be taken spot-on …”, do you mean
to refer the Spot-On software as inhttp://spotonpress.com?
Roger Breton
From: eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com
[mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com] On Behalf Of Juergen Seitz
Sent: 16 juillet 2014 08:26
To: Mailinglist for DPWG Members; eci(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Cc: eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Subject: Re: [ECI-EN] [Dpwg] [ECI] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
Dear Erwin,
ISO12647-2:2013 has not to be revised.
The parameters described in this paper are relevant.
With Appendix-B in 12647-2:2013 we already have a description how to adapt to different
paper shades
... the only thing that we would need is maybe an addendum to make all relevant (like
how-to to trace brighteners and measurement technology) adjustments traceable.
We will always have a kind of moving target with the production papers which, depending
on the regional flavor and other fashions will change through the years.
The targets in 12647-2 are basically to be taken spot-on, if the substrate measures as
described.
The actual FOGRAbeta candidates are based on spot-on data how they are described in
12647-2:2013. Just moved to a suggested better average of the production papers.
With the old generation of 12647-2 we were handling strict targets. Printers struggled to
reach those references if the paper was far from the reference. The reference value (e.g.
L*95, a*0, b*-2 on white backing with the related primary and secondary color tergets) as
such was compromising between legacy viewing conditions and legacy measurement technology.
Most of the production papers were not very close to the reference values.
I have seen several times how printers were looking for specific printing paper when they
prepared for a certification, just as the standard did not cover their daily business
environment.
With the revision of 12647-2 in 2013 we can see significant improvement with the
classification of the substrates and with the references and tolerances described… plus
the new and needed flexibility to consider other papers than those that fit perfectly to
THE reference values described.
With the know-how and the tools we are having today it is just logical that it is not the
IS0 to describe static references but dynamic tools and rules to handle printing jobs to a
even better predictability and accuracy.
Kind regards
Juergen
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Dpwg [mailto:dpwg-bounces@lists.fogra.org] Im Auftrag von Erwin Widmer
Gesendet: Montag, 14. Juli 2014 10:36
An: eci(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Cc: Mailinglist for DPWG Members; eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Betreff: Re: [Dpwg] [ECI] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
Dear Jürgen,
Thank you for your input.
What you say here means we should revise the standard first before we discuss
characterization data and profiles. I think if the standard (12647-2:2013) and the
characterization data and profiles don't fit together we lose creditability anyway.
Regards,
Erwin Widmer
Deputy Managing Director
Ugra | Lerchenfeldstr. 5 | 9014 St. Gallen | Switzerland
Tel: +41 (0)71 552 02 42 | Fax: +41 (0)71 552 02 49
E-Mail: widmer(a)ugra.ch | WebSite: www.ugra.ch
Am 07.07.2014 um 17:31 schrieb Juergen Seitz <Juergen.Seitz(a)gmgcolor.com>om>:
--
Florian Süßl
Goßlerstraße 29
12161 Berlin
+49 172 3091154
Hello dear friends,
we (GMG) are actually successfully providing seminars where we explain the relation and
the correlation between the several actual standards that are the most important for our
prepress color communication.
-there is the color measurement with its measurement conditions
(ISO13655:2009 with M0, M1, M2 and M3) -the viewing conditions with
their significant change towards a better D50 alike viewing (according
ISO3664:2009) -and finally we have the updated references for Offset
printing in 12647-2:2013
… and if you know these 3 areas and their correlation (which should finally end in a
perfect color communication!), I am really wondering that there are still some of you in
favor of a suboptimal solution. Right now at this momentum where we could really improve
color communication to a new level in quality!
Knowing the correlations between the 3 named standards also means to understand the areas
where the correlation is not so good:
If we compare an average of printing substrates from the market with the reference values
for the more fluorescent papers in 12647-2:2013, it is getting obvious that there is no
good match. When in PS1 it is not dramatic, it is really obvious in PS5 (please see
attached .jpg).
When we measured a mass of Woodfree Coated Papers, we can see a significant number with
around b*-6 to -7 measured in M1. Spot-on with a b* of -4 is not far away but just enough
to confuse and degrade the potential quality in color communication.
With the comparison of the two competing candidates for Woodfree Uncoated Paper, it is
just becoming cristal clear that those spot-on data are a valid reference maybe for a
precess control but no solution that seem to be ment to be really color accurate.
The M1-targets written in 12647-2:2013 seem to be written at a time when we did not have
the experience with M1-measurement as we have it today… and that’s why an uncertainty of
potential side effects and impacts may have led to chose very conservative values…
basically just a kind of translation of M0 to M1, without any real adjustment to be more
relevant to real world production paper (e.g. an Lab from Fogra39, defined in M0 with
95/0/-2 would look something like 95/1/-3.5 in M1 if the bluishness comes from
fluorescence; almost spot on with the actual ISO value).
If we go for spot-on, we will hardly see any difference between legacy M0 and new
M1-proofs … even though this was one important criteria in the past, that Gracol or
FOGRA39 were too yellowish compared to production stock!?
More than just looking at the references from above, we have to consider a significant
impact of some measurement device manufacturers work for a better traceability of the
color measurement between different devices. Here we could mention the significant impact
on color measurement in prepress that became obvious with the introduction of Xrites
traceability approach, with their XRGA.
The Lab-values for the primaries, written in 12647-2:2013 are unfortunately based on
color measurement before Xrite had worked out a better traceability. This means that we
are referencing to Lab-values that would already today measure some different color angle
with actual measurement technology. If we keep in mind that e.g. the difference between an
old Gretag-measurement (GMDI) shows up to 2,5 DeltaE compared to a new Xrite measurement,
we can see that there is an implicit risk to fail, even in process control.
With the 2 FOGRA-candidates 51 and 52, we can see a very responsible handling of the
involved variables as we can see them in daily practice.
A significantly higher consideration of fluorescent agents, just as it can be seen in the
market place. … and an adjustment that recognizes the improvents in traceability of our
industries measurement technologies.
I really hope that we will not publish spot-on as THE reference, just because it sounds
more coherent. Latest with the usecases around brightened uncoated papers, we would lose
all credibility.
PS: … one feedback that I have heard from the US, where they have started much earlier to
push M1-references with e.g. the new Gracol2013, indicates where we are going to be with
the spot-on-set:
“Establishing ideal aims / char data for high-OBA conditions via easy-to-use tools. With
regard to this, I wonder if 12647-2 and 15339 have been published pre-maturely, before we
have settled the OBA related workflow issues.”
Kind regards
Juergen
Von: eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com
[mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com] Im Auftrag von
Meinecke, Karl Michael (bvdm)
Gesendet: Montag, 7. Juli 2014 10:41
An: Mailinglist for DPWG Members
Cc: eci(a)lists.callassoftware.com; eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Betreff: Re: [ECI-EN] [Dpwg] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
Hi Claas, all,
simply spoken: if we are not providing a "spot on" printing condition
(Characterisation Data, Profile), the revised ISO 12647-2:2013 is no longer a valid
reference.
Why is the given value in the new standard (b*-4) and our printing condition shows a
different value (b*-6)?? Nobody will understand this.
The print tests (more than 15 series already finalized at various printers, Fogra,
Heidelberg) produced good results for PC1 with the "spot on" printing condition.
I see no preference for FOGRA51beta.
Best regards
Karl Michael
Freundliche Gru:sse – Best Regards
Karl Michael Meinecke
Referat Technik + Forschung
<image001.png>
Bundesverband Druck und Medien e.V. (bvdm) German Printing and Media
Industries Federation (bvdm) Friedrichstrasse 194-199 | DE-10117
Berlin Fon +49 (0) 30 20 91 39 162 | Fax +49 (0) 30 20 91 39 113
mailto:km@bvdm-online.de | URL www.bvdm-online.de
NEU Altona Test Suite Application Kit www.altonatestsuite.com NEU
ProzessStandard Offsetdruck www.prozess-standard.com PSO
ProcessStandard Offset ISO 12647 www.pso-insider.de
R16 roman16 bvdm Reference Images www.roman16.com
CO2 Klimainitiative vdm - Climate initiative www.klima-druck.de MSD
MedienStandard Druck www.point-online.de/download/pdf/free/86035.pdf
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Dpwg [mailto:dpwg-bounces@lists.fogra.org] Im Auftrag von Claas
Bickeböller
Gesendet: Montag, 7. Juli 2014 10:05
An: Mailinglist for DPWG Members
Cc: eci(a)lists.callassoftware.com; eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Betreff: Re: [Dpwg] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
Hi Andy, All,
I'm surprised that SpotOn is preferred.
The b* value of the majority of the analyzed production papers (from Fogra 60.055) show a
range of -4 to -8.
Thus I'd expect better proof to print matches using FOGRA51beta with a b* of -6.
Can people opting for SpotOn (b*= -4) enlighten me/us why SpotOn is preferred?
Thanks and best regards
Claas
Am 07.07.2014 um 08:53 schrieb Andreas Kraushaar <Kraushaar(a)fogra.org>rg>:
_______________________________________________
Dpwg mailing list
Dpwg(a)lists.fogra.org
http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg
_______________________________________________
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 Dear members of the DPWG,
the printing tests regarding the characterization data that correspond to the new
printing conditions defined in ISO 12647-2 are under way. For the most important printing
condition, PC 1 - offset printing on coated stock, there are two candidates available (PC1
Spot on and a more blueish version currently labeled “FOGRA51beta”). We would like to
quickly respond to the market needs and we see (from the participating folks) a motion
toward Spot On.
Our findings also indicate that the colour differences between both candidates are too
small to justify individual printing conditions. So from Fogra point of view FOGRA51 will
either cover the current candidate (the result from the research project 60.055) or the
PC1 Spot On dataset.
So please consult Fred15 (http://www.eci.org/en/projects/fred15) and let us know you
findings, comments.
regards
Andy Kraushaar
PS: The ECI mailing list can be also be used for sure :-)
Follow us on Twitter -
twitter.com/fogra.org<http://twitter.com/fogra.org>
Dr.-Ing. Andreas Kraushaar
Dept. Prepress
Fogra Graphic Technology Research Association Streitfeldstrasse 19
81673 Munich, Germany
Telefon: +49 89. 431 82 - 335
Telefax: +49 89. 431 82 - 100
E-mail: kraushaar@fogra.org<mailto:kraushaar@fogra.org>
Internet: www.fogra.org<http://www.fogra.org>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail message may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
If you are not an addressee or otherwise authorized to receive this
message, you should not use, copy, disclose or take any action based
on this e-mail or any information contained in the message. If you
have received this material in error, please advise the sender
immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message.
Managing Director: Dr. Eduard Neufeld | Registered Office: Munich |
Register of Associations: VR 4909
_______________________________________________
Dpwg mailing list
Dpwg(a)lists.fogra.org
http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg
_______________________________________________
Dpwg mailing list
Dpwg(a)lists.fogra.org
http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg
<all-in.jpg>_______________________________________________
ECI mailing list
ECI(a)lists.callassoftware.com
http://lists.callassoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/eci
7:50 p.m.
New subject: [Dpwg] [ECI] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
Das ist impossible :(
Roger
From: eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com
[mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com] On Behalf Of Florian Süßl
Sent: 16 juillet 2014 12:17
To: eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Subject: Re: [ECI-EN] [Dpwg] [ECI] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
Dear Roger,
spot on means Delta E zero
:)
All the best
Florian
Am 16.07.2014 um 16:09 schrieb Roger Breton <graxx(a)videotron.ca
<mailto:graxx@videotron.ca> >:
Dear Florian,
Quantitatively, « spot on » means what? Within an average of 3 DeltaE76? Is
that considered spot on?
MfG / Roger
From: <mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com>
eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com [mailto:eci-
<mailto:en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com>
en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com] On Behalf Of Florian Süßl
Sent: 16 juillet 2014 09:51
To: <mailto:eci-en@lists.callassoftware.com>
eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Subject: Re: [ECI-EN] [Dpwg] [ECI] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
Dear Roger,
spot on means, that the cielab values for the ink solids, overprints and
paper perfectly match the respective values stipulated in ISO12647-2:2013.
:)
Florian Suessl
--
Florian Süßl
Goßlerstraße 29
12161 Berlin
Am 16.07.2014 um 15:19 schrieb Roger Breton < <mailto:graxx@videotron.ca>
graxx(a)videotron.ca>gt;:
Dear Juergen,
When you write « The targets in 12647-2 are basically to be taken spot-on
, do you mean to refer the Spot-On software as in <http://spotonpress.com>
http://spotonpress.com?
Roger Breton
From: <mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com>
eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com [
<mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com>
mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com] On Behalf Of Juergen Seitz
Sent: 16 juillet 2014 08:26
To: Mailinglist for DPWG Members; <mailto:eci@lists.callassoftware.com>
eci(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Cc: <mailto:eci-en@lists.callassoftware.com>
eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Subject: Re: [ECI-EN] [Dpwg] [ECI] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
Dear Erwin,
ISO12647-2:2013 has not to be revised.
The parameters described in this paper are relevant.
With Appendix-B in 12647-2:2013 we already have a description how to adapt
to different paper shades
... the only thing that we would need is maybe an addendum to make all
relevant (like how-to to trace brighteners and measurement technology)
adjustments traceable.
We will always have a kind of moving target with the production papers
which, depending on the regional flavor and other fashions will change
through the years.
The targets in 12647-2 are basically to be taken spot-on, if the substrate
measures as described.
The actual FOGRAbeta candidates are based on spot-on data how they are
described in 12647-2:2013. Just moved to a suggested better average of the
production papers.
With the old generation of 12647-2 we were handling strict targets. Printers
struggled to reach those references if the paper was far from the reference.
The reference value (e.g. L*95, a*0, b*-2 on white backing with the related
primary and secondary color tergets) as such was compromising between legacy
viewing conditions and legacy measurement technology. Most of the production
papers were not very close to the reference values.
I have seen several times how printers were looking for specific printing
paper when they prepared for a certification, just as the standard did not
cover their daily business environment.
With the revision of 12647-2 in 2013 we can see significant improvement with
the classification of the substrates and with the references and tolerances
described
plus the new and needed flexibility to consider other papers than
those that fit perfectly to THE reference values described.
With the know-how and the tools we are having today it is just logical that
it is not the IS0 to describe static references but dynamic tools and rules
to handle printing jobs to a even better predictability and accuracy.
Kind regards
Juergen
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Dpwg [ <mailto:dpwg-bounces@lists.fogra.org>
mailto:dpwg-bounces@lists.fogra.org] Im Auftrag von Erwin Widmer
Gesendet: Montag, 14. Juli 2014 10:36
An: <mailto:eci@lists.callassoftware.com> eci(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Cc: Mailinglist for DPWG Members; <mailto:eci-en@lists.callassoftware.com>
eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Betreff: Re: [Dpwg] [ECI] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
Dear Jürgen,
Thank you for your input.
What you say here means we should revise the standard first before we
discuss characterization data and profiles. I think if the standard
(12647-2:2013) and the characterization data and profiles don't fit together
we lose creditability anyway.
Regards,
Erwin Widmer
Deputy Managing Director
Ugra | Lerchenfeldstr. 5 | 9014 St. Gallen | Switzerland
Tel: +41 (0)71 552 02 42 | Fax: +41 (0)71 552 02 49
E-Mail: <mailto:widmer@ugra.ch> widmer(a)ugra.ch | WebSite:
<http://www.ugra.ch> www.ugra.ch
Am 07.07.2014 um 17:31 schrieb Juergen Seitz <
<mailto:Juergen.Seitz@gmgcolor.com> Juergen.Seitz(a)gmgcolor.com>gt;:
Hello dear friends,
we (GMG) are actually successfully providing seminars
where we explain the
relation and the correlation between the several actual
standards that are
the most important for our prepress color communication.
-there is the color measurement with its measurement
conditions
(ISO13655:2009 with M0, M1, M2 and M3) -the viewing
conditions with
their significant change towards a better D50 alike
viewing (according
ISO3664:2009) -and finally we have the updated
references for Offset
printing in 12647-2:2013
and if you know these 3 areas and their correlation (which should
finally end in a
perfect color communication!), I am really wondering that
there are still some of you in favor of a suboptimal solution. Right now at
this momentum where we could really improve color communication to a new
level in quality!
Knowing the correlations between the 3 named standards
also means to
understand the areas where the correlation is not so good:
If we compare an average of printing substrates from
the market with the
reference values for the more fluorescent papers in
12647-2:2013, it is
getting obvious that there is no good match. When in PS1 it is not dramatic,
it is really obvious in PS5 (please see attached .jpg).
When we measured a mass of Woodfree Coated Papers, we
can see a
significant number with around b*-6 to -7 measured in M1. Spot-on with a
b*
of -4 is not far away but just enough to confuse and degrade the potential
quality in color communication.
With the comparison of the two competing candidates
for Woodfree Uncoated
Paper, it is just becoming cristal clear that those spot-on
data are a valid
reference maybe for a precess control but no solution that seem to be ment
to be really color accurate.
The M1-targets written in 12647-2:2013 seem to be
written at a time when
we did not have the experience with M1-measurement as we have
it today
and
thats why an uncertainty of potential side effects and impacts may have led
to chose very conservative values
basically just a kind of translation of
M0 to M1, without any real adjustment to be more relevant to real world
production paper (e.g. an Lab from Fogra39, defined in M0 with 95/0/-2 would
look something like 95/1/-3.5 in M1 if the bluishness comes from
fluorescence; almost spot on with the actual ISO value).
If we go for spot-on, we will hardly see any
difference between legacy M0
and new M1-proofs
even though this was one important criteria in the past,
that Gracol or FOGRA39 were too yellowish compared to production stock!?
More than just looking at the references from above,
we have to consider a
significant impact of some measurement device manufacturers
work for a
better traceability of the color measurement between different devices. Here
we could mention the significant impact on color measurement in prepress
that became obvious with the introduction of Xrites traceability approach,
with their XRGA.
The Lab-values for the primaries, written in
12647-2:2013 are
unfortunately based on color measurement before Xrite had worked
out a
better traceability. This means that we are referencing to Lab-values that
would already today measure some different color angle with actual
measurement technology. If we keep in mind that e.g. the difference between
an old Gretag-measurement (GMDI) shows up to 2,5 DeltaE compared to a new
Xrite measurement, we can see that there is an implicit risk to fail, even
in process control.
With the 2 FOGRA-candidates 51 and 52, we can see a
very responsible
handling of the involved variables as we can see them in daily
practice.
A significantly higher consideration of fluorescent
agents, just as it can
be seen in the market place.
and an adjustment that recognizes the
improvents in traceability of our industries measurement technologies.
I really hope that we will not publish spot-on as THE
reference, just
because it sounds more coherent. Latest with the usecases around
brightened
uncoated papers, we would lose all credibility.
PS:
one feedback that I have heard from the US, where they have started
much earlier to
push M1-references with e.g. the new Gracol2013, indicates
where we are going to be with the spot-on-set:
Establishing ideal aims / char data for high-OBA
conditions via
easy-to-use tools. With regard to this, I wonder if 12647-2 and 15339
have
been published pre-maturely, before we have settled the OBA related workflow
issues.
Kind regards
Juergen
Von:
<mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com>
eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com
[
<mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com>
mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com] Im Auftrag von
Meinecke, Karl Michael (bvdm)
Gesendet: Montag, 7. Juli 2014 10:41
An: Mailinglist for DPWG Members
Cc: <mailto:eci@lists.callassoftware.com>
eci(a)lists.callassoftware.com;
<mailto:eci-en@lists.callassoftware.com>
eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Betreff: Re: [ECI-EN] [Dpwg] ISO 12647-2 printing
tests
Hi Claas, all,
simply spoken: if we are not providing a "spot
on" printing condition
(Characterisation Data, Profile), the revised ISO
12647-2:2013 is no longer
a valid reference.
Why is the given value in the new standard (b*-4) and
our printing
condition shows a different value (b*-6)?? Nobody will understand
this.
The print tests (more than 15 series already finalized
at various
printers, Fogra, Heidelberg) produced good results for PC1 with the
"spot
on" printing condition. I see no preference for FOGRA51beta.
Best regards
Karl Michael
Freundliche Gru:sse Best Regards
Karl Michael Meinecke
Referat Technik + Forschung
<image001.png>
Bundesverband Druck und Medien e.V. (bvdm) German
Printing and Media
Industries Federation (bvdm) Friedrichstrasse 194-199
| DE-10117
Berlin Fon +49 (0) 30 20 91 39 162 | Fax +49 (0) 30 20
91 39 113
<mailto:km@bvdm-online.de>
mailto:km@bvdm-online.de | URL
<http://www.bvdm-online.de> www.bvdm-online.de
NEU Altona Test Suite Application Kit
<http://www.altonatestsuite.com>
www.altonatestsuite.com NEU
ProzessStandard Offsetdruck
<http://www.prozess-standard.com>
www.prozess-standard.com PSO
ProcessStandard Offset ISO 12647
<http://www.pso-insider.de>
www.pso-insider.de
R16 roman16 bvdm Reference Images
<http://www.roman16.com>
www.roman16.com
CO2 Klimainitiative vdm - Climate initiative
<http://www.klima-druck.de>
www.klima-druck.de MSD
MedienStandard Druck
<http://www.point-online.de/download/pdf/free/86035.pdf>
www.point-online.de/download/pdf/free/86035.pdf
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Dpwg [
<mailto:dpwg-bounces@lists.fogra.org>
mailto:dpwg-bounces@lists.fogra.org] Im
Auftrag von Claas
Bickeböller
Gesendet: Montag, 7. Juli 2014 10:05
An: Mailinglist for DPWG Members
Cc: <mailto:eci@lists.callassoftware.com>
eci(a)lists.callassoftware.com;
<mailto:eci-en@lists.callassoftware.com>
eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Betreff: Re: [Dpwg] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
Hi Andy, All,
I'm surprised that SpotOn is preferred.
The b* value of the majority of the analyzed
production papers (from Fogra
60.055) show a range of -4 to -8.
Thus I'd expect better proof to print matches
using FOGRA51beta with a b*
of -6.
Can people opting for SpotOn (b*= -4) enlighten me/us
why SpotOn is
preferred?
Thanks and best regards
Claas
Am 07.07.2014 um 08:53 schrieb Andreas Kraushaar <
<mailto:Kraushaar@fogra.org> Kraushaar(a)fogra.org>gt;:
> Dear members of the DPWG,
>
> the printing tests regarding the characterization
data that correspond
to the new printing conditions defined in ISO 12647-2 are under
way. For the
most important printing condition, PC 1 - offset printing on coated stock,
there are two candidates available (PC1 Spot on and a more blueish version
currently labeled FOGRA51beta). We would like to quickly respond to the
market needs and we see (from the participating folks) a motion toward Spot
On.
> Our findings also indicate that the colour
differences between both
candidates are too small to justify individual printing
conditions. So from
Fogra point of view FOGRA51 will either cover the current candidate (the
result from the research project 60.055) or the PC1 Spot On dataset.
>
> So please consult Fred15 (
<http://www.eci.org/en/projects/fred15>
http://www.eci.org/en/projects/fred15)
and let us know you findings,
comments.
>
> regards
> Andy Kraushaar
>
>
> PS: The ECI mailing list can be also be used for
sure :-)
>
>
> Follow us on Twitter -
> <http://twitter.com/fogra.org>
twitter.com/fogra.org<
<http://twitter.com/fogra.org>
http://twitter.com/fogra.org>
>
> Dr.-Ing. Andreas Kraushaar
> Dept. Prepress
>
> Fogra Graphic Technology Research Association
Streitfeldstrasse 19
> 81673 Munich, Germany
>
> Telefon: +49 89. 431 82 - 335
> Telefax: +49 89. 431 82 - 100
> E-mail:
<mailto:kraushaar@fogra.org%3cmailto:kraushaar@fogra.org>
kraushaar@fogra.org<mailto:kraushaar@fogra.org>
> Internet:
<http://www.fogra.org%3chttp:/www.fogra.org>
www.fogra.org<http://www.fogra.org>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This e-mail message may contain confidential
and/or privileged
information.
> If you are not an addressee or otherwise
authorized to receive this
> message, you should not use, copy, disclose or
take any action based
> on this e-mail or any information contained in
the message. If you
> have received this material in error, please
advise the sender
> immediately by reply e-mail and delete this
message.
>
> Managing Director: Dr. Eduard Neufeld |
Registered Office: Munich |
> Register of Associations: VR 4909
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dpwg mailing list
> <mailto:Dpwg@lists.fogra.org>
Dpwg(a)lists.fogra.org
> <http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg>
http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg
_______________________________________________
Dpwg mailing list
<mailto:Dpwg@lists.fogra.org>
Dpwg(a)lists.fogra.org
<http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg>
http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg
<all-in.jpg>_______________________________________________
ECI mailing list
<mailto:ECI@lists.callassoftware.com>
ECI(a)lists.callassoftware.com
<http://lists.callassoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/eci>
http://lists.callassoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/eci
_______________________________________________
Dpwg mailing list
<mailto:Dpwg@lists.fogra.org> Dpwg(a)lists.fogra.org
<http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg> http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg
_______________________________________________
ECI-EN mailing list
<mailto:ECI-EN@lists.callassoftware.com> ECI-EN(a)lists.callassoftware.com
<http://lists.callassoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/eci-en>
http://lists.callassoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/eci-en
_______________________________________________
ECI-EN mailing list
<mailto:ECI-EN@lists.callassoftware.com> ECI-EN(a)lists.callassoftware.com
<http://lists.callassoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/eci-en>
http://lists.callassoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/eci-en
--
Florian Süßl
Goßlerstraße 29
12161 Berlin
+49 172 3091154
8:43 p.m.
New subject: [Dpwg] [ECI] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
what do you mean saying "impossible"?
impossible to achieve without deviation (delta E 0)?
impossible L* (paper lightness)?
--
Florian Süßl
Goßlerstraße 29
12161 Berlin
Am 16.07.2014 um 19:50 schrieb Roger Breton
<graxx(a)videotron.ca>ca>:
Das ist impossible L
Roger
From: eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com
[mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com] On Behalf Of Florian Süßl
Sent: 16 juillet 2014 12:17
To: eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Subject: Re: [ECI-EN] [Dpwg] [ECI] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
Dear Roger,
spot on means Delta E zero
:)
All the best
Florian
Am 16.07.2014 um 16:09 schrieb Roger Breton <graxx(a)videotron.ca>ca>:
Dear Florian,
Quantitatively, « spot on » means what? Within an average of 3 DeltaE76? Is that
considered “spot on”?
MfG / Roger
From: eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com
[mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com] On Behalf Of Florian Süßl
Sent: 16 juillet 2014 09:51
To: eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Subject: Re: [ECI-EN] [Dpwg] [ECI] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
Dear Roger,
spot on means, that the cielab values for the ink solids, overprints and paper perfectly
match the respective values stipulated in ISO12647-2:2013.
:)
Florian Suessl
--
Florian Süßl
Goßlerstraße 29
12161 Berlin
Am 16.07.2014 um 15:19 schrieb Roger Breton <graxx(a)videotron.ca>ca>:
Dear Juergen,
When you write « The targets in 12647-2 are basically to be taken spot-on …”, do you mean
to refer the Spot-On software as inhttp://spotonpress.com?
Roger Breton
From: eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com
[mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com] On Behalf Of Juergen Seitz
Sent: 16 juillet 2014 08:26
To: Mailinglist for DPWG Members; eci(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Cc: eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Subject: Re: [ECI-EN] [Dpwg] [ECI] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
Dear Erwin,
ISO12647-2:2013 has not to be revised.
The parameters described in this paper are relevant.
With Appendix-B in 12647-2:2013 we already have a description how to adapt to different
paper shades
... the only thing that we would need is maybe an addendum to make all relevant (like
how-to to trace brighteners and measurement technology) adjustments traceable.
We will always have a kind of moving target with the production papers which, depending
on the regional flavor and other fashions will change through the years.
The targets in 12647-2 are basically to be taken spot-on, if the substrate measures as
described.
The actual FOGRAbeta candidates are based on spot-on data how they are described in
12647-2:2013. Just moved to a suggested better average of the production papers.
With the old generation of 12647-2 we were handling strict targets. Printers struggled to
reach those references if the paper was far from the reference. The reference value (e.g.
L*95, a*0, b*-2 on white backing with the related primary and secondary color tergets) as
such was compromising between legacy viewing conditions and legacy measurement technology.
Most of the production papers were not very close to the reference values.
I have seen several times how printers were looking for specific printing paper when they
prepared for a certification, just as the standard did not cover their daily business
environment.
With the revision of 12647-2 in 2013 we can see significant improvement with the
classification of the substrates and with the references and tolerances described… plus
the new and needed flexibility to consider other papers than those that fit perfectly to
THE reference values described.
With the know-how and the tools we are having today it is just logical that it is not the
IS0 to describe static references but dynamic tools and rules to handle printing jobs to a
even better predictability and accuracy.
Kind regards
Juergen
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Dpwg [mailto:dpwg-bounces@lists.fogra.org] Im Auftrag von Erwin Widmer
Gesendet: Montag, 14. Juli 2014 10:36
An: eci(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Cc: Mailinglist for DPWG Members; eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Betreff: Re: [Dpwg] [ECI] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
Dear Jürgen,
Thank you for your input.
What you say here means we should revise the standard first before we discuss
characterization data and profiles. I think if the standard (12647-2:2013) and the
characterization data and profiles don't fit together we lose creditability anyway.
Regards,
Erwin Widmer
Deputy Managing Director
Ugra | Lerchenfeldstr. 5 | 9014 St. Gallen | Switzerland
Tel: +41 (0)71 552 02 42 | Fax: +41 (0)71 552 02 49
E-Mail: widmer(a)ugra.ch | WebSite: www.ugra.ch
Am 07.07.2014 um 17:31 schrieb Juergen Seitz <Juergen.Seitz(a)gmgcolor.com>om>:
Hello dear friends,
we (GMG) are actually successfully providing seminars where we explain the relation and
the correlation between the several actual standards that are the most important for our
prepress color communication.
-there is the color measurement with its measurement conditions
(ISO13655:2009 with M0, M1, M2 and M3) -the viewing conditions with
their significant change towards a better D50 alike viewing (according
ISO3664:2009) -and finally we have the updated references for Offset
printing in 12647-2:2013
… and if you know these 3 areas and their correlation (which should finally end in a
perfect color communication!), I am really wondering that there are still some of you in
favor of a suboptimal solution. Right now at this momentum where we could really improve
color communication to a new level in quality!
Knowing the correlations between the 3 named standards also means to understand the areas
where the correlation is not so good:
If we compare an average of printing substrates from the market with the reference values
for the more fluorescent papers in 12647-2:2013, it is getting obvious that there is no
good match. When in PS1 it is not dramatic, it is really obvious in PS5 (please see
attached .jpg).
When we measured a mass of Woodfree Coated Papers, we can see a significant number with
around b*-6 to -7 measured in M1. Spot-on with a b* of -4 is not far away but just enough
to confuse and degrade the potential quality in color communication.
With the comparison of the two competing candidates for Woodfree Uncoated Paper, it is
just becoming cristal clear that those spot-on data are a valid reference maybe for a
precess control but no solution that seem to be ment to be really color accurate.
The M1-targets written in 12647-2:2013 seem to be written at a time when we did not have
the experience with M1-measurement as we have it today… and that’s why an uncertainty of
potential side effects and impacts may have led to chose very conservative values…
basically just a kind of translation of M0 to M1, without any real adjustment to be more
relevant to real world production paper (e.g. an Lab from Fogra39, defined in M0 with
95/0/-2 would look something like 95/1/-3.5 in M1 if the bluishness comes from
fluorescence; almost spot on with the actual ISO value).
If we go for spot-on, we will hardly see any difference between legacy M0 and new
M1-proofs … even though this was one important criteria in the past, that Gracol or
FOGRA39 were too yellowish compared to production stock!?
More than just looking at the references from above, we have to consider a significant
impact of some measurement device manufacturers work for a better traceability of the
color measurement between different devices. Here we could mention the significant impact
on color measurement in prepress that became obvious with the introduction of Xrites
traceability approach, with their XRGA.
The Lab-values for the primaries, written in 12647-2:2013 are unfortunately based on
color measurement before Xrite had worked out a better traceability. This means that we
are referencing to Lab-values that would already today measure some different color angle
with actual measurement technology. If we keep in mind that e.g. the difference between an
old Gretag-measurement (GMDI) shows up to 2,5 DeltaE compared to a new Xrite measurement,
we can see that there is an implicit risk to fail, even in process control.
With the 2 FOGRA-candidates 51 and 52, we can see a very responsible handling of the
involved variables as we can see them in daily practice.
A significantly higher consideration of fluorescent agents, just as it can be seen in the
market place. … and an adjustment that recognizes the improvents in traceability of our
industries measurement technologies.
I really hope that we will not publish spot-on as THE reference, just because it sounds
more coherent. Latest with the usecases around brightened uncoated papers, we would lose
all credibility.
PS: … one feedback that I have heard from the US, where they have started much earlier to
push M1-references with e.g. the new Gracol2013, indicates where we are going to be with
the spot-on-set:
“Establishing ideal aims / char data for high-OBA conditions via easy-to-use tools. With
regard to this, I wonder if 12647-2 and 15339 have been published pre-maturely, before we
have settled the OBA related workflow issues.”
Kind regards
Juergen
Von: eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com
[mailto:eci-en-bounces@lists.callassoftware.com] Im Auftrag von
Meinecke, Karl Michael (bvdm)
Gesendet: Montag, 7. Juli 2014 10:41
An: Mailinglist for DPWG Members
Cc: eci(a)lists.callassoftware.com; eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Betreff: Re: [ECI-EN] [Dpwg] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
Hi Claas, all,
simply spoken: if we are not providing a "spot on" printing condition
(Characterisation Data, Profile), the revised ISO 12647-2:2013 is no longer a valid
reference.
Why is the given value in the new standard (b*-4) and our printing condition shows a
different value (b*-6)?? Nobody will understand this.
The print tests (more than 15 series already finalized at various printers, Fogra,
Heidelberg) produced good results for PC1 with the "spot on" printing condition.
I see no preference for FOGRA51beta.
Best regards
Karl Michael
Freundliche Gru:sse – Best Regards
Karl Michael Meinecke
Referat Technik + Forschung
<image001.png>
Bundesverband Druck und Medien e.V. (bvdm) German Printing and Media
Industries Federation (bvdm) Friedrichstrasse 194-199 | DE-10117
Berlin Fon +49 (0) 30 20 91 39 162 | Fax +49 (0) 30 20 91 39 113
mailto:km@bvdm-online.de | URL www.bvdm-online.de
NEU Altona Test Suite Application Kit www.altonatestsuite.com NEU
ProzessStandard Offsetdruck www.prozess-standard.com PSO
ProcessStandard Offset ISO 12647 www.pso-insider.de
R16 roman16 bvdm Reference Images www.roman16.com
CO2 Klimainitiative vdm - Climate initiative www.klima-druck.de MSD
MedienStandard Druck www.point-online.de/download/pdf/free/86035.pdf
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Dpwg [mailto:dpwg-bounces@lists.fogra.org] Im Auftrag von Claas
Bickeböller
Gesendet: Montag, 7. Juli 2014 10:05
An: Mailinglist for DPWG Members
Cc: eci(a)lists.callassoftware.com; eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com
Betreff: Re: [Dpwg] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
Hi Andy, All,
I'm surprised that SpotOn is preferred.
The b* value of the majority of the analyzed production papers (from Fogra 60.055) show a
range of -4 to -8.
Thus I'd expect better proof to print matches using FOGRA51beta with a b* of -6.
Can people opting for SpotOn (b*= -4) enlighten me/us why SpotOn is preferred?
Thanks and best regards
Claas
Am 07.07.2014 um 08:53 schrieb Andreas Kraushaar <Kraushaar(a)fogra.org>rg>:
_______________________________________________
Dpwg mailing list
Dpwg(a)lists.fogra.org
http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg
_______________________________________________
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
--
Florian Süßl
Goßlerstraße 29
12161 Berlin
+49 172 3091154
_______________________________________________
ECI-EN mailing list
ECI-EN(a)lists.callassoftware.com
http://lists.callassoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/eci-en Dear members of the DPWG,
the printing tests regarding the characterization data that correspond to the new
printing conditions defined in ISO 12647-2 are under way. For the most important printing
condition, PC 1 - offset printing on coated stock, there are two candidates available (PC1
Spot on and a more blueish version currently labeled “FOGRA51beta”). We would like to
quickly respond to the market needs and we see (from the participating folks) a motion
toward Spot On.
Our findings also indicate that the colour differences between both candidates are too
small to justify individual printing conditions. So from Fogra point of view FOGRA51 will
either cover the current candidate (the result from the research project 60.055) or the
PC1 Spot On dataset.
So please consult Fred15 (http://www.eci.org/en/projects/fred15) and let us know you
findings, comments.
regards
Andy Kraushaar
PS: The ECI mailing list can be also be used for sure :-)
Follow us on Twitter -
twitter.com/fogra.org<http://twitter.com/fogra.org>
Dr.-Ing. Andreas Kraushaar
Dept. Prepress
Fogra Graphic Technology Research Association Streitfeldstrasse 19
81673 Munich, Germany
Telefon: +49 89. 431 82 - 335
Telefax: +49 89. 431 82 - 100
E-mail: kraushaar@fogra.org<mailto:kraushaar@fogra.org>
Internet: www.fogra.org<http://www.fogra.org>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail message may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
If you are not an addressee or otherwise authorized to receive this
message, you should not use, copy, disclose or take any action based
on this e-mail or any information contained in the message. If you
have received this material in error, please advise the sender
immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message.
Managing Director: Dr. Eduard Neufeld | Registered Office: Munich |
Register of Associations: VR 4909
_______________________________________________
Dpwg mailing list
Dpwg(a)lists.fogra.org
http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg
_______________________________________________
Dpwg mailing list
Dpwg(a)lists.fogra.org
http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg
<all-in.jpg>_______________________________________________
ECI mailing list
ECI(a)lists.callassoftware.com
http://lists.callassoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/eci
3595
days inactive
3595
days old
eci-en@lists.callassoftware.com
8 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Florian Süßl -
Juergen Seitz -
Roger Breton