AW: ECI digest, Vol 1 #1094 - 1 msg
by Roman Lindner
Hallo ECI-Liste,
Vielen Dank fuer die umfangreichen und informativen
Antworten auf meine Fragen - leider liegt es wohl in der
Natur der Sache, dass ich natürlich noch nicht wirklich
zufrieden mit dem Stand der Dinge bin ;o) Ich fasse mal
zusammen:
1. Das ICM von Windows 2000 bzw. XP ist nicht in der Lage bzgl.
Farbabstimmung mit einem Treiber zusammen zu arbeiten. Hat sich
Da was hinsichtlich Windows 2003 geändert, funktioniert das hier?
2. Es gibt Unterschiede hinsichtlich der Treiber? Hr. Huerten schrieb,
sein epson Drucker(-treiber) wuerde im ICM Modus doch auf veschiedene
Farbprofile reagieren - d.h. HP nein, Epson ja?
3. User, die auch aus Office-Applikationen mit Farbmanagement drucken
wollen, muessen dies ueber ein RIP tun? Oder aber mit Zusatzprogrammen wie
dem MGE-ICC-Print?
4. Warum ist ICM nicht in der Lage, ausser sRGB Daten auch "unbehandelte"
Daten an den Druckertreiber weiter zu geben und dann das Profil in den
Druckertreibereigenschaften zu beruecksichtigen?
5. wie sieht das mit ColorSync aus? Funktioniert hier ein color-managed
Druck aus non-color-managed Applikationen?
Vielleicht haben sie nochmals die Geduld, auf meine Fragen zu antworten,
ich waere Ihnen allen sehr dankbar!
Viele Gruesse und bis dann, Roman Lindner
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: eci-admin(a)lists.transmedia.de [mailto:eci-admin@lists.transmedia.de] Im Auftrag von eci-request(a)lists.transmedia.de
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. August 2004 12:00
An: eci(a)lists.transmedia.de
Betreff: ECI digest, Vol 1 #1094 - 1 msg
Send ECI mailing list submissions to
eci(a)lists.transmedia.de
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.transmedia.de/mailman/listinfo/eci
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
eci-request(a)lists.transmedia.de
You can reach the person managing the list at
eci-admin(a)lists.transmedia.de
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ECI digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Antw: [ECI] Farbkontrolle in MS Office Applikationen (Stefan Doehla)
--__--__--
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 18:29:48 +0200
From: "Stefan Doehla" <Stefan.Doehla(a)rrze.uni-erlangen.de>
To: <eci(a)lists.transmedia.de>
Subject: Antw: [ECI] Farbkontrolle in MS Office Applikationen
Reply-To: eci(a)lists.transmedia.de
** High Priority **
Hallo Herr Lindner, hallo Liste,
> Ist diese Problematik auf den Druckertreiber zurueckzufuehren oder
> ist Office 200 bzw. XP nicht in der Lage,auf
> die Informationen im Treiber zuzugreifen?
Exakt! Der Druckertreiber und Office sind 2 verschiedene Paar Schuh.
Egal, was Sie an den Treiber senden - er wird es als sRGB behandeln
(Ausnahme: eingebundene EPS bei Postscript-Treibern).
Ob es überhaupt eine Anwendung gibt, die direkt auf das Windows-ICM
zugreift, weiß ich nicht - aber ich laß mich da gern eines Besseren
belehren. (Da fällt mir nur Photoshop ein: Monitor-Profil).
Unser Weg zu besseren Ergebnissen aus Powerpoint ist die Kalibrierung
der Monitore auf ähnlich-sRGB und das anschließende Behandeln aller
Powerpoint-Ausdrucke als sRGB im RIP. Die Kundschaft ist zufrieden
und wir sehen die Farben etwa so, wie sie später aussehen werden (das
ist das Schöne an sRGB).
Nicht elegant (und kein großer Farbraum) - aber es geht nicht besser.
Oder doch?
--
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
Stefan Doehla Regionales Rechenzentrum Erlangen
Martensstr. 1 91058 Erlangen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
mailto:stefan.doehla@rrze.uni-erlangen.de
.....................................................................
--__--__--
_______________________________________________
ECI mailing list
ECI(a)lists.transmedia.de
http://lists.transmedia.de/mailman/listinfo/eci
End of ECI Digest_______________________________________________
ECI mailing list
ECI(a)lists.transmedia.de
http://lists.transmedia.de/mailman/listinfo/eci
3 years, 10 months
- 5
- 5
Re: [ECI] [Dpwg] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
by Juergen Seitz
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<mailto:widmer@ugra.ch> | WebSite: www.ugra.ch<http://www.ugra.ch>
Am 07.07.2014 um 17:31 schrieb Juergen Seitz <Juergen.Seitz(a)gmgcolor.com<mailto:Juergen.Seitz@gmgcolor.com>>:
> 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>
> [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<mailto:eci@lists.callassoftware.com>; eci-en(a)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
>
> <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<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>
> R16 roman16 bvdm Reference Images www.roman16.com<http://www.roman16.com>
> 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.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<mailto:eci@lists.callassoftware.com>; eci-en(a)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(a)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(a)fogra.org<mailto:kraushaar@fogra.org<mailto:kraushaar@fogra.org%3cmailto:kraushaar@fogra.org>>
> > Internet: www.fogra.org<http://www.fogra.org<http://www.fogra.org%3chttp:/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<mailto:Dpwg@lists.fogra.org>
> > http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dpwg mailing list
> Dpwg(a)lists.fogra.org<mailto:Dpwg@lists.fogra.org>
> http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg
> <all-in.jpg>_______________________________________________
> ECI mailing list
> ECI(a)lists.callassoftware.com<mailto:ECI@lists.callassoftware.com>
> http://lists.callassoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/eci
_______________________________________________
Dpwg mailing list
Dpwg(a)lists.fogra.org<mailto:Dpwg@lists.fogra.org>
http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg
9 years, 9 months
- 1
- 0
WG: ISO standard values
by Juergen Seitz
Hello dear contributors,
just received a contribution from IKEA that I am asked to share:
Von: Lovisa Eriksson [mailto:lovisa.eriksson@inter-ikea.com]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. Juli 2014 11:54
An: Juergen Seitz
Betreff: ISO standard values
Hi Juergen,
As you know we are following the ongoing work within FOGRA since it has a big impact on our production of the IKEA Catalogue as well as our other printed publications. Can you please forward our input to the relevant stakeholders and/or post my e-mail with my signature on the relevant lists?
With the Fred15 project, ECI is actually providing material to test new characterization data that is based on the new version of ISO12647-2. When we look at the characterization data and ICC-profiles on the Fred15-page we can see versions that are namely spot-on with the values in the ISO-paper and others (FOGRA..beta) that are "optimized for slightly increased amount of optical brightener agents" which means that they are more blue with their description of the substrate color than the spot-on data.
Here is our comment based on our experience through the years:
For IKEA it is crucial with the accuracy of colour communication. We started many years ago to adjust our data and proofs apart from the actual standards, like FOGRA39. This was because the Fogra39 based proofs were not close enough with the typical printing papers that we are using when printing our covers of IKEA Catalogues and other printed publications. Since 1,5 half year our proofing has been adapted to the actualized normlight conditions and that the adjustment was to become significantly more bluish.
We can't see this color shift covered enough with the actual ISO 12647-2 spot-on values. We would much prefer if the final characterization data and ICC-profiles that are going to be provided to the market would be more similar to what is actually used by IKEA as well as many other print buyers. Typically we have to match a higher amount of optical brightener agents in the printing papers than what the spot-on data describes.
Best regards Lovisa
Lovisa Eriksson
Manager Quality Assurance, Media Production
Inter IKEA Systems B.V.
Olof Palmestraat 1
2616 LN, Delft, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 (0)15 215 3877
Mobile: +31 (0)6 4690 8742
Lovisa.Eriksson(a)Inter-IKEA.com<mailto:Lovisa.Idemyr@Inter-IKEA.com>
Kind regards
Juergen Seitz
Senior Technical Advisor
------------------------------------------------------
GMG GmbH & Co. KG
Moempelgarder Weg 10
72072 Tuebingen
Germany
Phone: +49 7071 93874-30
Fax: +49 7071 93874-22
Cell: +49 162 2998330
juergen.seitz(a)gmgcolor.com<mailto:JSeitz@gmgcolor.com> | www.gmgcolor.com
www.facebook.com/gmgcolor.en<http://www.facebook.com/gmgcolor.en> | http://twitter.com/gmgcolor
------------------------------------------------------
9 years, 9 months
- 1
- 0
Re: [ECI] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
by Mario Drechsler
Guten Tag liebe Mitglieder,
hier sind meine derzeitigen Erfahrungen und Anregungen zum Thema:
Ich fände es wichtig den Mittelwert für das Papierweiß der Char.-Daten mehr gewichtet zu berechnen.
Eben nach Häufigkeit bei der Verwendung.
Ein banaler MW aller Papiere bringt mir nicht viel – insbesondere bei PS5 – Wood-free Uncoated.
Trotz aller Standardisierung bei Messlicht (M1) und Normlicht (D50 mit UV) halte ich es für äusserst sinnvoll zusätzlich eine Angabe über die Entstehung des b*-Wertes zu machen.
Dank moderner Messtechnik ist dies ein Kinderspiel und kann mit ∆B sehr schön dokumentiert werden.
Dann weiß der Anwender wie viel vom negativen b*-Wert aus einer Blaufärbung des Papiers resultiert und wie viel von OBAs (z.B. Heaven42).
Für mich stellt das heute einen äusserst wichtigen Wert dar, welcher bei meinen Produktionen nicht mehr wegzudenken ist.
Ein b*-4 bei PS1 – Premium Coated wäre für meine Produktionen derzeit nicht relevant.
Beispielsweise hat BVS glänzend bei M1 bereits b*-7 bei ∆B 15 und stellt aus meiner Sicht für PS1 einen repräsentativen Standard dar.
Bei PS5 – Wood-free Uncoated wird ein Satz Char.-Daten nicht ausreichen.
Hier weichen die Papierfärbungen visuell und messtechnisch zu weit von einander ab.
Am Beispiel Munken geht es bei M1 von der Färbung "Polar" mit L*94 a*2 b*-10 und ∆B23 bis zu der Färbung "Pure" mit L*94 a*0 b*4 und ∆B0.
Diese "Grätsche" zwischen "Blau inkl. OBAs" und "Gelb ohne OBAs" kann nur durch angepasste Charakterisierungsdaten und angepasste Proof-Substrate ordentlich gelöst werden.
Dies praktiziere ich bereits seit geraumer Zeit mit großem Erfolg.
Einen Tod muss ich hier wohl sterben:
Entweder passen die Charakterisierungsdaten "Spot on" auf die neue ISO 12647-2:2013, dafür stimmen die Proofs visuell oft nicht optimal,
oder die Charakterisierungsdaten sind abweichend zur ISO, dafür stimmen aber Auflagedruck und Proof in den meisten Fällen visuell sehr gut überein.
Draussen in der Anwendung ist es egal was in den Char.-Daten steht, wenn das Resultat visuell zufriedenstellend ist.
Andersherum wird es eher schwierig in der Argumentation wenn es nicht passt:
"Sieht zwar nicht gut aus, ist aber messtechnisch perfekt!" Das kennen wir ja schon …
Die meisten Proofs werden eben nicht unter Normlicht begutachtet und freigegeben.
Je besser das Auflagen-Papier mit dem Proofpapier in L*a*b* UND ∆B übereinstimmt, desto geringer sind die Probleme bei der Abstimmung.
Bei der Abnahme am Leitstand stehen dann zwei sehr ähnliche Papierweiß-Färbungen inklusive ähnlicher Anteile mit OBA am Start.
Der visuelle Unterschied ist markant geringer als bisher und erleichtert die Arbeit des Drucktechnikers und bringt mehr Sicherheit.
Viele Grüße,
Mario Drechsler
----
Mario Drechsler
Tel: +49 89 41150441
Fax: +49 89 41150443
mail: m.drechsler(a)highendmedia.de
web: www.highendmedia.de
Highendmedia GmbH
Baumschulenstraße 3
82402 Seeshaupt am Starnberger See
Geschäftsführung: Mario Drechsler
Reg.: HRB 183757, Amtsgericht München
USt-IdNr.: DE270025702
- Diese E-Mail enthält vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschützte Informationen.
Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind oder diese E-Mail irrtümlich erhalten haben,
informieren Sie bitte sofort den Absender und vernichten diese Mail. Das unerlaubte
Kopieren sowie die unbefugte Weitergabe dieser Mail ist ausdrücklich nicht gestattet.
- This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the
intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please notify the sender
immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution
of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden.
9 years, 9 months
- 1
- 0
Re: [ECI] [Dpwg] ISO 12647-2 printing tests
by Juergen Seitz
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
[bvdm_rgb Kopie1]
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/>
R16 roman16 bvdm Reference Images www.roman16.com<http://www.roman16.com/>
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.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<mailto:eci@lists.callassoftware.com>; eci-en(a)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(a)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(a)fogra.org<mailto:kraushaar@fogra.org<mailto:kraushaar@fogra.org%3cmailto:kraushaar@fogra.org>>
> Internet: www.fogra.org<http://www.fogra.org<http://www.fogra.org%3chttp:/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<mailto:Dpwg@lists.fogra.org>
> http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg
_______________________________________________
Dpwg mailing list
Dpwg(a)lists.fogra.org<mailto:Dpwg@lists.fogra.org>
http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg
9 years, 9 months
- 1
- 0