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