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
Cc: Mailinglist for DPWG Members; 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 | WebSite: www.ugra.ch

Am 07.07.2014 um 17:31 schrieb Juergen Seitz <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@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@lists.callassoftware.com; 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

> 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@lists.callassoftware.com; 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>:

> > 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