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.… -----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.comBetreff: 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>>: > twitter.com/fogra.org<http://twitter.com/fogra.org > E-mail: kraushaar@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.f… > Dpwg@lists.fogra.org<mailto:Dpwg@lists.fogra.org _______________________________________________ Dpwg mailing list Dpwg@lists.fogra.org<mailto:Dpwg@lists.fogra.org http://lists.fogra.org/listinfo/dpwg