Soft Proofing Conundrum

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kevin Convertito on November 4, 2008 at 1:46pm

We pulled this off by requiring the advertisers to supply color-accurate proofs just like they always have (and have 'em SIGN OFF THEIR RIGHT TO COMPLAIN if they don't), then ask the press run the press color to match those color-accurate proofs. There wlll be color matching problems on your PeeCee, but you can dial your system pretty damn close. You just don't wanna get in a situation where an advertiser gets unexpected results and refuses to pay. We send all of our editorial proofs from a leased Ricoh business color copier/printer that is not anywhere near color-accurate ($0.07/page vs $40 at the prepress vendor), but our screens are somewhat calibrated and we get dependable results. Please note, my publications' editorial content is colorful, but not color-critical. Also note we have saved over $500k/year on prepress since moving to this workflow...

BTW the most critical monitor is the one proofing the output preview (including ink black and paper white simulations) of the CMYK PDF files being sent to press -- the actual soft proofs from the printer are a joke as they've usually been converted to RGB and recompressed for the web. Those are mostly just used to double-check imposition and content IMHO...

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Fran Warren on November 5, 2008 at 2:05pm

When a client installs a color critical soft-proofing environment, we'll send out our prepress manager to the client for a day to calibrate their monitor make sure all is calibrated properly to our equipment, and make sure everyone is on the same page.

When your printer's tech reps say "POTENTIAL Problems" it sounds vague, sounds to me that in reality they don't understand X-Rite's software, and don't want to touch it.

I would get on the phone with X-Rite and say
"My printer says they are going to have problems with me using your software"

You can hopefully get someone at X-Rite to tell you definitively whether it should or should not work. AND WHY.

Can't mess around with Food photography - good luck!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by David Cardillo on November 5, 2008 at 6:50pm

you shouldn't be eliminating proofs entirely, just interim proofs during color correction. Unless you don't care about edit color. Your advertisers should *always* supply match proofs to match on press. Your press operator is unlikely to have a color-accurate monitor, and less inclined to call up each page on screen to match what's coming off the press.

If the color you're seeing on your screen matches what you're seeing on the proofs you're sending to press, I wouldn't worry about it. And, frankly, that's what you should calibrate your monitor to - your proofing device. Your proofing device, of course, should be tweaked to match your press.

As for "potential" problems, I can't tell you the number of times we've been unable to hit the correct color on press vs. paper proofs. Especially with ads.

Having everything calibrated only works when your targets are tweaked for your output. Looks good on my screen, looks better on the glossy Kodak or Epson proof, but when ink hits paper my reds flare up and my yellows drop out.

I understand your dilemma - you want to see the same thing your operator saw when he did "- m sl. 3/4 hold mid." My point is if you're reasonably sure what you're looking at on your screen is what you're going to get on paper, it shouldn't matter the software you used to get it there.

Open an old page file and hold it next to a bound book, then push the color around 'til they match.

That said, the company you work for, is printing their business? Have they given a reason why they don't support the platform virtually everyone I know uses? Sorry, but "we don't support Mac" is a personal bugaboo of mine. It usually comes from the IT department, who'll only implement the technologies they know (i.e. have all their certifications in). I've got near a decade of experience working in IT, and I've run into this many, many times.

Because, yes, you _are_ going to have problems matching color in Windows. The OS wasn't built, from the ground up, to be a prepress environment. The color spaces are different, the monitor drivers are different, the CMYK to RGB algorithms are different. If your color sponsor is working on a Mac, his screen _is_ going to look different from yours, no matter how they're calibrated.

Hell, the dot pitches are different. Try explaining to someone how Windows uses a 96 dpi dot pitch while Apple uses 72 (mimicking a typesetting environment). Open a Word file with 10pt Times text on XP and compare it to a Mac - watch all the type reflow. Open the same web page on a Mac and on a PC and compare the colors - sometimes they're actually close.

Is it "absolutely, no way, no how, no Macs?" I've been on the opposite side of that coin, in an all-Mac environment and someone's deemed it necessary for us to use some particular function that only works in Windows. We've gotten a single PC workstation for doing that one task.

How many workstations are we talking about? Would it be unreasonable to have a single Mac that's calibrated to match your printer's system? Call it a virtual color viewing booth. Our print vendor has a proofer and a workstation on site here, and they're responsible for calibrating the color on both.

▶ Reply to This