How to get what the client is seeing on her monitor to print

[TᴀW]

Hello again!

I'm still working on these childrens books, and here's where I'm at.

I calibrated and profiled my monitor and the client's monitor.

The client has been merrily filling in the black outlines of her drawings in Photoshop. She picks the CMYK swatch that looks good on her monitor and fills in the drawing.

Now, I have on my computer a copy of her monitor profile. When I open her PSD images (which are in CMYK mode, with a generic coated SWOP profile), it seems to me that I should:

(a) discard the attached profile, preserving the CMYK numbers

(b) convert the image to the RGB profile of her monitor

(c) convert the image to the CMYK profile of the printing press (or perhaps back to a generic CMYK profile, since we don't yet know where we're printing).

Is this correct?

Or perhaps, when I open her PSD images, I should

(a) use the embedded profile (US Web coated SWOP)

(b) convert to the destination profile of the printing press

Any guidance appreciated,

Ariel

[Printer_Rick]

Printer_Rick wrote:

After converting to gray try this:

Convert to CMYK output intent, preserve black, promote gray

I tried to upload your PDF after I converted but it's taking forever

I took your PDF after converting and did what you described, everything is on the black plate. HOWEVER this isn't a good check anyway. Remember you converted to a grayscale Output Intent. Changing the simulation to CMYK is like re-assigning a color space without converting.

The instructions above from my previous post are not really necessary for a standalone document. But you may want to take these steps before combining the gray PDF with a CMYK PDF.

[Guest]

Hi Ariel,

I ask this question to clarify ..... are clear on the difference

between Black, Rich Black and Registration?

Best Regards,

Wayne Pincham

wpincham@bigpond.com

[TᴀW]

I ask this question to clarify ..... are clear on the difference 

between Black, Rich Black and Registration?

I understand that black is 0,0,0,100; rich black is black made up of various amounts of CMYK, and registration is 100,100,100,100?

[Guest]

Hi Ariel,

All the responses you are getting  are correct, but really it comes down to this - A monitor is light (RGB) ink in paper is CMYK. Monitors should never be used to "Pick Colors" they can only simulate ink on paper. In my 30 years in color reproduction I seen many a client who has been bitterly disappointed and spent time and money correcting proofs because "it didn't look look that on my screen..."

If color selection is critical get a CMYK Pantone Books then you and the client will have a common reference to compare colors.

You then keep the CMYK % as prescribed by the Pantone Book.

I know its old fashioned but it works.... thats why Pantone is the success it is.

[Printer_Rick]

Wayne Pincham wrote:

If color selection is critical get a CMYK Pantone Books then you and the client will have a common reference to compare colors.

You then keep the CMYK % as prescribed by the Pantone Book.

I know its old fashioned but it works.... thats why Pantone is the success it is.

I understand this logic but it falls short. CMYK numbers alone do not define colors. They produce different results in different print conditions.

Ask any printer to proof a page of Pantone CMYK chips. Maybe a close match but not exact.

Even the books themselves are inconsistent.

Any CMYK swatches used in graphic design need to be evaluated in a color managed environment. This translates the CMYK numbers back into the destination CMYK color space, which is based on Lab values. Lab is the only color space that describes all the colors we see.

You can get away with choosing swatches in a book as a starting point, but the colors need to be proofed. Only then do you have a reliable color reference.

[Printer_Rick]

Wayne Pincham wrote:

A monitor is light (RGB) ink in paper is CMYK. Monitors should never be used to "Pick Colors" they can only simulate ink on paper. In my 30 years in color reproduction I seen many a client who has been bitterly disappointed and spent time and money correcting proofs because "it didn't look look that on my screen..."

On another note, it is true that monitor color is the cause of many, many problems.

A monitor is black, and paper is white. We try to make them the same, but they just can't be the same.

[TᴀW]

Wayne, many thanks for taking the time to contribute.

Rick answered the question I was going to ask, though, which is that since delving into Colour Management a little more, I learnt that CMYK colours are not absolute. I always presumed they were, and that, say, a swatch with values 30,56,86,3 would produce the identical results all over the world wherever it was printed. So what's the point of a Pantone book if the numbers are only applicable to the press that Pantone happened to print the book on?

On the other hand, since Pantone have gone to the trouble of producing the book, and people spend significant money buying it, there must be real use here, and I'm wondering how that works? Is it that Pantone are expecting the press to be calibrated to some standard (like FOGRA)? I'd be interested to understand how Pantone intend these books to be used. Or is it just that these books get you into the ballpark more reliably even than a calibrated monitor?

[Printer_Rick]

Arïel wrote:

On the other hand, since Pantone have gone to the trouble of producing the book, and people spend significant money buying it, there must be real use here, and I'm wondering how that works? Is it that Pantone are expecting the press to be calibrated to some standard (like FOGRA)? I'd be interested to understand how Pantone intend these books to be used. Or is it just that these books get you into the ballpark more reliably even than a calibrated monitor?

Pantone CMYK swatches predate ICC color management. Back then no one was using Lab, CMYK numbers were all you had. Color builds were made using screens when composting film.

That being said Pantone still makes and sells the books. They recently switched all the Solid to Process over to Color Bridge, this introduced a whole new series of problems when it comes to choosing the colors in the various applications.

The books are good I suppose in that they show a rosette screen pattern, and they are actually printed on real paper. Pressmen often use them as a color target, in lieu of a color proof.

Eventually the trend will change and the CMYK books will become relics. That will require everyone using Lab source values. You can do this now, but hardly anyone one does.

[Guest]

Hi Rick

Sorry to correct you but color space systems Cie and Munsell use to

quantify color predate Pantone by 30+ years. They were developed in

the 1930's. Pantone was deveoped as a way to communicate a colour not

to measure it.

Best Regards,

Wayne Pincham

[Printer_Rick]

Wayne Pincham wrote:

Hi Rick

Sorry to correct you but color space systems Cie and Munsell use to 

quantify color predate Pantone by 30+ years. They were developed in 

the 1930's. Pantone was deveoped as a way to communicate a colour not 

to measure it.

Best Regards,

Wayne Pincham

It is true that Lab predates Pantone, but I'm pretty sure Pantone predates ICC. ICC profiles weren't included in images until Photoshop 5.0.

Lab was there as the intermediary color space in the very beginning in software color conversions, but before PS 5.0 images were not tagged with ICC profiles.

I think ICC was established in the early 90's (I could be wrong). What I meant when I said no one was using Lab, I was referring to the print industry before computers were on the scene. I'm pretty sure no one had spectrophotometers back then, the only people really familiar with Lab were color scientists.

It is funny that you mention Munsell. I was discussing it in a Photoshop thread recently. It seems Pagemaker had a Munsell library but now none of the Adobe apps have one.

[Guest]

Hi Rick.

I am afraid to say I did my apprentice ship in the 70's. I have a text

book from then published in 65 by Dr Yule of the Kodak Research Labs.

it was the standard reference on colour theory. I. Started out doing

colour seps on a camera using range and colour masking by photographic

methods. I makes me really appeciate the ease of the process now.

Best Regards,

Wayne Pincham

[Printer_Rick]

Wayne Pincham wrote:

Hi Rick.

I am afraid to say I did my apprentice ship in the 70's. I have a text 

book from then published in 65 by Dr Yule of the Kodak Research Labs. 

it was the standard reference on colour theory. I. Started out doing 

colour seps on a camera using range and colour masking by photographic 

methods. I makes me really appeciate the ease of the process now.

Best Regards,

Wayne Pincham

Very glad to meet you. My dad started out in the '60s doing color separations on the camera. I got involved in the 80s but by then scanners were on the scene (straight to film at first though)

Dad's knowledge of old school and new school graphic arts is astounding. The old school outlook provides the best insight on all of this new technology. By using red green and blue filters on a camera you gain a true appreciation of translating RGB into CMYK.

Even the term "unsharp mask" is a holdover from the old technology. If only younger designers could appreciate the level of craftsmanship involved in the Golden Age of printing, and know what it was like to cut masks using rubylith instead of click-dragging perfect rectangles into a page on a computer.

It is amazing to see the print quality of images in pieces printed in the 60s and 70s. Much of it looks better than a lot of material printed today. I believe it is because images were actually scaled to print size properly in the old days (they had to be). Now it is common to see images placed in the page layout and shrunk down to 20%. If only all designers knew how this is very detrimental to the final clarity of the image in the printed piece.

[Guest]

HI Rick,

I totally agree, I flick thru catalogues and magazines here in

Australia and think to myself that I would have never dared give these

scans approval, my boss would have fired me in an eye blink. It sad

that companys only want to pay a kid $20 hr and get crap rather than

pay me $35hr and get quality and craftsmanship. Where are you? what

shape is the prepress business in where you are?

Best Regards,

Wayne Pincham

wpincham@bigpond.com

[Printer_Rick]

The golden age of printing is gone. Transparencies and scanning are little more than fond memories now. I personally prefer the look of film photography. It looks real. Yes there is film grain but the grain gives the image character. Now these digital captures look so clean and perfect and there is no personality. Then they get shrunk down in a layout and look completely dumb and gummy in the printing (unless the designer takes the time to resample and sharpen in Photoshop)

Scans were not sized in this fashion, in the document layout. They were scanned to size. Hence better quality.

The whole print industry is of course hurting now, but it's up to people in the industry to support it. How do you do that? Simple - respond to direct mail. Make purchases from mail order catalogs. People will say printing wastes paper and hurts the environment and that is simply not true. I recycle all my paper. Some paper now even gets converted into compost.

Subscribe to magazines and buy real books. Purchase art prints to hang on your walls. There are a lot of people still in the print industry, we can all band together and help one another. That's the way I see it.

[Guest]

Hi Ariel

The thing is color is percepttion, it is affected by the paper, ink

densities, how week the inks trap over each other, the light source it

is viewed under, the gloss of the ink and so on.

Printing is still a craft despite all the techology.

Pantone assumes your using a standard ink set, America use one, Europe

and Japan have different standards. It gets you and the client

standing not just in the ball park but in the infield.

Rick is right even the books have varations (usually due to fading

with age, they should be replaced annually but seldom are.)

Even a proof is just another simulation, in the end an on-press

approval is the truest result, even then the signed sheet has to be

matched thru the run. It's a craft.......

Best Regards,

Wayne Pincham

[NB, colourmanagement net]

TaW,

Yeah Real World Photoshop is hard to absorb, I agree. It’s the bible, sure, but its not an easy job to absorb it. In your situation, rather than needing a degree in colour ;~} I think you just need to know about the bits that affect YOUR (and your clients) situation.

You've had some good advice here, CMYK settings are very relevant of course (and SWOP is outdated and totally irrelevant for European print). You client's monitor profile is not of any use to your computer. 

I think there's one other thing that's really important that you need to consider.

How well does her screen show colour compared to a good printers proof? You need to know!

Calibration parameters can be badly chosen,

screens can be less capable than needed,

the room light can influence perception significantly.

Some of those can be optimised by adjustment.

How can you be sure of appearance?

Have a look here: http://www.colourmanagement.net/products/icc-profile-verification-kit

The printed work / proof should (must) be viewed in fairly bright daylight, in the print world that’s usually artificial daylight in a light booth.

The screen should be viewed in subdued neutral light.

You can't view a print next to the screen without a desktop light booth, because those 2 lighting requirements are incompatible.

And those requirements are inescapable.

Decent screen, good accurate calibration, proper viewing environments for 1:; screen and for 2: print and proof.

I hope this helps

if so, please "like" my reply

thanks

neil barstow, colourmanagement.net

[please do not use the reply button on a message in the thread, only use the one at the top of the page, to maintain chronological order]