Document CMYK vs Working CMYK in Proof Setup

[jmad70]

I am trying to prepare a file for printing with a commercial printer, and i used an icc profile provided by them. I know that CMYK can't produce the same colors as RGB, so I tried viewing it as a proof to get an idea of how it might change. i noticed in Proof Setup that there were two options, 1) Document CMYK, which had “Document CMYK - U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2”, and 2) Working CMYK which had the name of the profile they sent me. The results looked dramatically different, with their profile doing a much better job at preserving colors. i can't find any explanation in the help menu as to the difference between Document CMYK and Working CMYK. If I loaded their profile, why would there be two options here and does this make any difference on the final product? i want to make absolutely sure their profile is applied to the document that i export and send them. I'm including a screenshot of the Proof Setup menu options.

[Randy Hagan]

You've opened a Pandora's Box of sorta known and entirely unknown technical and aesthetic variables when we start talking about "good color." This won't be a short read, but I'm hopeful it'll be worth it to you as you proceed with commercial printing of your InDesign job(s).

I'm simplifying here a lot, but Web Coated SWOP is a generic standard, generally used as a measurable target for printers to attain. Printers use it as the target to define how their press process will reproduce your work. No matter what equipment inks or specific paper stock you use, if you lock up a big roll of coated paper to your web offset press and match Web Coated SWOP specs, you can ensure you can deliver consistent, quality results. 

Please note that I wrote ensure, with an e, rather than insure, with an i. This isn't an absolute guarantee; it's a target printers use to get good results.

Now your printer's ICC profile is a whole 'nother story. That profile is custom-tailored to match exactly what the printer's equipment can deliver when reproducing your work. If the onscreen image looks better, that's a happy coincidence that may ensure you get a better result with your chosen printer than than one maintaining that generic standard. Or it may not.

Is your monitor regularly calibrated to portray accurate reproduction? Most folks are not. Is your monitor regularly calibrated to accurately reflect your printer's specific ICC profile? Unless they do that for you, I'd just about guarantee not.  Even if you choose the correct monitor profile, your monitor needs to be calibrated to accurately match. Using the profile helps, but you need monitor calibration if you want to get to "perfect" matching. The only perfect matching you'll ever see for your job are the first useful sheets that come off the press.

Mechanical proofs (print geezers just call them mechanicals) run off prepress materials are close, if you're not using a digital press which has no interim steps. Printer-provided digital proofs are not run off prepress materials to print your job, but are run off your digital files. They can be as good as mechanicals and are your only option if the job will be run off digital presses. But any of these will likely be more accurate than what you're seeing off an uncalibrated monitor.

After saying all this, the only proof you can get that is of any importance is what your printer calls a contract proof. However your printer generates that proof, a contract proof insures, or guarantees, that's the result your printer will deliver from your InDesign files when the job comes off the press. Everything else is just an estimated guess.

If color is absolutely critical to the success of your job(s), it's worth the extra expense to have your printer provide contract proofs that you can approve of before you ever print the job. It's an extra expense, but valuable insurance that mistakes on your part and/or your printer's part don't turn into expensive mistakes coming off the press.

TL:DR — Don't trust how your job looks on your monitor. If it's critical, get a contract proof from your printer and make sure it's just the way you want it before you print your job. Doctors may bury their mistakes, but print graphics folks make them thousands and thousands of times each time they really screw up.

Hope this helps, and good luck with your job. I hope it turns out great for you.

Randy

[jmad70]

thanks so much. for context, i had done a calendar with this company in both 2021 and 2022 that i was very happy with the results. the results were slightly muted, but as good or better than expected with the transfer from RGB to CMYK. for my 2023 calendar, the results were lackluster. dull colors and washed out contrast. i was baffled, wondering if i had exported my image files from Lightroom incorrectly.

for my 2024 calendar, i wanted to make sure i didn't have the same issues as the 2023 calendar, so i more carefully looked at all of my settings. in the 2021 and 2022 calendar, both Document and Working matched profiles, while in 2023 they did not. upon opening the 2024 template from the print lab, the Document and Working profiles also did not match. I'm not sure what i did differently to cause this change between 2022 and 2023, but i have very limited experience with InDesign other than these calendars, so i likely hit a wrong button at some point. the instructions from print lab said nothing about needing to Assign the profile. it only said to Load the profile and that clearly wasn't enough.

Because i was super happy with the 2021 and 2022 calendars, i feel like that now that i've learned how to assign the profile i will get the results i expect and am happy with. the change in look on the screen in Proof Colors is identical to how it used to be. i appreciate the insights you've provided. i'll definitely use your advise to help me improve my process!

[Randy Hagan]

I'm glad and hopeful that you can find that context useful. But please don't take the rude surprises you experienced in your 2023 calendar entirely on yourself. One of the great mysteries of our time, right up there with "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you" is the digital promise of WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get).

When teaching students about color quality with screen profiles, the hardest thing I have to get across is that when you change monitor color profiles is that the difference you see on screen hasn't changed your InDesign file at all. What it's changed is how your monitor simulates how your InDesign document will print using the process associated with that given monitor profile. It's then left to you to fix the differences ... or hopelessly screw it up. At its worst, your monitor may be lying to you. But even at its best, it'll always be a simulation of what you may get off the press. There are way too many variables downstream of you that will affect the final quality of your print job, and most all of them are in the hands of your print vendor and not you.

Which is why, when reproduction quality is critical, getting a contract proof is so important. Your printer is insuring, or guaranteeing, that's the result that's going to come off the press. If that contract proof looks great, it's easy to sign off and hold your printer to the quality standard reflected by that proof. But even if it looks lousy, it's brought the disappointment up front, early in the process, where problems can be dealt with and corrected. Even if it has to be done two — or three — times to get the results you want, it's cheap insurance compared to having thousands of copies of that problem in boxes dumped at your door.

Good luck with your new calendar. There's nothing quite like that feeling of satisfaction when the job goes well and you get the results back in your hot little hands.

Randy

[rob day]

when you change monitor color profiles is that the difference you see on screen hasn't changed your InDesign file at all

Hi Randy, It isn’t just the monitor profile that affects the CMYK soft proof, the accuracy of the assigned CMYK profile is equally important—there would be a difference in the soft proof appearance of CMYK color when US Web Coated SWOP is the assignment vs. when CGATS21_CRPC is assigned. Assigning US Web Coated SWOP and sending it to a press running to a significantly different profile might explain the problems with @jmad70 ’s 2022 job.

For example here the Overprint Preview changes when I change the Assigned Profile from US Web Coated SWOP to US Sheetfed Coated—US Sheetfed Coated expects more dot gain and ink density than US Web Coated SWOP, which shows in the display of the same CMYK values:

           

[Randy Hagan]

I agree. But we were specifically defining what "good color" was from a monitor. Certainly a bad monitor profile could lead you as far astray as the right one on an uncalibrated monitor — or even further if you have both a bad profile and a out-of-sync monitor. Which is why I believe soft proofing is nice and all, but relying on it can easily become a foolhardy call.

When color reproduction counts, a contract proof is vital. And when the job, and maybe even your job, is on the line you should accept no substitutes.

[rob day]

soft proofing is nice and all, but relying on it can easily become a foolhardy call.

@jmad70 ’s soft proof can’t be right even on a well calibrated and profiled monitor because the US Web Coated SWOP profile doesn’t represent the destination press profile. The idea that it’s only the display calibration and monitor profile affecting the soft proof display is a misunderstood part of color management and soft proofing.

[Randy Hagan]

GUY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY.

Every time I comment here, you seem to be piling on more reasons agreeing why I say judging color on a monitor is a bad idea. Like what I've already outlined is insufficient. Or I'm somehow arguing with you. Why don't you just list them all now so we can pinch this off and go on with our lives?

[jmad70]

@rob day & @Randy Hagan , i greatly appreciate both of your insights! to be clear it was never my expectation to be able to see the colors accurately on screen. it was only to make sure i was using the correct profile when sending to the lab. although i have limited experience with InDesign, i have tons of experience with getting photos prepared in Lightroom and printed via a professional lab on a variety media. the media AND the exact printing process will also have an impact on how the colors look, even from the same lab. for example, prints on metal, vs prints on fine art paper, vs processing on light sensitive paper; each will have a different look with variations in color and contrast. i learned long ago not to rely on what you see on screen, even when that screen is well calibrated. unfortunately in this instance i'm on a deadline that doesn't allow me to get a hard proof, so as long as i know i have the correct profile assigned, i'll be a happy camper placing my order. thanks again for all of the feedback and wisdom!!

[rob day]

the backstory is that i had done a calendar with this printer the past couple of years. everything looked good the first year, but last year (my 2023 calendar) the results were disappointing, washed out and dull

Hi @jmad70 , Sorry if  I misunderstood your post, but it sounded like the 2022 calendar printed as you expected without a contract proof—your InDesign soft proof in 2022 was a reasonable prediction of the print output, but the 2023 version wasn’t?

[jmad70]

@rob day yes, exactly. it was satisfactory results for 2022. in fact, i had also done a 2021 calendar, also with satisfactory results. i was just trying to keep my comments no longer than needed to explain the situation. the 2023 calendar was a disappointment. i first checked to see if i had changed my export settings for the images in Lightroom. the files were identical format and color space. next i tried a couple of the image files that were used in the 2021 and 2022 calendars in the 2023 and 2024 templates and noticed an immediate difference, so i knew something was different either in the template or the settings. as i compared all of the settings, the only difference i found was in the Proof settings. i couldn't understand why in the 2021 and 2022 calendars the Document CMYK matched the Working CMYK, but in the 2023 and 2024, they were mismatched, and now the Document CMYK was not showing the name of the file they provided. i wanted to know the difference between Document and Working, and when i learned that Document is what actually gets applied to the file i send to the print lab, it made sense that the results would not be as expected if it didn't have the correct color profile assigned. i feel 100% confident that now that i've applied the print lab's profile to the Document (CGATS21_CRPC), i'll get the results i got in '21 and '22. the look on screen is totally different now, just like it used to be, even though i know that it's still not exactly what it will look like in print.

[rob day]

the look on screen is totally different now, just like it used to be

Right, the intention of the Adobe color management system is to provide the best possible soft proof for any device, but it depends on accurate source and destination profiles. For a soft proof the source CMYK color is converted from the assigned CMYK profile to Lab to your monitor RGB profile for display—the Monitor profile comes from the OS and ideally should be created from a calibration. If either the source or destination profiles do not accurately profile their device, the preview will be off—in your case significantly off because the printer is not printing to the SWOP press profile.

[jmad70]

@rob day correct! your example of SWOP vs Sheetfed is somewhat comparable to the differences i noticed in CGATS21_CRPC vs SWOP when viewing proof colors. CGATS21_CRPC only slightyly changed things, with purples, greens, and oranges (as expected) being particularly less vibrant, but overall acceptable, and contrast also looked a bit reduced. when i viewed proof colors under the SWOP profile, all the colors were at least twice as dull and washed out looking, and it looked almost as if there was a haze over the image. this was also fairly comparable to the difference i noticed in the physical calendars. 2023 was clearly more washed out and dull looking, with an almost hazy look to the entire image. i felt sure that although neither hard copy looked exactly like the soft proof, the amount of change WAS comparable to the amount of change on screen. with everything i've learned here about applying profiles, and seeing that my 2023 calendar had the wrong document profile, i feel totally confident my problem is solved. i trust the CGATS21_CRPC profile to give me results i'll be happy with and proud to show/sell. thanks again for all of the insights and help!!

[jmad70]

i 100% agree and the print lab is willing and able to provide a contract proof. unfortunately i'm on a time crunch that won't allow that this year, so i just wanted to make sure i was using the reliable CGATS21_CRPC color profile from the lab rather than the US Web Coated SWOP from Adobe. Next year hopefully i'll be able to order with enough time to get a contract proof first. yeah right, lol, like i'll ever be that early! thanks again!

[rob day]

i can't find any explanation in the help menu as to the difference between Document CMYK and Working CMYK.

Hi @jmad70 , The difference is: Working CMYK is the current Working CMYK Space you have set in Color Settings, and Document CMYK is the CMYK profile that is assigned to the document—the assigned CMYK profile for an existing document can be set from Edit>Assign Profiles...

It is the assigned document CMYK profile that color manages the document’s CMYK colors and any conversions you make from RGB to CMYK. To soft proof the output to Document CMYK you don’t need to turn on Proof Colors—turning on Overprint/Separation Preview gives the most accurate soft proof to the expected document CMYK output space.

In your capture you have US Web Coated SWOP assigned to your document, so you would want to fix that problem and assign the printer’s CGATS21_CRPC.icc profile, then turn off Proof Colors and turn on Overprint/Separation Preview.

[jmad70]

thanks heaps for the thorough answer. the backstory is that i had done a calendar with this printer the past couple of years. everything looked good the first year, but last year (my 2023 calendar) the results were disappointing, washed out and dull. when i compared the two files, i notice that in the 2022 calendar, the document and working space matched, and they were both showing the profile provided by the printer (CGATS21). in the 2023 calendar they did not match, and the document space was the wrong one.

i wanted to make sure my 2024 calendar didn't suffer the same fate as my 2023 calendar, so i reread and followed the instructions that they provided, which explained how to Load their profile. the instructions said nothing about how to assign the profile, so i didn't know that the additional step of assigning profile was even necessary. i followed the steps in their help guide of Loading the profile, but again ended up with a different Document and Working space. i'm not sure why it worked right the first year, but no longer after that, but with my limited InDesign skills, i likely messed something up along the way.

i had actually already found how to assign the profile a short while ago and made that change, giving me a much better result in Proof Colors that aligned with my 2022 calendar result, but didn't know about Overprint/Separation Preview. i'll try that next, thanks again!

[Mike Witherell]

So maybe harmonize the two differing color managements by going to InDesign > Edit > Color Settings and setting the colorspace to the custom CGATS21_CRPC.icc your commercial printer sent to you. Even better, I recommend you travel upstream to Photoshop > Edit > Color Settings to set this all up and turn on the Convert switch choice to force all documents to convert to the custom commercial printer colorspace icc profile. While there I save/name a .CSF (color settings file). Then, go to Bridge > Edit > Color Settings to send out a command to change to this method which affects AI and ID. Then, go to InDesign > Edit > Color Settings to verify that it made the change to your custom CGATS21_CRPC.icc profile. Do this step with no documents open. After a restart of InDesign, open your InDesign document. It should convert to your custom icc profile. If not, you can go to InDesign > Edit > Assign Profiles and set it there. The net result will be that the SWOP profile will be gone and only your custom icc profile will be at work. If you use Overprint Preview or if you turn on Proof Settings/Proof Colors, it will be your custom CGATS21_CRPC.icc profile, and this should end your two-outcomes confusion.

[It is also a great idea to calibrate your monitor with a colorimeter so that your monitor can accurately show YOU the tonality of the custom .icc profile.]

[rob day]

by going to Edit > Color Settings and setting the colorspace to the custom one your commercial printer sent to you

Hi Mike, Just to be clear, changing or syncing Color Settings will not usually affect existing documents. For the document @jmad70  is showing in the capture, assigning the correct CGATS21_CRPC.icc CMYK profile will have to be done via Edit>Assign Profiles not Color Settings.

Proof Colors is only needed when you want to view a soft proof for some device other than Document CMYK—Overprint/Separation Preview soft proofs Document CMYK

[Mike Witherell]

You are correct, Rob. I said the same thing, but more clumsily.

[jmad70]

understood, thanks!!

[jmad70]

thanks heaps, i'll give it a try!