The issue that I will discuss now is a bit complicated and since you can't see my test prints, I doubt that you can give me an accurate answer.
Of course, it's not your fault that you don't have enough information to give such an answer. But if you have similar experiences or you have some idea about the following issue, I would like to hear it. Thanks in advance.
I prepared material for offset printing in Indesign and I exported it to PDF/X-3 with a PSO Uncoated v3 (FOGRA52) profile. Most of the content is grayscale (Black Ink of the required CMYK profile). Before export, Indesign was set to "Display All Blacks Accurately" and "Output All Blacks Accurately" (if this is important to mention). There were some live transparencies in the document, but not that many and they were flattened during the export to PDF/X-3.
Today the printer called me to show me a printed test-sheet (only black was used), but it looked nowhere near to what I see on my screen. My monitor is not professionally calibrated, so, of course, it can't be accurate, but the test print looked quite strange.
The strangest thing is that it didn't even look like an offset print, but it looked a little bit as a digital print. In offset, black is not so black and everything looks a bit dim as opposed to digital prints, where black is darker and more intensive. Also, the test-print looked very sharp.
I even became paranoid that the printer is trying to trick me by substituting apples for oranges (digital for offset), but since I'm not an expert, I kept this to myself. The printed surface was not shiny, but "dry", which is typical for offset, but still, something was strange there.
Please check the image that I attached below. That's not my actual work, but it's just my attempt (and not a very good one) to illustrate the problem. It's a public domain image (or at least I think so) that I picked up online.
The upper image represents what I see on my screen and the lower image represents what I got on paper. But this is not an accurate recreation. The print was not that dark, but still, it was significantly darker than the PDF.
Basically, the print looked as if you view the upper image without proper color management.
<Title renamed by moderator>
3 Correct answers
Sampling the gray output values in your file I’d say the proof could be close—all of the shadow detail is in the high 90s close to 100%, and even the 3/4 tones in the faces are in the mid 80s. If they are printing just black on press they might push the black density in order to get a better black on the uncoated sheet. In any case if the proof is a press proof or contract proof don’t expect much change in the press run.
But are you viewing this image "through the prism" or "through the lens" of it's embedded (Black Ink) profile or the CMYK profile? This should be viewed and evaluated with the PSO Uncoated simulation.
I’m looking at the output numbers.
If the printer is telling you they will match their proof on press then you have to view the contract proof as accurate and adjust accordingly.
You are assuming the two color profiles needed for a color managed preview are accurate, but both could easily be
...
Of course you are right, I'm printing in 1 color, but the machine is nominally 4-color and so is the simulation.
Now, if this simulation is misleading, then I don't know what to say.
It could be. I think you are assuming offset profiles are always accurate, but the press profile changes depending on choices made on press—the profile could even change somewhat during the run. If the press operators decide they want a better black running black only on an uncoated sheet, then they might run m
...
33
Replies
If the proof you are looking at came from some kind of copier and not a press running to the PSO Uncoated profile then of course it would look wrong.
By @rob day
Interesting point, @rob day. God knows what they were doing there. The worst thing is that people like me are not sure whether to protest or that's the way things should be.
The manager responsible for this contract-proof maybe abused my ignorance, but maybe not. But what he showed me on that sheet was not what I ordered over email, where I described what I want.
Also, that test-sheet was very different to the simulation, but in such cases the printer can get away with "your monitor is not calibrated". But I also saw my work on their monitor and then they say "that's just a software proof, it's not 100% accurate". You get it...
I even developed conspiracy theories that they printed this on a digital press (they insist it's offset). Or maybe on a non-profiled offset press. Or maybe on a 1-color only offset press (without CMY). But maybe I'm confusing things.
The black looked very black, but previously, I was constantly reminded on this forum that I should expect a "calmed down" black, something like dark gray. That's what I wanted. Please open Indesign's preferences and then Appearance of Black and there's a pic describing the phenomenon.
What I saw on that paper might be a result of the ink density settings, but I can't be sure about it.
Also, maybe I'm confusing things, but what I saw there looked more as if you view the PDF/X file without its ICC profile. Try this by opening Acrobat and then Page Display and then turn off Overprint Preview. Or you can achieve the same by removing the Output Intent and the PDF/X info from the file (there're such options in Preflight).
Or you can simply do this: just take some images, convert them to Dot Gain % and that will be similar to what I got on paper. Look at them with a Dot Gain % simulation - that's how it looked.
To make things even more confusing, I talked over the phone to another employee of this printery, who has never seen the contract-proof. I told him that it sucks and he was surprised. He was like: no, no, I saw the final sheets and they look good. What is "good" from his POV - I don't know, but he sent me photos, so I can see it.
It's hard to judge by these amateurish pics, but the prints there look good and not like the contract-proof. But if the pics are accurate, that would mean that the printer is not working in accordance with the contract-proof, which is unprofessional.
In short, rob day, this turned into a total confusion.
I think that I will go to another "doctor" (printery) for a "2nd opinion". This printery should be profiled to the same standard as the previous one. I want to pay there for some test prints and check what will happen.
P.S. I don't know how important this is, but I forgot to say that the test-sheet had only black bars on top of it. But then, when I saw the pics of the final sheets, they had bars with lots of colors on the top.
@rob day, the images posted below illustrate the problem much better than the ones I posted before, so please, let's forget them and let's concentrate on this:
This is not from the actual book, but this is just a rough reconstruction made in Photoshop. I picked up this image online and here I use it for educational purposes only. I didn't use it in my work.
What you see on the left roughly represents what I see in Acrobat's simulation and what I expected to get on paper. Note the background, the black there is not really black, but dark gray. Everything looks kind of "calm". Btw only K is used, CMY=0.
What you can see on the right roughly represents what I got on the test-print. It looked nowehere near the simulation. The black was very intensive and everything looked contrasty. Some tiny details (such as wrinkles on the people's faces or on their clothes) somehow got lost. Their faces all looked very pale and they were all "swimming" in this cosmic "black hole". There are not many gray shades between black and white. This reminded me of a photocopy. Note that it was on an uncoated paper and it was K only (CMY=0).
I wonder if this means that the printer pushed the ink density settings too far. I don't know the right term.
I still feel (rightly or wrongly) that the printer messed up something. And now I'm trying to define the problem and to prevent it from happening again.
Thanks
AdChoices