Set Color Profile to Isocoated V52

[KShinabery212]

I am creating an ad for a magazine and they asked for it to be in CMYK.

I understand that of course.  But they said it should be in the Color Profile Isocoated V52... however I do not see this in my list of options.

How do I change the Color Profile to match this?

Cheers in advance,

Kenn.

[D Fosse · Accepted solution]

You need to download the profile from eci.org and install it on your system. Just right-click the downloaded profile and "install".

The ISO profiles aren't included in the Photoshop installation (a glaring omission given they're the current standard in Europe).

[Stephen Marsh]

Adobe has long supported the older Fogra 39 2004 specification (AKA: ISO Coated v2) via the Adobe generated “Coated FOGRA39 (ISO 12647-2:2004)” ICC profile that ships with Photoshop and other apps.

However the revised/updated Fogra 51 or later specifications for ISO 12647-2:2013 conditions may take longer to appear in Adobe apps (These are now known as PSO not ISO).

[D Fosse]

I know ISO Coated v2 (ECI) is built on the older FOGRA39 specification, but it's not the same profile. Just like ISO Coated v2 300% (ECI) is not the same as ISO Coated v2 (ECI) which is 320%.

If they want ISO Coated, I'm not going to give them FOGRA39 and say "it's basically the same, so it doesn't matter". Especially when ISO Coated is easily available.

The 300% profile is still the most widely used, but there are newer specs out since then.

[Stephen Marsh]

I am in agreement more so than not!

I know ISO Coated v2 (ECI) is built on the older FOGRA39 specification, but it's not the same profile. Just like ISO Coated v2 300% (ECI) is not the same as ISO Coated v2 (ECI) which is 320%.

Agreed, just like the very good BasICColor profiles and the VIGC profile variants and the Kodak F39L and others are not the same profile. Different software, different algorithms etc. What is the same is that they all use the same underlying measurement characterisation data (either F39 or F39L). One should be able to convert using any of these profiles and then assign one of the other profiles and have no/very little colour rendering difference. The CMYK numbers are obviously going to differ when converting, but the Lab numbers should ideally be zero but in practice may be +/- 1 or 2 points different when assigning different profiles based on the same measurement data.

If they want ISO Coated, I'm not going to give them FOGRA39 and say "it's basically the same, so it doesn't matter". Especially when ISO Coated is easily available.

ISO Coated (Fogra 27) and the newer ISO Coated v2 (Fogra 39) are different characterisation data with different profiles. They are not interchangable.

However for “interchangable” profiles (all the Fogra 39/39L variants) – it is of course your choice to use or not use any given profile made from the same characterisation data. Others may wish to vary the black generation or total ink limits and will freely use whatever meets the desired result, which is different CMYK values for the same condition and not a single profile that only creates a fixed CMYK value.

The 300% profile is still the most widely used, but there are newer specs out since then.

Yes, the 300% total ink limit version of ISO Coated v2 (Fogra 39) is indeed popular for press work, however most proofing is to the higher ink limit ISO Coated v2 profile (not that this is an issue). It was a good move that the “standard ECI” PSO Coated v3 profile was limited to just under 300%.

The Fogra 51 specification also known as PSO Coated v3 replaces the older ISO Coated v2/Fogra 39 spec, however I would not assume that it is going to be used by every printer as adoption has been slow since the 2013 ratification and delayed 2015 release/go live date.

Back to the OP which was about F52 and not F51 which was a side discussion between us… Fogra 52 is also known as PSO Uncoated v3.

[NB, colourmanagement]

@Stephen Marsh I'm resurrecting an old thread, but that's a good explanation.

So, if I may ask please, how about this situation: Users photo book printer wants CoatedFOGRA39.icc* separations

*[their proofer is set up to F39 (on a high white, but non OBA proof media) - even though they are printing to a high OBA satin media, that’s a separate issue that’s unlikely to change right now].

User discovers that in his underwater images with strong blues, the gamut warning [with destination set toCoatedFOGRA39.icc] is showing far bigger area out of gamut than the same RGB file with destination set to ISOcoated_v2_eci.icc.

Next: testing 2 conversions,

First:  RGB RelCol toCoatedFOGRA39.icc - a significant area of blues picks up magenta tint 

Second:  RGB RelCol toISOcoated_v2_eci.icc - that area of blues looks far nicer and picks up very little to no magenta tint

So, where's -my question here!

- since these 2 ways of separating are supposed to be interchangeable (or if not, how do we have standardisation) . What happens if we give the printer ISOcoated_v2_eci.icc separations when they are asking for CoatedFOGRA39.icc .

Have you tried it? 

His printer also wants greyscale for monochrome images, which I'd say is missing a trick. (i.e. not Rich black) 

Yeah maybe time to find a new printer, furthermore they are not confident in prooeprly matching their inkjet proofs [go figure] and say that final judgement is to be made on wet proofs - all well and good, but at almost £1000 a go.

Of course @D Fosse  is right that one should give the printer what they ask for, but in this case, it's such a shame as doing so compromises the deep blues because they have to be desaturated or tweaked in hue before the conversion to CoatedFOGRA39.icc to avoid the magenta.

I'd appreciate any pointers you can give @Stephen Marsh please

neil barstow colourmanagement - adobe forum volunteer,

[Stephen Marsh]

*[their proofer is set up to F39 (on a high white, but non OBA proof media) - even though they are printing to a high OBA satin media, that’s a separate issue that’s unlikely to change right now].

@NB, colourmanagement 

I usually encounter this sort of mismatch when being asked to set up a proofing profile for a legacy uncoated space such as F47 on an unsuitable matte coated media with strong OBA content. Ideally, the target profile measurements, proof stock and press stock have 'similar' OBA levels.

User discovers that in his underwater images with strong blues, the gamut warning [with destination set toCoatedFOGRA39.icc] is showing far bigger area out of gamut than the same RGB file with destination set to ISOcoated_v2_eci.icc.

Next: testing 2 conversions,

First:  RGB RelCol toCoatedFOGRA39.icc - a significant area of blues picks up magenta tint 

Second:  RGB RelCol toISOcoated_v2_eci.icc - that area of blues looks far nicer and picks up very little to no magenta tint

So, where's -my question here!

- since these 2 ways of separating are supposed to be interchangeable (or if not, how do we have standardisation) . What happens if we give the printer ISOcoated_v2_eci.icc separations when they are asking for CoatedFOGRA39.icc .

Have you tried it? 

Not explicitly, however, I would always go with what delivers a better looking image, backed up by evaluation "by the numbers".

His printer also wants greyscale for monochrome images, which I'd say is missing a trick. (i.e. not Rich black) 

They mustn't be confident of holding neutrals or registration for such printing. One can use a higher GCR profile, or just manually create a grayscale image that has CMY support tints in the three-quarter to shadow tones only.

Of course @D Fosse  is right that one should give the printer what they ask for, but in this case, it's such a shame as doing so compromises the deep blues because they have to be desaturated or tweaked in hue before the conversion to CoatedFOGRA39.icc to avoid the magenta.

I'm not in 100% agreement here. An ICC profile (or other conversion method) is just a means to an end. The end is a set of CMYK values. If the chosen CMYK profile delivers those values, then that is what I would use.

Let me simplify my point of view in this part of the discussion...

We have a solid panel of RGB blue to print in CMYK. The values are 33L 59a -107b.

The printing condition is a type 1 coated offset paper, printed on an offset/litho press.

• ISO Coated v2 (ECI) /ISO Coated v2 300% (ECI) delivers purple, 95c 100m!
• ISO Coated v2 300% (basICColor) delivers blue, 99c 75m (magenta perahaps a little high if playing things safe)
• Coated FOGRA39 from Adobe delivers blue, 92c 73m (magenta perahaps a little high if playing things safe)
• Or I could make up my own blue colour values of 100c 70m

I am pragmatic and interested in results, not dogmatic adhesion to a suggested profile from a vendor that may not know their elbow from their !@#$ when it comes to colour management. Different profiles produce different results, even if they are based on the same characterisation data (more so for out of gamut such as this example)!

If the CMYK values are fit for purpose (TVI, total ink, gray balance), then it doesn't matter how they were produced.

[NB, colourmanagement]

@Stephen Marsh thanks for chipping in, I appreciate it. 

the ink curves are somewhat different between ISOcoated_v2_eci and CoatedFOGRA39 

good old Colorthink 4, much thanks to the fertile brain of Steve Upton.

gamut plots are quite similar - well, virtually identical in Colorthink 

ISOcoated_v2_eci smooth colors and CoatedFOGRA39 as a wireframe

 

appreciate it

neil barstow colourmanagement - adobe forum volunteer,

colourmanagement consultant

[Stephen Marsh]

@Stephen Marsh thanks for chipping in, I appreciate it. 

the ink curves are somewhat different between ISOcoated_v2_eci and CoatedFOGRA39 

.

By @NB, colourmanagement

This simply reflects the different profile generation parameters, yes?

The TVI and gray balance should be pretty much the same, yes?

[NB, colourmanagement]

@Stephen Marsh "This simply reflects the different profile generation parameters, yes?"

correct, the differing recipes for how the inks are mixed, to achieve the same colours, I agree that greybalance should be consistent. You'd hope so, I suppose that since the ISOcoated v2 plot above (on the left) shows a little higher GCR that thatan ISOcoated v2 separation might give a little more stability on press? 

FYI here are the comparative dot gain curves

thanks for giving your perspective on this 

I hope this helps

neil barstow colourmanagement - adobe forum volunteer,

colourmanagement consultant