Different color profiles for different clients

Started by baker7, May 16, 2016, 10:47:49 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

DCurry

Quote from: baker7 on May 31, 2016, 11:10:57 AMLooks like I've been just freaking out about linear plate for nothing.  I feel dumb blaming my boss and the color guy.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm strictly speaking about the "out-of-the-box" output of the platemaker when I say it doesn't need to be linear. If you are applying a wild linearization curve and then compounding it with another curve on top to compensate for the press, then that could be problematic.
Prinect • Signa Station • XMPie

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night. But set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life!

Ear

Originally, he was talking about color matching and stuff that requires press checks, etc... in which case, you need to be linear and calibrated.

If you aren't trying to print very high quality... just shooting for pleasing color, then you're right, it doesn't matter. 
"... profile says he's a seven-foot tall ex-basketball pro, Hindu guru drag queen alien." ~Jet Black

DCurry

You do not need to be linear, and quality level has no bearing. You only need to ensure that your CTP outputs consistently and predictably, then you put your press curve on. The downside of not being linear is that if you change plates or chemistry or anything you have to re-build all your press curves, whereas if you make it linear first you only have to get back to linear and your existing press curves will still perform as they did before the change.

This has been discussed rather extensively (and convincingly, I might add) by Gordon Pritchard over on the dark side.
Prinect • Signa Station • XMPie

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night. But set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life!

Farabomb

I'm with Dan on this one. Yes, when it's linear switching plates is a simple process. If you are not then you have to match your existing output. That's a bit harder but possible. The quality is on your pressman and the press.
Speed doesn't kill, rapidly becoming stationary is the problem

I'd rather have stories told than be telling stories of what I could have done.

Quote from: Ear on April 06, 2016, 11:54:16 AM
Quote from: Farabomb on April 06, 2016, 11:39:41 AMIt's more like grip, grip, grip, noise, then spin and 2 feet in and feel shame.
I once knew a plus-sized girl and this pretty much describes teh secks. :rotf:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
         —Benjamin Franklin

My other job

Joe

Quote from: DCurry on June 01, 2016, 06:13:12 AMYou do not need to be linear, and quality level has no bearing. You only need to ensure that your CTP outputs consistently and predictably, then you put your press curve on. The downside of not being linear is that if you change plates or chemistry or anything you have to re-build all your press curves, whereas if you make it linear first you only have to get back to linear and your existing press curves will still perform as they did before the change.

This has been discussed rather extensively (and convincingly, I might add) by Gordon Pritchard over on the dark side.

I still prefer to be linear before I start making my print curves no matter what Gordon says. Making a plate linear is one of the easiest things to do so it isn't like climbing Mt. Everest to get there. Does it have to be linear? No. Do I want it to be linear? Yes.
Mac OS Sonoma 14.2.1 (c) | (retired)

The seven ages of man: spills, drills, thrills, bills, ills, pills and wills.

Ear

I'm with Joe on this one. Especially when calibrating multiple presses to each other. Soooo much easier starting linear and applying the characterization curve on top of a linear plate. I get what Curry is saying and agree to a point, but why would you calibrate anything without establishing a baseline first. I would rather do it the right way than just get away with it.

I can tune my guitar strings to one another and the chords will work... but unless I tune the first one to the actual note wavelength (linear), then I will not play well with others. Same theory here... calibrating 5 presses, 2 proofers and a digital... pretty nice to start linear.
"... profile says he's a seven-foot tall ex-basketball pro, Hindu guru drag queen alien." ~Jet Black

DCurry

Quote from: Ear on June 01, 2016, 01:43:16 PM...but why would you calibrate anything without establishing a baseline first. I would rather do it the right way than just get away with it.

I'm not advocating one way over the other - just acknowledging that there are 2 methods to achieve the same result. The baseline is already established when I noted that you must have a consistent, repeatable output from the device. It doesn't really matter if this baseline is linear or not, just as long as it is the same every time.

I take exception to the comment that linearizing is the "right" way. It's a right way, and you will get identical results whether you linearize or not (you'll just have a different press curve).

As previously noted, I do agree that if you have lots of presses and substrates to account for, then linearization can make it easier.

I disagree with the guitar metaphor, because the desired output on press is still the target no matter which method is used.
Prinect • Signa Station • XMPie

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night. But set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life!

Nate

Quote from: DCurry on June 02, 2016, 06:39:14 AMThe baseline is already established when I noted that you must have a consistent, repeatable output from the device. It doesn't really matter if this baseline is linear or not, just as long as it is the same every time.
This is really the crux of the argument, and the reason I currently agree with both Joe and Dan.

Your plates don't have to be linear as long as they're consistent. That said, it's easiest to maintain consistency if they've been linearized. If anything changes all you have to do is re-linearize your plates rather than tie up the press all day doing calibration runs to build and verify new press curves.

Of course easiest isn't always best, and I understand there are situations where linearizing first can cause problems. Dan, do you know any examples of problems that this can cause? The only potential problem I can imagine would be banding--and if that's true (and if that's the only potential problem) that would be something to watch for to determine wether your process is better suited to linearizing or not.

I also agree that the guitar analogy doesn't quite fit--that might be more appropriate as an analogy for printing standards like SWOP and GRACoL. Printing standards are like guitar tunings in that one guitar can be in tune with itself, but it has to be tuned to a standard in order to play well with others.

Joe

Mac OS Sonoma 14.2.1 (c) | (retired)

The seven ages of man: spills, drills, thrills, bills, ills, pills and wills.

Nate

Applying one curve on top of another can cause banding. The same thing happens if you apply multiple curves to an image in photoshop. I've attached a Photoshop PDF to demonstrate this.

Farabomb

Interesting, I believe I read something about that in the past but since it never came up I forgot.
Speed doesn't kill, rapidly becoming stationary is the problem

I'd rather have stories told than be telling stories of what I could have done.

Quote from: Ear on April 06, 2016, 11:54:16 AM
Quote from: Farabomb on April 06, 2016, 11:39:41 AMIt's more like grip, grip, grip, noise, then spin and 2 feet in and feel shame.
I once knew a plus-sized girl and this pretty much describes teh secks. :rotf:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
         —Benjamin Franklin

My other job

Ear

Linearization and Characterization aren't really applying multiple curves. The linearization just sets the plate to 50=50, 25=25, etc... The Characterization is the press curve. The workflow is a bit more robust than Photoshop and a characterization on top of a linear plate doesn't cause banding.

And if you change a diode, plate brand, chemistry or some other parameter of your platesetter changes, you can just go re-linearize and know your characterization will be exactly the same, for all plates. Otherwise you're a little in the dark... unless you wrote down the values of your non-linear plate, at which point you are halfway there on a linearization. This is how I have done it every time we get a new platesetter or change brands and it makes the recalibration real slick. :cool:
"... profile says he's a seven-foot tall ex-basketball pro, Hindu guru drag queen alien." ~Jet Black

Joe

Quote from: Nate on June 02, 2016, 10:39:55 AMApplying one curve on top of another can cause banding. The same thing happens if you apply multiple curves to an image in photoshop. I've attached a Photoshop PDF to demonstrate this.

Hmmm...never seen that happen before.
Mac OS Sonoma 14.2.1 (c) | (retired)

The seven ages of man: spills, drills, thrills, bills, ills, pills and wills.

Ear

I just gotta say, this is turning into a good thread. We don't get hot technical topics like this enough, anymore.

Good point/counter point, everyone. Very much enjoying it.

... and you're right about the guitar metaphor, Dan... but really, I'm a bass player, so I'm always trying to establish a bassline.
"... profile says he's a seven-foot tall ex-basketball pro, Hindu guru drag queen alien." ~Jet Black

DCurry

Just remember - you can't spell "bass" without "ass"! ;)
Prinect • Signa Station • XMPie

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night. But set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life!