client-supplied colour proofs giving me a headache

[andyfest]

Our proofing system is based on EFI's old Bestcolour software . An actual printed master calibration sheet from our press, using an set pattern of EFI colour swatches is read with a ph-spec to form a profile that takes into account the actual colour of the board substrate. The Epson 10600 plotter requires minor tweaks once in a while but has been pretty accurate to the press in CMYK areas. Spot colours are not press-accurate and are for colour break only. Lately, we have been getting more client-supplied colour proofs that they claim are colour accurate. I'm guessing that someone has set up a G7 profile for them, but I can't say for sure. Bottom line is that we are calibrated to our specific presses using standard CMYK densities and not a G7 standard and our proofs do not match their proofs. It's beginning to cause some friction as this client wants our proofs to match theirs. I've just been stapling their supplied proof to ours and letting the press know to match their proof as close as they can, but my gut feeling is that something has to change, probably at our end. Has anyone been through this before and can share the experience and possible solutions?

[frailer]

We've kinda ducked that here, temporarily, at least. Our presses are very close to the ISO standard being taken up here, which is almost the same as EuroScale Coated v2.  We had an agency proof recently which was done to the ISO, and which we were supposed to match, in an included ad for one of our pograms. It was an impromtu test, which we were able to pass. This demand could ramp up anytime, i which case I'd call on the Fuji guy (our Black Magic is via Fuji, which helps), to counsel us on it.
Yep, you may need to do some research on it. If there's a standard that's being adopted for Canada, you may need to try and get to that, and then let the client have to go to that. but you'd have to have 'market adoption' on your side.

[WharfRat]

Tell them you will not consider matching their proofs, rather than your proofs,
if they do not have calibration patches and G7 verification printed on the proof.

MSD

[andyfest]

I have applied for a new proofing system - a Fuji supplied Epson 9900 driven by Oris software - 3 times in the past 5 years, but to no avail. The corporation just doesn't want to spend any money in prepress. On a positive note, this situation may drive the need for the expenditure. On the negative side, I think I'm getting too old for this shit. 

[beermonster]

depending on your type of print can make a large difference. if you are simulating say a substrate colour with varnish then your proof will be more accurate. even if theirs is to G7, G59squillion or whatever, with no accurate media simulation their proof is merely very accurate to the substrate it's printed on - they may need to know/understand this 

in my packaging days our varnishes/sealers could look very yellow and with the boards no being such a bright white there were always proof issues to a degree

we did try varnish/board simulation on the digital cromalin and it was ok-ish

i've seen it work better through a GMG system on an epson wt and another epson (cant remember model), but a supplied proof is a: not profiled to your presses (i get the argument there are other ways), and B: not off your printer

my argument was always lets proof it from the actual output device on the media.....

wht i will say though - may or may not be relevant - i was at GMG HQ UK (wow) last year trialling a roland uv systems print and cut. if you happen to be packaging it gets good here - you print your carton/bottle/whatever on the substrate the final run is on because they will take media up to about a mil thick rigid or flexible.

run a GMG in front after media profiling and then cut the print when it's done on the machine - there you go one pretty good proof on the same media

there are white inks and even a varnish to simulate spot UV etc etc

[Greg_Firestone]

Outside of density, paper is going to make a difference as well.

Could you provide him an custom ICC profile that's calibrated for your press so when he generates his own proof he can simulate your press gamut?

Greg

[Farabomb]

I never understood why people think just becasue you call it a proof makes it one. A proof is to represent, as close as possible, what you are going to put down on the press sheet. If you get approval from your customer with something you printed out on your own and called it a proof then if it doesn't match, that's on you. If your customer is that color critical get a proof from the printer.

[David]

We match clients proofs all the time.
We send them our patch profile (a .tiff file) to output on their proofer.
We will read that in on out iSiS and get a .icc profile of their proofer. We then convert or manage the color from our space (our .icc) to their space (.icc) for proofing purposes. When we go to press, we then go from their space to our press space.
Works pretty well, sometimes we add a curve, depending on the job stock.

[andyfest]

We match clients proofs all the time.
We send them our patch profile (a .tiff file) to output on their proofer.
We will read that in on out iSiS and get a .icc profile of their proofer. We then convert or manage the color from our space (our .icc) to their space (.icc) for proofing purposes. When we go to press, we then go from their space to our press space.
Works pretty well, sometimes we add a curve, depending on the job stock.

I was thinking along those lines. If it comes down to it, I could provide them with our calibration file and have them print it out on their proofing device, read the patches in to our BestRIP and come up with a new profile, then print out on our plotter using the whitepoint reference of our stock. It might work, but I'm waiting for feedback from the pukes first...

[David]

that's really the only true way to move between spaces.

It's worked really well for us.
We can and do edit the .icc profiles to balance out for the press gain and the stock, but that is really very seldom.