Comments for Jan-Peter Homann http://www.colormanagement.de on colormanagement for the standardized print production Wed, 08 Sep 2010 15:51:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 Comment on Proofing by homann http://www.colormanagement.de/workflow/proofing/#comment-18 homann Fri, 04 Jun 2010 14:19:48 +0000 http://colormanagement.de/blog/?page_id=18#comment-18 If the proofing system works with optimized devicelink profiles, the vendor should deliver such DeviceLink profiles for every combination of ink/media and printing standard (FOGRA/PSO, GRACoL SWOP...) If the proofing system works only with two independent ICC profiles for the ink / media combination the proofing system may not allows to work with optimized DeviceLink profiles and has not a clear differentiation between profile optimization and calibration. But to be shure, you should contact the vendor/dealer of the proofing system. If the proofing system works with optimized devicelink profiles, the vendor should deliver such DeviceLink profiles for every combination of ink/media and printing standard (FOGRA/PSO, GRACoL SWOP…)
If the proofing system works only with two independent ICC profiles for the ink / media combination the proofing system may not allows to work with optimized DeviceLink profiles and has not a clear differentiation between profile optimization and calibration.
But to be shure, you should contact the vendor/dealer of the proofing system.

]]> Comment on Book Digital Color Management by homann http://www.colormanagement.de/book-digital-color-management/#comment-17 homann Fri, 04 Jun 2010 14:06:08 +0000 http://www.colormanagement.de/?page_id=45#comment-17 To Go Jov, EfI is (now) mentioned with Links to ColorProof XF and the Color Verifier on the start page. Please see also further information on calibration and profile optimization at <a href="http://www.colormanagement.de/workflow/proofing/" rel="nofollow">proofing</a> From my point of view, EfI ColorProof has today not a clear differentiation between calibration and and profile optimization. (This may change in future...) Calibration should be bring the proofer for a defined media / ink combination to a "gold standard" defined by proofing system vendor or by the user. If the proofing vendor delivers devicelink profiles optimized for simulating printing standards like FOGRA / PSO, GRACoL, SWOP on a calibrated system, the user has to do the calibration ONCE (!!) and all printing standard simulations are spot on. The currenty available optimization in Efi Colorproof - so far as I know - has to be done for every combination of printing standard and ink / media combination. If on a proofing system with a semimatte medium three printing standards are simulated, the optimization in EfI Colorproof has to be done for all three combinations. To Go Jov,
EfI is (now) mentioned with Links to ColorProof XF and the Color Verifier on the start page.
Please see also further information on calibration and profile optimization at proofing
From my point of view, EfI ColorProof has today not a clear differentiation between calibration and and profile optimization. (This may change in future…)
Calibration should be bring the proofer for a defined media / ink combination to a “gold standard” defined by proofing system vendor or by the user.
If the proofing vendor delivers devicelink profiles optimized for simulating printing standards like FOGRA / PSO, GRACoL, SWOP on a calibrated system, the user has to do the calibration ONCE (!!) and all printing standard simulations are spot on.
The currenty available optimization in Efi Colorproof - so far as I know - has to be done for every combination of printing standard and ink / media combination.
If on a proofing system with a semimatte medium three printing standards are simulated, the optimization in EfI Colorproof has to be done for all three combinations.

]]> Comment on Proofing by Madhura Mahajan http://www.colormanagement.de/workflow/proofing/#comment-16 Madhura Mahajan Fri, 04 Jun 2010 13:43:51 +0000 http://colormanagement.de/blog/?page_id=18#comment-16 Dear Mr. Hoffman, Hello. We have an Epson Proofer 7900. It has a star proof rip. How do I know whether it is with or without optimised Device Link Profiles and calibrated for PSO or SWOP or GRACol Thanks, Dear Mr. Hoffman,

Hello. We have an Epson Proofer 7900. It has a star proof rip. How do I know whether it is with or without optimised Device Link Profiles and calibrated for PSO or SWOP or GRACol

Thanks,

]]> Comment on Book Digital Color Management by Go Jov http://www.colormanagement.de/book-digital-color-management/#comment-14 Go Jov Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:12:58 +0000 http://www.colormanagement.de/?page_id=45#comment-14 I am surprised, that author of this book never mention EFI. i like to what is reason? I am surprised, that author of this book never mention EFI.
i like to what is reason?

]]> Comment on PDF/X-1a by homann http://www.colormanagement.de/workflow/pdfx-1a/#comment-11 homann Sun, 07 Feb 2010 20:55:22 +0000 http://colormanagement.de/blog/?page_id=13#comment-11 Dear Ecir Hany, The PDF/X-1a:2003 standard is available, through http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=39938 There is no free version. Based on PDF/X-1a are the GWG specs which could be downloaded free at http://www.gwg.org/GWGversion4.phtml If you have any questions concerning the usage of the GWG specs, I recommend the GWG forum at http://forum.gwg.org/ (currently a little bit quiet...) Best regards Jan-Peter Homann Dear Ecir Hany,
The PDF/X-1a:2003 standard is available, through http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=39938

There is no free version. Based on PDF/X-1a are the GWG specs which could be downloaded free at http://www.gwg.org/GWGversion4.phtml

If you have any questions concerning the usage of the GWG specs, I recommend the GWG forum at http://forum.gwg.org/ (currently a little bit quiet…)

Best regards
Jan-Peter Homann

]]> Comment on PDF/X-1a by Ecir Hana http://www.colormanagement.de/workflow/pdfx-1a/#comment-10 Ecir Hana Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:49:27 +0000 http://colormanagement.de/blog/?page_id=13#comment-10 Dear Mr. Homann, please, I have one question - where can I get PDF/X-1a:2003 standard? Do I have to buy it? I'm asking because I can freely get PDF 1.7 reference from Adobe site so I thought it would be possible to obtain the former spec as well. Dear Mr. Homann,

please, I have one question - where can I get PDF/X-1a:2003 standard? Do I have to buy it? I’m asking because I can freely get PDF 1.7 reference from Adobe site so I thought it would be possible to obtain the former spec as well.

]]> Comment on PDF/X-1a by homann http://www.colormanagement.de/workflow/pdfx-1a/#comment-9 homann Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:06:48 +0000 http://colormanagement.de/blog/?page_id=13#comment-9 Hello Jay, With not flattened transparencies in PDF/X-4 I´m critical about following points: - We have currently not a test scenario, to verify, if RIP (which may has Harlequin instaed of Adobe inside) will render all kinds transparencies according the PDF/X-4 specs. - If there is a problem with flattening during PDF/X-1a generation, this could be recognized BEFORE sending the data to the printer. Than, Only the PDF/X-1a file has to be created with new settings avoiding the problem. If PDF/X-4 is delivered, and the problem occureres during the RIP-process, the whole job has to be reprinted. - We currently have no control elements, that transparencies on a proof or a softproof are rendered according the PDF/X-4 specs. Probably using Adobe Creative Suite for creation, PDF/X-4 generation and softproof and Adobe Print Engine for Proofing and CtP will avoid most potential troubles. But in my view, an ISO-Standard like PDF/X should not force users to use software only from one vendor. Hello Jay,
With not flattened transparencies in PDF/X-4 I´m critical about following points:
- We have currently not a test scenario, to verify, if RIP (which may has Harlequin instaed of Adobe inside) will render all kinds transparencies according the PDF/X-4 specs.
- If there is a problem with flattening during PDF/X-1a generation, this could be recognized BEFORE sending the data to the printer. Than, Only the PDF/X-1a file has to be created with new settings avoiding the problem.
If PDF/X-4 is delivered, and the problem occureres during the RIP-process, the whole job has to be reprinted.
- We currently have no control elements, that transparencies on a proof or a softproof are rendered according the PDF/X-4 specs.
Probably using Adobe Creative Suite for creation, PDF/X-4 generation and softproof and Adobe Print Engine for Proofing and CtP will avoid most potential troubles. But in my view, an ISO-Standard like PDF/X should not force users to use software only from one vendor.

]]> Comment on PDF/X-1a by mjryder http://www.colormanagement.de/workflow/pdfx-1a/#comment-8 mjryder Thu, 25 Jun 2009 02:32:39 +0000 http://colormanagement.de/blog/?page_id=13#comment-8 Mr. Homann, I've just received the book and am really excited to dive in. I love the layout and, from my initial perusal, the book seems very practical. In browsing the book, I noticed your vehement stand for PDF/X1a, which I thought was very rational. The thought occurred to me, however, that PDF/X1a requires files to be pre-flattened, and in today's world, where Adobe's PDF Print Engine rules, this struck me as counter to what the PDF Print Engine stands for. Am I misunderstanding the dangers of pre-flattening? or is it just that the benefits of PDF/X-4 etc. are out-weighed, in your mind, by the perils introduced by embedded profiles and mixed colorspace data inherent in the format? Thanks again for another excellent color management resource, Jay Ryder Mr. Homann,

I’ve just received the book and am really excited to dive in. I love the layout and, from my initial perusal, the book seems very practical.

In browsing the book, I noticed your vehement stand for PDF/X1a, which I thought was very rational. The thought occurred to me, however, that PDF/X1a requires files to be pre-flattened, and in today’s world, where Adobe’s PDF Print Engine rules, this struck me as counter to what the PDF Print Engine stands for. Am I misunderstanding the dangers of pre-flattening? or is it just that the benefits of PDF/X-4 etc. are out-weighed, in your mind, by the perils introduced by embedded profiles and mixed colorspace data inherent in the format?

Thanks again for another excellent color management resource,

Jay Ryder

]]> Comment on Book Digital Color Management by Looking for a Color Management Book - Page 2 - PrintPlanet.com http://www.colormanagement.de/book-digital-color-management/#comment-7 Looking for a Color Management Book - Page 2 - PrintPlanet.com Tue, 12 May 2009 21:46:14 +0000 http://www.colormanagement.de/?page_id=45#comment-7 [...] Posted by abccolor ISBN 978-3-540-67119-0 springer.com More info on his book here: Jan-Peter Homann » Book Digital Color Management I'm ordering it too. Regards, [...] [...] Posted by abccolor ISBN 978-3-540-67119-0 springer.com More info on his book here: Jan-Peter Homann » Book Digital Color Management I’m ordering it too. Regards, [...]

]]> Comment on PDF/X-1a by homann http://www.colormanagement.de/workflow/pdfx-1a/#comment-4 homann Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:08:43 +0000 http://colormanagement.de/blog/?page_id=13#comment-4 Hello Michel, You are right, that the situation concerning PDF/X-Ready, PDF/X-3 and PDF/X-1a is currently quite confusing... The current available PDF/X-Ready settings are promoting a CMYK-only workflow for data exchange. Concerning PDF/X, you could either use PDF/X-1a or PDF/X-3 for CMYK-only data exchange. As PDF/X-1a allows only CMYK-objects (and spotcolor), it is in my eyes the better exchange format for CMYKonly workflows than PDF/X-3. An ideal bunch of settings for: - colorsettings in several applications - PDF/X generation - PDF/X preflight would be the current PDF/X-Ready settings with PDF/X-1a instead of PDF/X-3. As the PDF/X-Ready settings are open, an advanced user could edit them for internal usage. As PDF/X-Ready was the first and only organization publishing both settings (color, PDF/X-generation and PDF/X-preflight), they are still a very educative set. Currently, the Ghent PDF working http://www.gwg.org/group is working on integrating standard profiles into the their PDF/X preflight profiles with PDF/X-1a for CMYK only data exchange. I expect this to be the big next step in standardized data creation, -exchange and preflight. Regards Jan-Peter Hello Michel,
You are right, that the situation concerning PDF/X-Ready, PDF/X-3 and PDF/X-1a is currently quite confusing…
The current available PDF/X-Ready settings are promoting a CMYK-only workflow for data exchange. Concerning PDF/X, you could either use PDF/X-1a or PDF/X-3 for CMYK-only data exchange. As PDF/X-1a allows only CMYK-objects (and spotcolor), it is in my eyes the better exchange format for CMYKonly workflows than PDF/X-3.
An ideal bunch of settings for:
- colorsettings in several applications
- PDF/X generation
- PDF/X preflight

would be the current PDF/X-Ready settings with PDF/X-1a instead of PDF/X-3.
As the PDF/X-Ready settings are open, an advanced user could edit them for internal usage.
As PDF/X-Ready was the first and only organization publishing both settings (color, PDF/X-generation and PDF/X-preflight), they are still a very educative set.

Currently, the Ghent PDF working http://www.gwg.org/group is working on integrating standard profiles into the their PDF/X preflight profiles with PDF/X-1a for CMYK only data exchange. I expect this to be the big next step in standardized data creation, -exchange and preflight.

Regards
Jan-Peter

]]>