Macbooks,monitors and PP for press

[neils]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I know this is sort of off topic but there are many people here who use the same computer setup I do and the experience here is deep.

 

There are plenty of people here who shoot for reproduction, images that they themselves may never print but get printed by presses for book, magazine etc.

 

So in the end the real question here is how much do you depend on what you see on your monitor, maybe RGB or CMYK values, in your images before they go off for reproduction.

 

And I have that question because I am shooting an offbeat parody cookbook. We are delivering a ready to go to press product to our publisher. Info about the press and what I need to do if anything to the RAW files is like pulling teeth. I was just told to make my adjustments and that press proof would be made.

 

I have been opening RAW files, making whatever few adjustments I need, capture sharpening only and making print for myself for reference while saving as a tiff before making a CMYK version for the printer.

 

I use a Macbook Pro 15" and print with Epson ICC profiles out to a 2200 printer. Yesterday I got a 23" Cinema display. Wonderful!! Both the book and the 23" have been profiled with a Spyder@pro. Images printed while doing PP on the 15" monitor very much match the 15" monitor. Images made using the 23" for reference are darker and a little muddy compared to the screen. So here in this case the 23" monitor looks fantastic and the print doesn't.

 

This is a whole other problem and while an easy answer (profile the printer?) it can be dealt with later.

 

Now that you have the backround info the question is what are you guys doing in this situation. Doing PP work on a calibrated (or not) monitor and then sending it/delivering files for press? Every monitor is different as are computers, viewing/PP lighting condtions etc. So you just get it so it looks good to you and then let the press people deal with it?

 

Is anyone out there got a real close match between their 'book monitors and the big monitors back at the studio? The 23 is almost too good!

 

Thanks for reading

 

Neil

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[orjanf]

FWIW

While you're waiting for replies from the pros.

I have the same setup except 30" cinema and find that using proof view in photoshop with 2200 profile comes close to the prints. The monitor brightness must be set lower than half way on the bar scale on mine.

[neils]

Thanks for the reply. So you have the backlight control on the side of the 30" Cinema turned down about halfway? Have you set it that way to match just off the cuff or did you also use a calibration tool? The 4 white patches are always visible even when turned up full in my case so supposidly even full is correct.

 

I just did another run with the Sypder. Overhead light off this time and the backlight on the 23" turned down two "touches" of the setting button. It is now closer to the "book".

 

Now to print. Thanks for your info.

 

Neil

[gmaurizio]

I am not sure if I understand your question. If you are in the US, and are going to use an offset press for printing a book, and assuming you have indeed successfully calibrated your monitors... then you can perfectly well color correct your raw or jpg files for the press.

Just make sure you work in AdobeRGB or similarly 'smaller' RGB color space. Once you are ok with your adjustments, then open in photoshop and use North America Prepress Sheetfed Coated V2 as proof profile. Check your out of gamut colors and either desaturate or slightly manipulate until both match. DO NOT CONVERT YET!

Make sure your print press gives you the Ink Limits, dot size and other pertinent options, like the deepest black they can generate (usually something like 30C100K). Do not even try to get them to give you an ICC profile, offset does not work like that with VERY few exceptions.

Once you get those items (typical values are ink limits 300% --the maximum amount of ink the paper tolerates-- and dot size 20% --how dots will spread generating a darker image--), use photoshop CMYK custom options to make your own. Suggest going for high or max black generation, UCA 20%.

Reproof using your newly ICC profile. Then generate a couple of images, one with US V2 and the other with your profile in CMYK. Ask the printer to run a proof and make sure they get the press to speed and adjust the inks properly. Make your choice and voila! you are good to go.

Good luck

[neils]

Gus thanks. You touch on some of the problems I'm having. I have no press info at all. PS is set to US prepress defaults. I don't know paper type/screen anything. I ask and I get told to just go ahead, do my thing. I need more info OR I need to do less to take these images away from rescue by the press operators. I understand about ink limits a bit from newspaper days when we went color. Setting PS to newsprint paper made a huge difference.

 

It will be glossy or fairly glossy paper. What would a good quality magazine be printed at as far as screen size, 150lpi?

 

But let me ask you this, Do you trust your calibrated monitor to deliver what the press people need? If you knew as little as I do about how the final output will be would you go by your calibrated monitor?

 

This must happen all the time. You're (not you per say) in a studio or on location. Maybe a PJ on a location somewhere. You edit, you tweek and send off. You gotta put alot of faith in the people on the other end with the press.

 

Right now I have 2 monitors, both profiled. The 23" ought to be my standard to work by I'd expect. They are close in how they look now but what I print isn't what I see on screen. I'm just looking for others experience and feelings on what to trust.

 

Thanks

 

Neil

[robertwright]

in my experience of the 2200 the epson profiles were not too good, the fact that you could get a good match to your macbook seems more luck than accuracy. I would trust the 23" profiled monitor more. You said you have it turned down 2 notches, that might be a tad bright, using the xrite system we get a good calibration for "moderate" interior lighting with the monitor turned down 4 notches. Of course ymmv.

 

I think what the printer is telling you is that he will adjust his/her press during the run and not to worry too much, this is the way press has been done for a long time. The idea of colour management begins to break down in the real world of running multiple jobs with different requirements under deadlines and trying to save money.

 

you may be better off sending them adobe rgb 98 and let them do their own cymk conversions, they know what they can deal with rather than you squashing it down to cymk to begin with and them altering it further. And they said they will give you a proof, so you have a chance to make alterations.

 

I think what is going on is the new display is altering how you see your work (higher contrast, brightness, size) and this is disconcerting. Like going from looking at crts to lcds, it can be jarring. If you have profiled, you are well ahead of the game. The 2200 prints don't really indicate anything if the epson is not profiled.

[orjanf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Have you set it that way to match just off the cuff or did you also use a calibration tool?

I set it down before running the calibration (Spyder/Photocal). Should mention I also used gamma 2.2

The software Photocal is not very good on the cinema screens and there appears to be an element of luck involved, but, since my photos are not published, I am happy if the screen matches the printer

[okram]

Photographer should only deal with RGB.

There are people whos job is to convert to CMYK. This is the process of throwing away color information, and it can only be done by somebody who knows the print (where the files are going to) , and presumably have custom profiles from there.

Think of it as giving them slides.

Perhaps you can only see how would it look in CMYK, but DTP expect you to give them RGB.

[punktum]

Don´t trust the monitor of the MacBooks. I´ve calibrated the MacBook as well as my Eizo CG210 (allows hardware calibration). Both are profiled with Gretag devices. The images shown at the MacBook are still different from the Eizo. What I see at the Eizo is how it is printed. You should look for a Monitor with hardware calibration.

[neils]

Thanks for all the replies. I have more to add and ask but off to work now where I have little access to this forum.

 

Yes CRT-LCD-Cinema, all big changes in viewing quality as I go up the food chain.

 

I am currently 6500K and 2.2 gamma settings. Both of these are suggested by Spyder (maybe a litttle warmer for my viewing condition would be better) and also Scott Kelby whose PS and LR books are very well done and easy to quickly learn from suggests these numbers even on a MAC.

 

This might be a Spyder only thing but where to set brightness you look at 4 patches of white to set brightness it never gets so bright I can't see 4. Spyder even suggest leaving it at the default. The 23 was set full bright out of the box, default full bright?

 

I use the 2200 profiles from the Epson web site and not what came with the 2200 in the box.

 

Sure was easier to send in chromes wasn't it.

 

Off to work now. Thanks

 

Neil

[ChrisC]

Neil - You have had advice from some good advisers. My take is that not only your monitor needs it's own custom profile, but your 2200/ink/paper combo needs a custom profile to give the best reassurance of what your files colours are doing [albeit in a colour space approximating Adobe RGB]. In many ways you are on a hiding to nothing speculating from your monitor what the CMYK prints will look like, with good press printers I agree that it shouldn't be your job to do the CMYK generic conversion from your RGB files. The conversion should be done by a good operator who knows their machine/inks/paper, but life isn't perfect and the truth is that once a file leaves your hands you can't control whether or not sticky little fingers will work on it to it's detriment.

 

In your shoes I would take care [as you outlined] to output well balanced files in ARGB, and provide that to your client with [if you wish] generic CMYK conversions. I would hope that good printers would prefer to do the conversion themselves; ask the printer.

 

I recall that Michael Reichman wrote an interesting article a while back for Luminous Landscape for people wanting to use the Proof Setup in Photoshop, and their inkjet printers for simulating CMYK press proofs. Also, Ian Lyons writes well on all things mind boggling in the wacky voodoo world of colour management:

 

http://www.computer-darkroom.com/home.htm

 

Good luck.

 

................. Chris

[ptruman]

It took me ages to resolve a similar problem with the 15 inch MacBook Pro and 23 inch monitor - I had fantastic looking images on the large screen but they printed too dark and muddy. The solution was to turn the brightness down significantly but gamma of 2.2 and white point of 6500 are fine. I use the Spyder2 puck but with ColorEyes Display Pro version 1.3 - this is able to set the brightness of the 23 inch display. The default of 140cd/m2 was too bright and I ended up at 110cd/m2. Results are now perfect from either screen to my printer (a HP9180).

 

I doubt you will need a custom profile for the screen, just turn it down. I hope you manage to get it set correctly as I spent hours, lots of frustration and lots of paper trying to get it right until I sat down and thought it through.

[Printmaker]

Neil

 

The standard Photoshop CMYK SWOP conversion results in files that will print reasonably well on most presses. However, many short run books are printed sheetfed and would benifit from using US Sheetfed V2. The major difference between the two is in the dot gain which yields lighter or darker midtones and 3/4 tones.

If your printer can provide you with a custom profile for their press/paper, you will be miles ahead. This will make a huge difference when printing neutral CMYK black and whites as well as the sparkel and pop of the colors.

On your end, just calibrate your monitor and load the color conversion/printer profiles into Photoshop. Then use them. Lay out in InDesign or Quark and make PDFs. Proof your PDF files using your Epson. You can make a so-so RIP by opening your PDFs in Photoshop and printing them. Be sure to tell the customer and printer that the proofs are just guides and are not color accurate. To get exactly color accurate proofs will require a good postscript RIP and (probably) a 3800-9880 printer. Unless you are in the business, its probably not worth the bother. Most good printers will pull their own proofs anyway.

The most important thing is to talk to your printer. If they don't understand what you are talking about or cannot provide you with a profile or help with your RGB/CMYK conversions, then you might think about using a different printer. I use Magnum Offset in Hong Kong for most of my books - alice@magnumoffset.com.hk - Another good book printer is Thompson Shore in Michigan - http://www.tshore.com.

 

Good Luck

 

Tom

[woodyspedden]

I know this is sort of off topic but there are many people here who use the same computer setup I do and the experience here is deep.

 

There are plenty of people here who shoot for reproduction, images that they themselves may never print but get printed by presses for book, magazine etc.

 

So in the end the real question here is how much do you depend on what you see on your monitor, maybe RGB or CMYK values, in your images before they go off for reproduction.

 

And I have that question because I am shooting an offbeat parody cookbook. We are delivering a ready to go to press product to our publisher. Info about the press and what I need to do if anything to the RAW files is like pulling teeth. I was just told to make my adjustments and that press proof would be made.

 

I have been opening RAW files, making whatever few adjustments I need, capture sharpening only and making print for myself for reference while saving as a tiff before making a CMYK version for the printer.

 

I use a Macbook Pro 15" and print with Epson ICC profiles out to a 2200 printer. Yesterday I got a 23" Cinema display. Wonderful!! Both the book and the 23" have been profiled with a Spyder@pro. Images printed while doing PP on the 15" monitor very much match the 15" monitor. Images made using the 23" for reference are darker and a little muddy compared to the screen. So here in this case the 23" monitor looks fantastic and the print doesn't.

 

This is a whole other problem and while an easy answer (profile the printer?) it can be dealt with later.

 

Now that you have the backround info the question is what are you guys doing in this situation. Doing PP work on a calibrated (or not) monitor and then sending it/delivering files for press? Every monitor is different as are computers, viewing/PP lighting condtions etc. So you just get it so it looks good to you and then let the press people deal with it?

 

Is anyone out there got a real close match between their 'book monitors and the big monitors back at the studio? The 23 is almost too good!

 

Thanks for reading

 

Neil

Neils

 

Sad to say but the 2200 may be Epsons worst of all time! Black and White is worse than color but the inkset used in that printer is just no bloody good. The 2400 is way better and the 3800 best of all the photo quality printers. Then of course there are the big boys i.e. the 4880,7880, and now even the 11880 which can go to 64 inch widths.

 

I think if possible you should get access to a 2400 and see what it can do for you. You can (and I did) waste loads of time building custom profiles for the 2200 and still end up greatly dissatisfied with the results. I have no affiliation with Epson and no intention to shill their products.

 

Good luck

Woody Spedden

[neils]

There's been lots of good advice here. I'm going to ask the designer or suggest strongly that we do not so the CMYK conversions. This isn't a small publisher. This a a group called "Grand Central Publishing". They are part of Hatchett (sp) group who are huge and also just published Steven Colbert's book I believe is called "I'm an American and you can too".

 

So let them do the conversions. I'll plod along getting the 23" set right. I'll make more prints, dim the 23 if I need and try again. As someone else mentioned I was struck, I love the term "gobsmacked" so I'll use it. I was gobsmacked over the 23" after using the 'book. I thought the book was hot after my eMac.

 

A 3800 is on the wishlist. This book shoot is buying a Nikon D3 body (and the 23 I already got) not a printer. Printer and stuff can come later. Uh the mortgage is good too for spending.

 

The 2200 ain't too bad really for its day. With the right RIP (QTR) it does very nice B&W with very reliable OE inks. I've tried 3rd party ink sets and while nice they just don't always work when you want. A friend just got a 3800 I really want to try.

 

So I have good tips and I appreciate them all.

 

Neil

[nryn]

Gotta disagree with you, Woody. I get absolutely fantastic prints out of my Epson 2200. The 2400 does have marginally better B/W prints but not better enough for me to justify an upgrade. And yeah, having come from high-end offset print design, I'm picky.

 

Epson 2200, Enhanced Matte paper, Epson inks, Eye-One display calibration. Took me a day, a set of inks, and half a pack of paper to get right, but the results have never been disappointing or suprising.

[gmaurizio]

It will be glossy or fairly glossy paper. What would a good quality magazine be printed at as far as screen size, 150lpi?

 

150 up to 175 lpi are just fine for magazines. No need for more. Your resolution should double the LPI, so a 300 dpi CMYK file will do good and a 360 dpi will do better. No need to push further.

 

But let me ask you this, Do you trust your calibrated monitor to deliver what the press people need? If you knew as little as I do about how the final output will be would you go by your calibrated monitor?

Your calibrated monitor is more than what prepress operators need or even use. I really do not understand how the calibration of the monitor impacts what you have to do. Your 23 or 30 inch apple is SWOP certified, so it should cover the gamut of the press. As long as you have your monitor calibrated (I would suggest 5000K L*, spyder might not be good enough, try ColorEyes Display Pro), you can adequately proof your files, color of paper not whitstanding.

The problem is the amount of ink. If your press runs at 300% limit 20% dot size, it is completely different than 360% 15%. They MUST GIVE YOU THIS INFORMATION. Do not let prepress bully you. Call the press manager and make sure they do give you this info.

Once you have this, download a demo for Flexcolor from the Hasselblad site. They have the BEST CMYK profiles ever, done after working years with fashion magazines worldwide, and they have one for each ink-limit dot size.

If you are not sure, use 280% ink limits and 20% dot size and you will play safe. Maybe extremely saturated reds, oranges and blues will loose some punch, but it will take a trained eye to notice.

 

This must happen all the time. You're (not you per say) in a studio or on location. Maybe a PJ on a location somewhere. You edit, you tweek and send off. You gotta put alot of faith in the people on the other end with the press.

Right now I have 2 monitors, both profiled. The 23" ought to be my standard to work by I'd expect. They are close in how they look now but what I print isn't what I see on screen. I'm just looking for others experience and feelings on what to trust.

 

Never, ever, trust pre-press to do a good job. They are on the run, always under pressure, and could not care less about your work. Get the Hasselblad profile and live happily, even if your monitor is not profiled perfectly. If your out of gamut is more than 10%, use perceptual, if not, go with rel-colorimetric.

Let me know how it goes...

G

[neils]

Gus

 

Why do you suggest 5000K for monitors? I have read to set monitors to 6500K but my old reliable Macbeth light box is 5000K so I also at first a few years ago always set 5000K. Old school thoughts?. The Spyder readme suggests to set the monitor to lower than 6500K as the light you work in gets lower in intensity. In very dim light they'd want me to set to 5000K.

 

If the monitor wasn't calibrated at all 6500K is creaming white and COLD. Right now the monitor and the prints are very very close with the current profile and the brightness of the 23 turned down 4 taps of the "-" button.

 

Neil

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[gmaurizio]

Most prepress environments work with 5000k adjusted lamps, as well as proofers and editors. When they run the press up to speed and adjust ink settings, they will look under a 5000K lamp. You want to make sure you work similar to them. Most readers of books will read at tungsten or similar red shifted lighting, so working with 6500 might be a tad too much.

Kind of old school...

I would set the brigthness level slider just under the B of brightness.

[Printmaker]

Never, ever, trust pre-press to do a good job. They are on the run, always under pressure, and could not care less about your work.

G

 

Now, now, that's just not true. In a quality print shop everybody gives your work close attention. Everything is checked and double checked. The prepress person inspects your files to make sure there are no problems. (90% of the time there are problems). Then the prepress person paginates and proofs. You must sign off on those proofs. Then the prepress foreman signs off on the prepress work only when he or she is satisfied there will be no problems on press. Then the press room must sign off on the press sheets showing that the print job matches the proofs. You have three of four signatures on the press sheets and proofs making sure that the job is right. If the job does not match the proof you signed off on, someone could loose their job - especially if the shop has to eat the books.

 

Now it has been a few years since I've run a color separation/comp neg/prepress shop and even longer since I've run a press but working now as a designer, photographer and fine art printmaker, I still deal with printing professionals and they tend to know more about the mechanics of photography and design than photographers and designers. Myself included. Even after 40 years in the business, I still ask their advice because they know what works best in their shop and on their machines. So don't bash them. Its their job to make you look good.

 

(Getting on my soapbox...) I think every commercial photographer and print designer should spend a year or two in a highend printshop learning the process. My own 5 year camera/color sep/strip/plate/press/bindery appreticeship taught me more that the 5 years that followed in an ad agency. And made a foundation for the 30 years that followed reproducing fine art.

(Okay off my box...)

 

Tom