Re: Correct for a laminate finish

We film laminate 98% of everything we print and I have also set up a prelam
and post lam setup as described. One thing that I will add is that the
change or gain that occurs is not a linear change. You can profile for it
but there will most definitely be outliers. Here is what happens...

Lets say you have a rosette pattern under lamination for a particular 4c
build. 50C 10M and 13Y are the numbers you get when you read it with a
spectro. Now  lets change just the yellow to 18% and leave the rest
unchanged. You would now get a reading of 47C 12M and 18Y. So you would ask
yourself "why would the other two colors change when I only changed the
yellow?" Near as I can figure its simple color theory in action as the light
from the different dots is refracting off of the film and cancels or
amplifies the dot that is next to it. The combinations are almost endless.

Straight profiling will work fine in most instances and you would probably
never notice the outliers in photographs but they really stick out like a
sore thumb when the majority of your work is 4c vector builds.

We only print on 100# text that is a #1 sheet and our press is essentially
in a laboratory setting so we can keep things very consistent. Because of
this I profile the press with a chart with 2052 patches on it to try to
shorten the gaps for outliers. Although we don't use it, I have also found
that a very fine stochastic screening greatly minimizes the shift caused by
the film.

The subject of adding high amounts of optical brighteners to this equation
could take up an entire thread by its self. It is a huge variable that is
not consistent coming from the paper manufacturers.

Just my $.02

Jonathan Crook
Director of Color Management
Corporate Image
www.corp-image.com
800.247.8194



On 7/31/09 1:22 AM, "Rick Gordon" <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> And for good measure, make your intentions clear in writing. "The proof looks
> bad by intention, because if you hit that, it will look good after lamination.
> Please match the proof, and don't 'compensate' to make the print output look
> 'better.' "
> 
> Rick Gordon
> 
> ------------------
> 
> On 7/30/09 at 9:53 PM -0400, Roger wrote in a message entitled
> "Re: Correct for a laminate finish":
> 
>> Thank's Terry and Derek,
>> 
>> I think the technique is starting to take shape in my head.
>> 
>> So, first, convert from GRACoL2006_C1 to LaminateProfile (relCol or
>> Perceptual). Then, proof the results using the regular GRACoL2006_C1 MX4
>> workflow. The proof will look ugly as hell but as long as the pressman hits
>> the proof, then, subsequently, when the sheet gets laminated, everything
>> will be hunky dory, right?
>> 
>> You guys are great -- I owe you a drink at the next CMS conference ;-)
>> 
>> Speaking of iCColor, using the GMG RIP on good-ole SemiMatte 250, this is
>> still the instrument that gives me the lowest deltaE average out of
>> iterating with either the Spectroscan, the iO table, the DTP70 and, possibly
>> the iSis.
>> 
>> BTW, would anyone know how to make the iSis XL swallow a standard random
>> ECI2002?

-- 
Jonathan Crook
Director of Color Management
Corporate Image
www.corp-image.com
800.247.8194

 _______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list      (Colorsync-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/maillists%40codeha.us

This email sent to maillists@xxxxxxxxx