May
22
Rethinking our use of US Web Coated (SWOP)!
Filed Under Color Basics, Color Management, Digital Imaging, Herbiology, Images in Print, Memo from the Pressroom
If you are one of the millions of folks who assume that we are producing more accurate files for print today and that Adobe’s CS3’s conversion profiles reflect current printing technologies, you might want to think again.
First, realize that the US Web Coated (SWOP) v2 profile is currently used for most of today’s print projects, regardless of whether the job will be printed on a sheet-fed press or a heat-set web. Second, even if this one overused profile really didmeet the needs of every press technology it still only addresses a single paper white point.
What you should realize is that there are three major press technologies at work daily (non-heat-set web, heat-set web, and sheet-fed offset), supplying the world with printed materials. Each of these press technologies employs a different viscosity (thickness) of ink and therefore deliver different volumes of ink to paper. The ubiquitous Web Coated SWOP profile delivers a single volume of ink (about 300% total area coverage). This starves a sheet-fed press and overpowers non-heat-set capabilities. If you ever wondered why the shadow (darkest tones) areas of your photographs print much darker than you expected or even print thin or flat… lacking the punch and contrast you saw in the proof, you may have already been a victim of this one-size-fits-all assumption.
Over the last decade, both paper and press technologies have improved significantly in the area of quality control, ink holdout and press reproduction consistency. In plain English this means that the printing industry has advanced significantly in these three major areas of technology. By using generic conversion profiles like this guarantees that both image depth and detail will be sacrifice for many projects.
Using the dot gain compensation formulas from a decade ago assumes that the printing industry has stood still while all other technical industries have advanced. This is not only an insult to the industry, it may well be the reason that so many print customers see lackluster printed results from their projects
Perhaps we should consider developing conversion profiles that measure actual press paper whiteness. While this seems to be the norm for ink jet and laser printing technologies, designers are provided only two press profiles (heat-set web and sheet-fed) and only two paper finishes (coated and uncoated) for each. This list doesn’t include the numerous grades (whiteness and ability to absorb ink) and thickness available from most printers. All of these factors influence the way your job will print.
My desktop printer lists profiles for eleven different papers. Eleven!. My CMYK conversion profile choices are limited to four which are proposed to address every printing process and paper, (and we typically use only one)
Houston, we have a problem…
Think about it!
©copyright 2008 Herb Paynter
http://www.imageprep.net
Comments
6 Responses to “Rethinking our use of US Web Coated (SWOP)!”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2 reflects a well defined print process (TR001) and is only appropriate IF you output to this well defined process! Users who pick U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2 when they are not sending their jobs to such a press condition is the fault of user (or misunderstanding).
You can consider developing profiles for specific presses, but it be a lot easier for end users of said presses if printers would simply conform to published print specifications like TR001 (then use the U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2 profile) or G7 etc.
There’s no problem that we have eleven different profiles for eleven different papers for a desktop printer because while the inks are the same, the output behavior is different in 11 different ways. What’s great (and what presses and printers need to get hip to) is producing consistent and repeatable behavior defined as these ink jet manufacturers have applied to their little CcMmYKk devices. That is, pop a specific Epson paper into a specific Epson printer and use supplied Epson profile, you get really good output. That’s because the print process is defined and consistent.
I’ve profiled lots and lots of Epson printers, I’ve even built some of the profiles Epson supplies to their end users. The results are very good because the devices are all very consistent among each unit (and lets not forget, we’re talking about tens of thousands of devices, far more than anyone making presses). The deltaE of the professional Epson printers (2400 and up) are tiny, that’s why a canned profile works. Now if only printers could produce the same standard output behavior.
The problem isn’t the Adobe supplied profiles. They are superb. The problem is, few conform to the behavior they reflect. The question is, why? If the SWOP committee or IDE alliance can do this, why can’t other printers?
Its not a technical issue one bit, its all political. Why is the question you should be asking of your fellow printers. Why do so many refuse to conform to standard, published press conditions that would allow users to implement excellent quality conversions with well built, canned profiles by Adobe, IDE alliance and others?
I think it is great that I have profiles for eleven different papers… I need unique profile for ALL my ink jet papers because they all react to ink differently. My statement about this was to agree with the fact that EACH paper (whether ink jet or press) deserves its own profile because each paper has 1) its own white point (which influences all colors, because inks are translucent), and 2) its own absorbency characteristic (because as inks are absorbed into paper fibers their optical color reflectance changes). Because of these facts, a single profile cannot produce the same colors on all papers. What’s true for ink jets is also true for presses.
As you have discovered, theoretical science and real world printing physics don’t always agree. You can’t assume that most printers (the other than the “few” you mention) are either ignorant or stubborn. Having been a pressman for nearly a decade, I understand that the reason printers aren’t climbing all over this. It just ain’t quite as simple and sanitary as some would believe.
Printers are in business to make money, pure and simple. If all their color ills could be cured by adopting to and promoting the TR001 process, they’d convert (themselves and their clients) overnight. It’s not politics, it’s practicality.
“Printers are in business to make money, pure and simple. If all their color ills could be cured by adopting to and promoting the TR001 process, they’d convert (themselves and their clients) overnight. It’s not politics, it’s practicality.”
What’s impractical about aiming for print “standards”? If a printer will not, why don’t they simply profile their process, keep the printing conditions repeatable and supply customers with profiles?
What’s the difference in terms of keeping a process either standardized or consistent on a press or an Epson 3800?
“why don’t they simply profile their process, keep the printing conditions repeatable and supply customers with profiles?”
Precisely the solution I have been proposing all along.
Unfortunately, printers have been absent from the program for whatever reason. My personal belief is that given the great disparagement of whiteness/brightness shades (grades of every paper type), individual printers MUST keep very strict process controls, learn to profile their own stocks (as they vary significantly in ?E from lot to lot), and then pass them back to their customers.
Perhaps the only issue we aren’t agreeing on is that neither TR001 nor SWOP v2 address individual paper white points. Or, am I missing something?
My mission here is to get the printer onboard, playing his part, and doing his own homework.
“Perhaps the only issue we aren’t agreeing on is that neither TR001 nor SWOP v2 address individual paper white points. Or, am I missing something?”
Pretty sure they do!
Viscosity Standards…
…