Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I was on the phone with my  very experienced printer dude. He said that we have inconsistency in colour values. My situation: I create documents for different types of carrier media - mostly coated or uncoated papers. How do I make sure that a certain blue is the same as close as possible on coated as on uncoated paper? The guy from the printershop says that the PDF made in Affinity designer with CoatedFOGRA (CF) 39 has quite different CMYK values than my original file - a certain blue tone has 6% more yellow than the uncoated version which leads to a really different kind of blue.

It is kinda hard to explain in English - (even in German it's not easy for me),. I create a Document in CMYK/UncoatedFOGRA and design a blue shape with the CMYK values 89 56 0 0. With UncoatedFOGRA at PDF-export he gets values of 84.5 53.something 3 0 and worse: with CoatedFOGRA he gets different values and among them 6% yellow which leads to a "complete" different blue. Considering (according to him) that coated paper has per se a yellow tint he (correctly) states that we will end with approx. 12% more yellow which is a galaxy away.

I must admit that I am not the profile pro. My background is multimedia production. In my understanding I design a certain colour and the profiles just make sure that the material it is printend on is taken into consideration. I'm confused and really appreciate any clear and easy advise. If you do have pity with me - please explain it as if I was 9 ;-). Thanks a ton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a nice discussion a few posts further down about just this topic, for me I recommend staying in the RGB colorspace and let the printer do the grunt work, at best he will strip your ICC profile and replace it with his very own CMYK profile in his Workflow. Without more information it´s hard to say but I would point a finger at a profile or a rendering intent mismatch and his preflight is catching it. Your blue, it would seem is out of gamut for the limited gamut of the ( by now obsolete) Fogra39 profile. 

Check with your printer and ask about supplying RGB, however if you have already created the file in CMYK then stick with CMYK but lose the F39 CMYK profile and ask what  profile he recommends and what rendering intent you should use. As a guess I would start with relative Colorimetric Rendering Intent  as it will force the colors that are out of gamut to the next possible one inside the gamut without changing any color that is within gamut.

I can´t even find a reference for F39 to cross check anymore, so I used the next possible PSO coated V3 and fed it your 89 56 0 0, as you see on the tiny blue dot your color is outside the color gamut of the PSO coated V3. 

Viel Spaß

 

 

icc.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, abra100pro said:

How do I make sure that a certain blue is the same as close as possible on coated as on uncoated paper?

This is difficult since exact tones will be affected by paper specs (e.g. dot gain of paper) and if different stock has different paper whiteness it is even more difficult. I am not sure if it is a reasonable requirement even to try to achieve "exactness" (but just acceptable resemblance).

I noticed in your other post that the blueness you are aiming at seems to be based on a PMS definition but produced in CMYK so I am not sure if your problem is not getting close enough with either or both coated or uncoated stock. Note that CMYK values for simulating spot colors are only approximations so they might work reasonably well with certain kinds of papers and print standards but less so with others, so if you are otherwise satistifed with colors, your problem might be related to using certain fixed CMYK values for PMS simulation.

There are many kinds of uncoated papers so e.g. "Uncoated Fogra 29" is actually a generic profile for uncoated stock; and there are separate specs for yellowish papers. Many paper manufacturers have specific profiles for different papers for best results and color fidelity and if such are available I would use them (but negotiate first with your printer). If color accuracy is very important, good print proofs would be required to be able to make necessary adjustments. Discuss with your printshop and let them know about your wishes, the problem might be most easily resolved by choosing a bit different stock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Lagarto said:

This is difficult since exact tones will be determined by paper specs (e.g. dot gain of paper) and if different stock has different paper whiteness it is even more difficult. I am not sure if it is a reasonable requirement even to try to achieve "exactness" (but just reasonable resemblance).

I noticed in your other post that the blueness you are aiming at seems to be based on a PMS definition but produced in CMYK so I am not sure if your problem is not getting close enough with neither either or both coated or uncoated stock. Note that CMYK values for simulating spot colors are only approximations so they might work reasonably well with certain kinds of papers and print standards but less so with others, so if you are otherwise satistifed with colors, your problem might be related to using certain fixed CMYK values for PMS simulation.

There are many kinds of uncoated papers so e.g. "Uncoated Fogra 29" is actually a generic profile for uncoated stock; and there are separate specs for yellowish papers. Many paper manufacturers have specific profiles for different papers for best results and color fidelity and if such are available I would use them (but negotiate first with your printer). If color accuracy is very important, good print proofs would be required to be able to make necessary adjustments. Discuss with your printshop and let them know about your wishes, the problem might be most easily resolved by choosing a bit different stock.

Dotgain or TVI (tonal value increase) as it is now known is compensated for when the press is calibrated, some percentage of TVI is actually required in print.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, abra100pro said:

How do I make sure that a certain blue is the same as close as possible on coated as on uncoated paper?

I would argue that this is the printer's job, not yours. They are running the machinery, they selected the brand of stock they use, they run their calibrations, they should be the ones ensuring their output is as consistent across paper types (and as close to your artwork) as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, BofG said:

I would argue that this is the printer's job, not yours. They are running the machinery, they selected the brand of stock they use, they run their calibrations, they should be the ones ensuring their output is as consistent across paper types (and as close to your artwork) as possible.

Well said, in this case, by using F39, the OP has converted his artwork to a colorspace with a limited gamut, if he were to strip the F39 out and replace it with the printers recommendation, THEN let the printer work it out he will have a better chance to reproduce this colour, or as close to it as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted a related article in context of your other topic:

 

1 hour ago, BofG said:

I would argue that this is the printer's job, not yours.

The printer can give recommendations depending on their production workflow, but the whole point of color management in graphic design apps is that designers use calibrated devices and ISO-based color profiles, and do not need to depend on sending RGB and trusting on a "wise guy with a calibrator" at printshop to get what they vaguely describe in words or see in another product (digital or printed). It is different with single photo printing with 12-ink devices and alike, but demystification has worked well for a few decades in ISO-based print production within commercial offset printing. Color management is not necessarily a simple subject, but it is not rocket science, either. Things are hugely better now than a couple of decades ago when there was very little predictability and we were all dependent on factors on which we could not have any control. 

Having said that, it is always a good idea to discuss with the printer. If they say just send us RGB and tell us what you want, and you do so and you also get what you want, congratulations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the feedback!

I didn’t know about Fogra being "out of fashion" ;-). The prinshop guy said fogra was fine with them. (I must say, the guy is technical head of one of the largest printshops in Switzerland. They do fantastic and complex work). What I do not understand is that the CoatedFOGRA-profile ads yellow to a paper known for being at the yellow edge by itself... I must say that we didn't have these problems when I did exactly the same in Illustrator. Could it be that the profile from Affinity has a problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, abra100pro said:

Thanks for all the feedback!

I didn’t know about Fogra being "out of fashion" ;-). The prinshop guy said fogra was fine with them. (I must say, the guy is technical head of one of the largest printshops in Switzerland. They do fantastic and complex work). What I do not understand is that the CoatedFOGRA-profile ads yellow to a paper known for being at the yellow edge by itself... I must say that we didn't have these problems when I did exactly the same in Illustrator. Could it be that the profile from Affinity has a problem?

Never said Fogra was out of fashion, just the fogra 39 standard is considered obsolete and has been replaced with Fogra 51 and fogra 52 for coated and uncoated, wood free substrates.

No, the profiles you see in Affnity are the same as in any other program that uses ICC profiles, they are a set of profiles whose values are determined by the International Color Consortium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, abra100pro said:

How do I make sure that a certain blue is the same as close as possible on coated as on uncoated paper?

1 hour ago, Lagarto said:

The printer can give recommendations depending on their production workflow, but the whole point of color management in graphic design apps is that designers use calibrated devices and ISO-based color profiles, and do not need to depend on sending RGB and trusting on a "wise guy with a calibrator" at printshop to get what they vaguely describe in words or see in another product (digital or printed). It is different with single photo printing with 12-ink devices and alike, but demystification has worked well for a few decades in ISO-based print production within commercial offset printing. Color management is not necessarily a simple subject, but it is not rocket science, either. Things are hugely better now than a couple of decades ago when there was very little predictability and we were all dependent on factors on which we could not have any control. 

Having said that, it is always a good idea to discuss with the printer. If they say just send us RGB and tell us what you want, and you do so and you also get what you want, congratulations.

I'm always looking to learn more, could you explain how the customer in this instance could be involved in getting that consistency between coated/uncoated stock? I genuinely thought that would be down to the printer. Would you advocate that they set their document up in the smaller gamut of the uncoated profile to acheive this? I can't quite wrap my head around it.

Colour management seems to be one of those topics where the more I learn the less I understand :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

57 minutes ago, BofG said:

I'm always looking to learn more, could you explain how the customer in this instance could be involved in getting that consistency between coated/uncoated stock? I genuinely thought that would be down to the printer. Would you advocate that they set their document up in the smaller gamut of the uncoated profile to acheive this? I can't quite wrap my head around it.

Colour management seems to be one of those topics where the more I learn the less I understand :)

Same here - in my understanding it cannot be that hard - however I struggle with it again and again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would you advocate that they set their document up in the smaller gamut of the uncoated profile to acheive this? I can't quite wrap my head around it.

Why on earth would you want to do that? You want your workspace in the largest gamut you can get otherwise you are working in a restricted gamut from the onset, one that is tight and will not allow any deviations. Let the printshop work out the best method. 

Just look at the difference between coated and uncoated profiles and then wide gamut RGB to coated CMY

Perhaps read up on ISO 12647-2/ offset for some answers.

coated vrs uncoated.jpeg

rgb vrs cmy.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Slammer said:

Why on earth would you want to do that?

Well I wouldn't want to at all :) I just couldn't figure out how @Lagarto was suggesting the OP has a role to play in getting their coated/uncoated colours to be closer. The only thing I could think that could be done on the user end was to design in the smaller of the two gamuts, so therefore nothing in the coated version would be outside of what the uncoated delivers! Seemed like a bad idea to me.

Personally I'd use an RGB document and soft proof both uncoated/coated on there, maybe throw in an adjustment layer here and there if I wanted to modify to get a compromise middle ground on some colours, then just export still in RGB and let the printer handle the rest.

p.s. I spent far too long looking at that colour profile visualiser, such a neat tool. Pity it doesn't support v4 profiles - would like to see what my printer's space looks like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BofG said:

Well I wouldn't want to at all :) I just couldn't figure out how @Lagarto was suggesting the OP has a role to play in getting their coated/uncoated colours to be closer. The only thing I could think that could be done on the user end was to design in the smaller of the two gamuts, so therefore nothing in the coated version would be outside of what the uncoated delivers! Seemed like a bad idea to me.

Personally I'd use an RGB document and soft proof both uncoated/coated on there, maybe throw in an adjustment layer here and there if I wanted to modify to get a compromise middle ground on some colours, then just export still in RGB and let the printer handle the rest.

p.s. I spent far too long looking at that colour profile visualiser, such a neat tool. Pity it doesn't support v4 profiles - would like to see what my printer's space looks like.

I´m not figuring out how Lagarto came to his conclusion too. 

And I agree with you on the visualizer, you can spend waaaaay too much time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2020 at 12:22 PM, BofG said:

I'm always looking to learn more, could you explain how the customer in this instance could be involved in getting that consistency between coated/uncoated stock?

In this particular instance the first question would be what kind of coated and uncoated paper is used and whether generic profiles for coated and uncoated stock can give predictable results when printing on those papers. In OPs reply (in related post) the blueness that was tried to be achieved was not PMS based, after all, but the color just appeared in the palette for other reasons, so the hex value x0975D0 was probably sRGB based (the default underlying RGB profile in Affinity apps), and it translates to C84 M50 Y0 K0 in Coated Fogra 39 (Photoshop; C85 M53 Y0 K0 in Affinity apps) and C89 M51 Y0 K0 in Uncoated Fogra 29 (Photoshop; C88 M54 Y0 K0 in Affinity apps) so there is not much difference in color values between the two profiles.

So if these values have really been used, and results are not acceptably close, I would check whether paper specific profiles are available and if so, see how the color values change when using them. I could also have a word with the printer and ask whether they can recommend some other profile or paper. If at all practical, I would ask good-quality proofs and then make adjustments accordingly, especially if it seems that the problem is not general but just related to some specific images or colors. Adjustments in Affinity apps could be easily reproduced in future, but in a situation the same colors or similar jobs need to be produced repeatedly, I would try to find a workflow based on correct profiles. If the alternative is to switch to RGB and be happy seeing the color as I wish it to appear on paper, both coated and uncoated, but knowing that this is impossible, and that I cannot do anything myself but just send sRGB colors and ask the printer to do their best, I’d definitely choose the former, take the blame if there is no reasonable match first time, but achieving consistent results probably already on second time.

My main point was to make a note on usefulness of working with color profiles and calibrated displays, and have the publication in CMYK color mode when producing for regular CMYK offset print, rather than working in RGB and playing with soft proofing, or even more bizarrely, producing RGB exports and asking the printer to get colors to match on two kinds of papers. There was a time when graphic designers and museum curators needed to spend hours or even days beside a printing machine marking on fresh print proofs for each and every work of art how to improve the colors (too red, add cyan, etc.): giving vague instructions to printing personnel who were the only one who had the control.  Good old times, but I guess very few would want to turn the wheel to get those work methods back, so I at least want to keep the current ones and be able to get predictable results in good time, with as little guesswork involved as possible, or dependence on specific expertise of a specific printer. So yes, I do welcome boring ISO profiles and thoroughly color managed, well tested standard workflows, not because I’d be some kind of “CMYK”-believer, but because that is practical and has given good results for a long time.

If an offset print job needs to be produced using a CMYK target color profile, as it regularly needs to be, the color values exported in print PDFs will be virtually identical disregarding whether the job was created and colors defined in RGB or CMYK color mode. As Affinity apps simulate target color space on screen, the user with a calibrated display gets a good idea on how the colors will look on paper (without  using soft proofing). Affinity Publisher does not offer the flexibility of InDesign in allowing a kind of a dual color mode and showing RGB colors using a document RGB profile, but the user can nevertheless make RGB color definitions and switch temporarily the document color mode to RGB, if they need to. But choosing and using RGB as the document color mode in a job that is required to be delivered with a CMYK target is in many ways impractical and can have catastrophic side effects, some of which are related to the way Affinity apps behave. E.g., the target CMYK profile to be used at export time needs to be picked by hand (if not, the last used CMYK profile or failback U.S.Web Coated will be used, which normally results in inadvertent conversion of color values), grayscale images with profiles (including D50 which Affinity apps use) cause conversion to CMYK typically with color casts and they cannot be used in PMS toning, etc. In a word, unpredictability is increased, and all kinds of workarounds are required for tasks that in CMYK color mode can be done directly.

It is a different thing when creating original art, or reproducing photos on a photo printer. But this thread and a couple of other recent topics where RGB based production method has been vocally advocated, have been clear CMYK print jobs. In one post where a profile conflict caused problems, an advise was given to create K100 by using RGB 0,0,0, and solid magenta by using a spot color, for a simple reproduction of a company logo that was delivered as a vector based CMYK PDF. You can do that for a sake of discussion, or whatever secondary reason, but I do not think that anything even a bit more complex can be produced that way, or that there is any benefit as regards print quality or color fidelity, not to mention costs, in doing so. But most importantly, I do not think that such advises help presenters of the original questions, at all. Some of them are hobbyists who have had no experience of anything else than working with RGB-only apps so yes, CMYK and color managed workflows can be challenging, especially when they are not well documented in Affinity apps, and still also have some flaws and omittances. Production workflows at many popular printshops are also “Word-friendly” in a sense that they have no problems accepting non-color managed RGB-based input, but Affinity apps are not comparable to Word, and many users of Affinity apps want to have more control of the color. So “go for RGB” and leave everything to the printer is a lousy general instruction, and quite out of place in context of topics referred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the detailed response :)

2 hours ago, Lagarto said:

So if these values have really been used, and results are not acceptably close, I would check whether paper specific profiles are available and if so, see how the color values change when using them. I could also have a word with the printer and ask whether they can recommend some other profile or paper.

If the colour falls within both gamuts, then is that then not entirely the print shops job to get them acceptably close? I also don't understand how a different profile for the customer here would help - is it just so they can see more accurately the colour difference or would it help with the colour match in some way?

2 hours ago, Lagarto said:

rather than working in RGB and playing with soft proofing, or even more bizarrely, producing RGB exports and asking the printer to get colors to match on two kinds of papers.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't that the whole point of colour management? A soft-proof will match the printed output provided the profile in my soft proof matches that of the print process (and of course as long as my monitor and the printer are accurate). I know the two papers won't match on every colour, but I would have seen that with the soft proof in any case.

Is there any real world different in resultant output between:

RGB Source -> View via Fogra soft proof -> Export using sRGB -> [to the printers] -> Fogra profile -> press

versus

CMYK Source -> Export using Fogra -> [to the printers] -> Fogra profile (redundant?) -> press ?

One last question, if you was preparing artwork for coated and uncoated stock, what specific colour space and profile would you work in? Also, how would you recommend to see how each would look whilst working on screen (soft-proof? change the actual document profile? something else?).

I appreciate your input, it's an interesting topic and there's certainly a lot of different views on these things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Lagarto said:

In this particular instance the first question would be what kind of coated and uncoated paper is used and whether generic profiles for coated and uncoated stock can give predictable results when printing on those papers. In OPs reply (in related post) the blueness that was tried to be achieved was not PMS based, after all, but the color just appeared in the palette for other reasons, so the hex value x0975D0 was probably sRGB based (the default underlying RGB profile in Affinity apps), and it translates to C84 M50 Y0 K0 in Coated Fogra 39 (Photoshop; C85 M53 Y0 K0 in Affinity apps) and C89 M51 Y0 K0 in Uncoated Fogra 29 (Photoshop; C88 M54 Y0 K0 in Affinity apps) so there is not much difference in color values between the two profiles.

etc....

I enjoyed reading your statement and I understand where you are coming from. Very well written, it could be from right out of a text book and I can see that you have an understanding of the processes.

However it is from a textbook written in the 1990ties and RIP´s have moved on greatly since then. A modern RIP will now use the APPE (Adobe PDF Printengine) in the version 3 and 5 and no longer the CPSI print engine. If this were the case I would agree with you 100%!
The big thing is that APPE renders PDF directly without having to be converted to .PS first, this means that in a modern workflow you would keep to RGB in your layout application and convert to CMYK in the Adobe workflow, either in Acrobat or your imposition software or you can send your PDF file to the RIP, all three examples use the exact same engine and the exact same profiles and the exact same intents to render your files. This is the whole point of workflows, workflows that can cost upwards of 100.000 Euros, do you think that they are not able to handle RGB? 
Also since introduction of the APPE RIP printers are now embracing G7 as a standard (RGB/CMYK) and indeed printers are turning to actual printing in RGB, in fact Flexo has been RGB printing for quite some time.
But RIP technology is not the only place that has seen major steps forward; there have been improvements in ink to make use of a wider gamut and printing with extended CMYK gamuts is common.

Printing in CMYK has been around since 1900 and has had a good run, but it is becoming more and more dated therefore it makes no sense to create your work in CMYK, not in Photoshop or illustrator, Quark, Indesign etc. and certainly not in Affinity.

I understand, that there is no harder substance than the opinion of a printer or a designer when confronted with something new or something that goes against his or her common knowledge, I fight this day for day and it really is a irresistible force hitting an immovable object, but all I ask is to try and keep an open mind and... hey! Perhaps try it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2020 at 2:21 PM, Slammer said:

However it is from a textbook written in the 1990ties and RIP´s have moved on greatly since then. A modern RIP will now use the APPE (Adobe PDF Printengine) in the version 3 and 5 and no longer the CPSI print engine. If this were the case I would agree with you 100%!

 

On 10/29/2020 at 2:21 PM, Slammer said:

Printing in CMYK has been around since 1900 and has had a good run, but it is becoming more and more dated therefore it makes no sense to create your work in CMYK, not in Photoshop or illustrator, Quark, Indesign etc. and certainly not in Affinity.

We must have lived in parallel worlds then as the description of having to spend days beside a press machine happened in 90s. In 2001 something called PDF/X1a happened, which meant that basically everything that was in layout no matter how composed was converted to DeviceCMYK. At that time we still also prepared images separately for CMYK and manually adjusted them in Photoshop (which was a standard workflow supported already in PageMaker and later InDesign by allowing switching between the modes by using separate folders; Quark had extensions that could apply automatic adjustments along the conversion process).

That changed with the development of InDesign (released in 1999) and workflows changed so that images were largely left in RGB mode, and the whole printing process became to be governed by ISO standards and color profiles. PDF/X standards developed so that in PDF/X-3 (initially 2003) you could include also managed RGB content as along with included CMYK intent, and in PDF/X-4 (starting from 2008) also unflattened transparencies. Majority of printers that we used still required PDF1.3 based export PDFs in full CMYK (+ spots). No matter which workflow and PDF export method was used, a CMYK target was required if there was anything left in non-device CMYK color space, and all native graphic and text would be converted to CMYK according to the specs of the target profile.

Many printers today require that PDF/X-based standards are used when producing the print PDFs, and they all convert native colors (graphics and text) to CMYK [EDIT: in Affinity apps; in QuarkXPress and Corel they do this by default; but in InDesign the conversion is not applied by default when using PDF/X3 or above, but CMYK intent is naturally included ]. This is also the default when using press vanilla in InDesign. Last time I had CC-based InDesign rented this had not changed, and QuarkXPress at least up to 2018 version works similarly. In Affinity apps the default color mode for all “Press Ready” templates is CMYK, as is the default color mode when choosing PDF (press ready) at PDF export, which means that all RGB-based definitions in native objects and text will be converted to CMYK according to the CMYK target profile, and if none is or can explicitly be selected, the failback U.S Coated Web v2 will be used.

Not converting to CMYK, or using a RGB document color mode (or RGB color definitions for native objects) in press-targeted jobs is possible in all these apps, but it is going against the grain (defaults) and working in a non-standard way. You can of course do so, but then you need to have an agreement on doing so with the printer [EDIT: if you have RGB in non-PDF/X3 or X4 based PDF exports]. Not doing this is not old-school, it is still the industry standard. 

Designing and creating in RGB is a totally different thing so it is clear that RGB is used when creating anything in e.g Photoshop. And photos and other raster images stay in RGB when placed in the layout, as well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Lagarto said:

 

We must have lived in parallel worlds then as the description of having to spend days beside a press machine happened in 90s. In 2001 something called PDF/X1a happened, which meant that basically everything that was in layout no matter how composed was converted to DeviceCMYK. At that time we still also prepared images separately for CMYK and manually adjusted them in Photoshop (which was a standard workflow supported already in PageMaker and later InDesign by allowing switching between the modes by using separate folders; Quark had extensions that could apply automatic adjustments along the conversion process).

That changed with the development of InDesign (released in 1999) and workflows changed so that images were largely left in RGB mode, and the whole printing process became to be governed by ISO standards and color profiles. PDF/X standards developed so that in PDF/X-3 (initially 2003) you could include also managed RGB content as along with included CMYK intent, and in PDF/X-4 (starting from 2008) also unflattened transparencies. Majority of printers that we used still required PDF1.3 based export PDFs in full CMYK (+ spots). No matter which workflow and PDF export method was used, a CMYK target was required if there was anything left in non-device CMYK color space, and all native graphic and text would be converted to CMYK according to the specs of the target profile.

Many printers today require that PDF/X-based standards are used when producing the print PDFs, and they all convert native colors (graphics and text) to CMYK. This is also the default when using press vanilla in InDesign. Last time I had CC-based InDesign rented this had not changed, and QuarkXPress at least up to 2018 version works similarly. In Affinity apps the default color mode for all “Press Ready” templates is CMYK, as is the default color mode when choosing PDF (press ready) at PDF export, which means that all RGB-based definitions in native objects and text will be converted to CMYK according to the CMYK target profile, and if none is or can explicitly be selected, the failback U.S Coated Web v2 will be used.

Not converting to CMYK, or using a RGB document color mode (or RGB color definitions for native objects) in press-targeted jobs is possible in all these apps, but it is going against the grain (defaults) and working in a non-standard way. You can of course do so, but then you need to have an agreement on doing so with the printer. Not doing this is not old-school, it is still the industry standard. 

Designing and creating in RGB is a totally different thing so it is clear that RGB is used when creating anything in e.g Photoshop. And photos and other raster images stay in RGB when placed in the layout, as well.

 

Basically then we are in agreement, images stay in RGB until it enters the workflow, as all stations use the same Adobe engine so it really doesn´t matter, you will generally import your RGB into your Layout and export a PDF output which is fed into your workflow with imposition and prefilght or directly to your RIP.

It does not go against the industry grain when your Affinity is set to RGB instead of CMKY and I still believe that you should work in RGB when creating your art, which was the topic of this great thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note the Annual Company Closure section in the Terms of Use. These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.