Calibrating, Printing and Proofing by the G7™ Method
Calibrating, Printing and Proofing by the G7™ Method
Calibrating, Printing and Proofing by the G7™ Method
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Calibrating</strong>, <strong>Printing</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Proofing</strong> <strong>by</strong> <strong>the</strong> G7 <strong>Method</strong> Version 6, August 2006<br />
G.5 Characterization vs. production tolerances<br />
Characterization tolerances should be stricter than production tolerances because a characterization<br />
print must be as near to 'perfection' as <strong>the</strong> device is capable of. This accuracy will usually not be<br />
achieved in a single press run, but may be achieved <strong>by</strong> averaging several prints made on different days.<br />
A good general rule is that characterization tolerances should be roughly half as large as production<br />
tolerances, or at least as strict as <strong>the</strong> most stringent production aims. For example, if gray balance<br />
tolerances for production work are +/- 1 a* <strong>and</strong> +/- 2 b*, characterization tolerances for that device<br />
should be +/- 0.5 a* <strong>and</strong> +/- 1 b*.<br />
If gray balance (<strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r parameters) cannot be controlled to <strong>the</strong>se tolerances on <strong>the</strong> characterization<br />
print, <strong>the</strong> resulting characterization will probably NOT represent <strong>the</strong> average capability of that press.<br />
G.6 <strong>Printing</strong> vs. proofing tolerances<br />
Most pre-press proofing systems are much more stable <strong>and</strong> often have a higher color gamut than <strong>the</strong><br />
typical offset press, partly <strong>by</strong> avoiding wet-trapping issues (see G.6.1). This alone makes it reasonable<br />
to apply higher tolerances to proofing systems than to production offset presses, but ano<strong>the</strong>r more<br />
important reason is that in most pressrooms <strong>the</strong> proof is still <strong>the</strong> ultimate 'target' (regardless of<br />
measured values), <strong>and</strong> a 'moving target' will obviously lead to less consistent printing.<br />
GRACoL 7 recommends that proofing tolerances be as fine as possible, regardless of pressroom<br />
capabilities, to minimize proof-to-proof variations. Anything less would make <strong>the</strong> proofing system a<br />
moving target. Actual local proofing tolerances should be determined <strong>by</strong> trial-<strong>and</strong>-error or statistical<br />
analysis, along with an underst<strong>and</strong>ing of local process, control capabilities, <strong>and</strong> limitations. Wider<br />
tolerances may be necessary on coarser grades of paper.<br />
G.6.1 Wet-trapping - <strong>the</strong> bane of offset lithography<br />
Modern offset presses print all four (or more) inks in rapid succession, 'wet-on-wet'. The first inks down<br />
usually adhere to <strong>the</strong> paper better than later inks, which are partially repelled <strong>by</strong> <strong>the</strong> still-wet earlier inks.<br />
But in some cases <strong>the</strong> later inks actually remove some of <strong>the</strong> earlier inks, depending on <strong>the</strong> relative tack<br />
(stickiness) of each ink in <strong>the</strong> sequence. Ei<strong>the</strong>r way, <strong>the</strong> amount of one or more inks remaining on<br />
paper is usually less than would be achieved on a 'dry trapping' press, (printing one color at a time, or<br />
with a drying system between each unit), <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> visual effects are typically unpredictable <strong>and</strong> unstable<br />
- often varying as <strong>the</strong> press warms up over <strong>the</strong> course of a run.<br />
'Wet-trapping' introduces two problems that are largely absent in slower, single-color presses - namely<br />
reduced color gamut <strong>and</strong> unstable performance in darker tones - in each case due to <strong>the</strong> loss of some<br />
wanted ink. In fact <strong>the</strong> relative instability of wet trapping in 3-color <strong>and</strong> 4-color areas is one of <strong>the</strong> main<br />
problems in matching multiple presses to a st<strong>and</strong>ard characterization data set, even when each press<br />
uses <strong>the</strong> same paper <strong>and</strong> ink.<br />
Ano<strong>the</strong>r trapping-related problem with many offset presses is that gray balance is often seriously<br />
affected <strong>by</strong> micro register changes from sheet to sheet, which create microscopic area wet trapping<br />
differences from sheet to sheet within <strong>the</strong> halftone pattern itself, <strong>and</strong> consequent short-term gray<br />
balance errors. This makes it dangerous to dem<strong>and</strong> tight gray balance tolerances on an offset press -<br />
at least on any single sheet. To measure gray balance reliably on an offset press, or to calculate<br />
separate RIP correction curves for CM <strong>and</strong> Y, be sure to average several sheets in succession.<br />
G.6.2 Solving or minimizing wet-trapping issues<br />
Most trapping solutions work on <strong>the</strong> concept of drying each ink (at least partially) before subsequent<br />
inks are laid down. This is usually accomplished <strong>by</strong> some form of inter-station drying system, such as<br />
IR (Infra-Red) heat for conventional inks, or UV (Ultra-Violet) light for UV-curable inks. A less practical<br />
(but highly effective) solution is to print one ink at a time in 4 passes through <strong>the</strong> press. By <strong>the</strong> time <strong>the</strong><br />
paper is ready for each new ink, <strong>the</strong> earlier inks have dried naturally, ensuring much better trapping.<br />
One-color-at-a-time printing is obviously slower, <strong>and</strong> REALLY needs tight tolerances!<br />
52 Copyright © International Digital Enterprise Alliance, Inc. [IDEAlliance] (2006). All Rights Reserved.