Discussion

By Erik Nikkanen on Oct 31, 2009

The industry struggles with Colour Management because they do not want to face the problems that have to be solved in the process to reach that goal. They don't want to do the required critical thinking that is necessary to develop valid knowledge that leads to developing capable technologies that deal with real physical problems.

Also there is no holistic view of the process. Technologies are developed in one area without understanding of the physical nature of another area of the process that is interacting with the first.

I have great respect for Dr. Chung. I have read some of his papers and found them very interesting but I have to say that academics shy away from real problems. They tend to make models that are too simple and make assumptions that leave out the critical parts of problems. Their work tends not to be directed at solving real problems and therefore they don't gain real understanding in the process.
I would guess that in the past 70 years, the academic community has not done one experiment where they have controlled ink feed into the press in a positive way to study the process when they have such control over a critical variable.

I understood the basic problem of density control in the late 80's. In the early 1990's, I had tested theories successfully out on a press. In 1997, I presented a paper at TAGA that covered some of the fundamental issues that were problems in the colour control process on offset presses. I have a patent on a low cost technology to solve the critical problem of density variation and ink/water balance.

In the twelve years since I gave that paper, I have not found one academic that was interested in understanding these issues. Nor were other graphic arts organizations.

My view is that the industry does not really want to change. About a year and a half ago, I had a talk with a local graphic arts school director and their press technician. When I tried to explain that the density variation of ink/water balance could be eliminated, the technician said, "Oh, you aren't going to make the process more automated are you." No interest there.

The industry talks about automation but they don't mean it. The industry thinks process control is having targets and measuring them. This usually is done by an operator. If you really want to think about automating the process, then you should be thinking of what has to be done to start a press and run without an operator making adjustments.

Closed loop is one option but it is only an extension of having the operator close the loop. What is really needed is to make the process inherently consistent and predictable. Then closed loop of any kind is not needed.

One continually hear people say that the offset process is inherently variable. This is an ignorant comment and it is just a way to say the " I have no idea what I am talking about." All processes have variability. The issue is, how do you get the variability down to a level where it is not an issue. That takes some thinking.

Dr. Chung is exactly right in his additional comments.and they basically lead to the fact that we still lack consistency and predictability in the pressroom. I would add that predictability can not be obtained unless one solves the consistency issues.

Since the years I presented my TAGA paper, I have thought about the problems in the prepress/colour management area. I am sure mistakes are being made there too. But even if really good new approaches are found, one still has the inconsistency and lack of predictability issues at press.

There is an holistic way of thinking about these problems. One of the starting points needs to be the fixing of the problems at the press. When the press is fixed, the press can be better used to study the problems of prepress colour predictability. If done right, myths will be cast away and the understanding of how things are related will start to fall in place. It will be easy to understand. It is not that difficult a problem. Right now things are a mess and you only have yourselves to blame.

By Saleh Abdel Motaal on Nov 02, 2009

As a student my comments here are inquisitive at best, and I am sure that the knowledge and experience of Mr. Nikkanen, Professor Chung and Mr. Khoury are a great place to seek opinions on struggling against the tide misconception and achieving color management.

Based on my few years in the field of Color Management, I have seen many 'new technologies' that promise 'workflow' solutions with color management at their spine. Today, most of these workflows look at output as a black-box, through which patches go in and profiles come out, with some control over aspects of separation and little attention to what factors cause the variability in this process.

From an academic angle, these systems will work great if the black-box status is maintained, and that is why we have closed-loop process control for open-loop color management. I am sure this would be the opinion of many academics and I personally experimented with this concept under the academic guidance of Professor Chung, at the School of Print Media, at RIT, as well as Dr. Habekost and Dr. Sharma at the School of Graphic Communications Management (GCM), at Ryerson University.

To elaborate on Mr. Nikkanen's perspective, I would bring out terms like 'drift' that forces many in-school experiments and high-quality production work to be conducted in a timely manner from measurement to control and sampling (or output). On a litho press, this can be seen as fluctuations of press, materials, or ambient conditions, something that has less of a harmony to it. We can resolve many aspects with adequate control over the 3-part variables, in isolation. However, we still have to rely on external inputs like paper and ink, therefore we only have a guarantee that they conform to tested samples and are consistently stable, that is if the ink and paper are of suitable quality requirements.

I personally worked with two presses, looking at how consistent they can become in lab settings, using both the skills of the operator, Mr. Roehrig, at GCM, and densitometry to control the production of a sample set. In comparison, both presses fall under substantially different paradigms when it comes to stability, they are simply two distinct games. Then again, there were some common instability factors like spatial location, ink zone interactions, total area coverage… etc., and that is what standards are able to address very well. For the rest, it is not simply standards but more of aims that drive consistency, when possible. That, of course, means that you need the skilled press operator to identify those special aspects that are not standard to all presses and designs and the right craftsmanship to know where to look. With that, you can ask academics to search if there is a solution out there, if it warrants, or ask maintenance to check the mechanics of the press.

I would venture this thought, and I ask for everyone's opinion on that: How much of a solution can industry expect to unwrapped from a box? I am sure this is not a new question and I am wondering why we still seek this, knowing that it takes specific knowledge of one's press to resolve specific aspects of variability. Granted, many products do a great job at what they promise, but, they are not and cannot be a one-time fix to variation when printing from a plate. This boils down to the question of attitude, where time-is-money comes head-to-head with needing adequate time for understanding one's own process parameters.

While theory can help define those parameters, as academics we can only do so much to resolve aspects of presses in production settings when they are only that. I am wondering how far industry is willing to really find a solution, knowing that there are some out there who surpassed customer expectations for color consistency and attained profitability.

I am very interested in looking at common aspects that can be addressed through standards, special aspects that can be summed to press design, and, specific aspects that are related to the one press. However, which of those would help brings tangible results for color consistency? They all do.

By Gordon Pritchard on Nov 02, 2009

While I agree wholeheartedly with Erik's frustrations the problem of implementing color management begins when the documents are created. The current model is a myriad mess of independent, isolated, software applications and profiles. It is based on each individual, and typically inadequate, creative's ability to create a consistent, technically-based color management environment on their desktop which will be suitable for, and maintained through the production process.

For color management to succeed it needs to first transform from being a parts assembling process to that of a desired results process. It needs to disappear from the user experience just as the process of using a phone has disappeared from the user experience - I don't care how it works, I don't want to and shouldn't need to build my own phone, I just want to be able to talk to Aunt Mable.

What I think is needed is that the creative should be able to simply inform their software, perhaps with a drop down menu, that a particular project is destined for example, for newspaper, or web, or flexo and the desktop system then sets all the required color management parameters at the OS and application levels accordingly. The file is then automatically tagged and the output device, monitor, inkjet printer, flexopress, or whatever would then process to file appropriately.

Such a system could also constrain the creation of documents so that they conform to the requirements for the selected final destination. E.g. if the destination is the web, it would not accept a CMYK image. If it is for print output it would require that images bleed off the page.

It doesn't matter how stable or consistent the press is, unless the problem of color management at the creation process is solved, end to end color management will not be attainable.

By Erik Nikkanen on Nov 02, 2009

I totally agree with Gordon that things must change in the prepress workflow area. And I can understand that we disagree slightly about where to start. Part of this is our own background, working with these problems. But there is no reason why progress can not be made in both areas of press and prepress at the same time. Progress in both areas can converge. But there should be an understanding of how these two areas are related.

I would like to add some particular views on these subjects.

A press does not need a good prepress solution to do what a press should do. The function of the press is not to reproduce colours but to manage ink films that are printed on a substrate. This is related to both the accuracy of the position of ink placement and in the consistency of the applied ink film thickness.

If a printing device, be that a press or an inkjet printer or a toner based device, can place colourant in the right place and in the right amount, then that device can be colour managed to produce a predictable result.

If the device is not consistent and drifts or is erratic or is non linear or the channels are not independent, then even profiling it is a problem. This is the case of even most modern offset presses. They print CMYK individually inconsistently and they are non linear and non independent. The way an offset prints is not independent of the image it is printing, while inkjet printers even though they might be non linear, they do print their CMYK channels independently and they print independent of the image being printed.

So any effort to make a prepress technology that is potentially better has the problem of trying to develop it and prove it with a device (offset press) that is inconsistent and not predictable. There is no inherent profile with most offset presses.

My view is that the many faults with the design of the offset press, which have introduced confusing performance, has lead to a very distorted understanding of how the process works and what has to be done to get it fixed. And it is very unfortunate that the young students in the industry have been subjected to this confusing mess as being portrayed as knowledge and have had to pay for it.

The solution to the colour management problem requires both good press designs and good prepress methods. The performance of the press does not need a good prepress method but the obtainable performance of the prepress method does require good press design.

Both need to be worked on.

By Gordon Pritchard on Nov 03, 2009

Sadly, Erik is quite correct.
Unfortunately, product development in this industry usually has nothing to do with whether the product is the right product, or the best product to address the issue, or one that is best for the industry – it doesn't even matter whether the product is the result of sound research into the mechanics of the print manufacturing process - it only has to do with the potential return on investment for developing the product.

By Adoniram on Nov 03, 2009

I think three topics have been omitted thus far. The first is a combination of psychology and education. Customers think they know what their color is. You can have that color measured with every measuring device that exists, but you'll still have output device limitations. Thus, you already have two obstacles: the customer believes they know what the color looks like, and they do not understand that some colors cannot be reproduced with current technology or within cost. Reproducing pearlized "colors", etc.

The second is simply how we perceive color as an aggregate of experiences over time. Metallic fleck paints, with high specularity and angle-dependent color, can't be represented in many outputs. We have to resort to some sort of creative interpretation for the client, or in the technical space, a set of information that can be simulated in some way.

The third is that which Gordon mentioned; color is no longer the "absolute" experience of the printed sheet (lighting conditions not withstanding). We have a myriad of devices now, most of which are well out of our control, and will be for both the near and distant future. I can't imagine that in the short term, the average computer monitor will have ambient light sensors and some sort of auto-profiling technology. As long as our customers have a huge variety of means of observing content, it's difficult, if not impossible, to ensure that a printer (or any media manufacturer) will reproduce what the customer is looking for, without actually bringing them on-site, or shipping them a proof.

Thus, my suggestion is that we really need to broaden the discussion to device manufacturers, and not just those in the printing or color industries. The media industry is gigantic, and there are vast portions of it that are color-critical, and well outside the sphere of print. We talk about cross-media from the print perspective a lot these days, why shouldn't we talk about technical concerns in the same way? Just like good manufacturing standards, there are probably gains to be made just by communicating with other media, whether it's with content producers or device manufacturers.

By Greg Imhoff on Nov 03, 2009

Color Management was is and remains elusive and difficult to apply by the average printer for several reasons:

1. ICC scientific terms while logical to color scientists are confounding to the press operator or printer…

2. In practice ICC color management is mainly accomplished in proofing areas. By nature Proofs own a far wider color gamut than presses and more importantly presses are not as stable as proofs. For example pressroom environments are often a challenge even though presses operated successfully for decades prior to ICC color management. One press variable encountered daily is paper colorant shifts.

3. Any effort to profile a press is a “Snap Shot “ in time. So as Press variables shift this means application of ICC color management has not yet approached the challenge with real press operational needs in mind.

Elie’s interview with Cary held many positive insights. For example Elie discusses accurately color issues as a problem related to “Variability’s with a variety of output devices, different company practices, etc.” And the answer is in “correct input values and to apply standardization.” One solution today then may be to collect each press sheet data - even with a scanner may be a bit daunting, like sipping from a dribbling faucet.

Presses are a known moving target even with the “same paper” today. What to do about this is the real question. If the goal is that Presses may print a wider more stable color gamut in order to match proofs, to meet client expectations then we have something new that meets this need.

In my 1999 TAGA White Paper: “CTP Why Densitometry does not work” we set a new standard for plate measurement by first acknowledging the problem i.e.: the loss of film as each CTP printers’ “touch stone.” Next in thinking outside the box from the “5 M’s”: Man, Machine, Materials, Methods, and Measurements we developed a complete new solution CCDot a technology accepted worldwide and copied by all, known as Dotmeters.

We now release a new solution in partnership with Apollo to close the loop on any press not only in color, but also in full image inspection, on every single sheet.

The new system is supported by a SUN Solaris so press operators may see live each impression image change in Densities or in LCHab on each job. We also offer a feature known as “Color Drift” to see and alert press operators to any press image defects that users set controls to. Our EPG system automatically adjusts for color shifts via existing on press remote ink controls or we can provide remote inking and other well-known pressroom automation tools.

True Closed Loop color with full Image Analysis makes presses more stable in color. The next goal is in exporting every day press jobs colorimetric data to “prove the press to the proof” daily for true close loop systems to improve ICC and client expectations in one.

This technology is proven and used daily in the Securities industry and is now globally available to the printing industry. Visit our web site or contact me off line if you would like more information.

To Trust is good, to Know is Better and to Measure is Best.
Sincerely,

Greg Imhoff
Director EPG Color Solutions
(800) 394 - 7130 - office
(708) 557 - 2021 - cell
Print Properties Committee Member and GRACoL G7 Expert
www.epg-inc.com [email protected]

By Erik Nikkanen on Nov 03, 2009

Gordon, you are right about the situation where products are being developed for high profit and not for best performance at a lower cost. Of course this happens in all industries if the industries are not vigilant in what is being offered them. There is a responsibility on the part of parties in the industry to develop the capability to understand the basic science that new technologies are based on.

I blame graphic arts institutions. They claim to be wanting to be science based but they tend to look at technologies and not fundamental physics issues. They might argue that their role is education and not in developing technologies. That is valid but how do they know that the material they are presenting to their students is valid?

One does not have to develop technology to be able to demonstrate fundamental physics of particular issues. Developing a commercial product is expensive since it must satisfy the expectations of a customer. This is not only performance but also reliability, cost, ease of use, etc.

For a researcher, simple and inexpensive test apparatus and methods can be put together to test very specific phenomena. As an example, my ITB could be made for a few hundred dollars for a test on a small press. Manual operations could stand in for automated functions one would need on a commercial version. But this kind of a simple test would show the true nature of the density control problem. The interaction between ink feed and water, temperature, press speed, etc. would be broken.

Why would an educational institution not want to study such a critical problem in the process. It leads to a whole new area that has not been explored. Maybe the problem is that one needs explorers to do this and not experts. New knowledge destroys expertise.

The same kind of simple testing can be used to develop new prepress concepts. One does not have to deal with complicated images. Build step by step methods that ensures the reproduction of simple colour patches. Once a general approach is developed, it can be tested on multiple colour patches to demonstrate its reliability from start to finish.

Graphic Arts institutions can inexpensively demonstrate the potential of knowledge. They don't have to develop a product but they can show and say, Yes this can be done. The vendors can take it from there.

The point is that it does not cost a lot of money to find out that some cherished beliefs are not true and that new potential approaches are valid. Since vendors will not do this, someone else has to. The rest of the industry should be telling vendors, "Look, we are not going to take the hype anymore and we are going to push the truth back into your face. Do something about it."

By Greg Imhoff on Nov 05, 2009

Erik echoing Gordo states:
…“But this kind of a simple test would show the true nature of the density control problem. The interaction between ink feed and water, temperature, press speed, etc. would be broken.”…

True but not true with our new on press technology. The heart of my earlier post posed the question of what good is a 20-year-old model silo of ICC Color Management which works for scientists and or proofer yet not effectively for press-rooms variability’s?

My career has focused on taking complex issues and providing simplified usable solutions. On topic then this means for print “Lean Manufacturing” and “Improved Manufacturing” in 1 closed loop step. This solution is now in place with Apollo and EPG merging each company’s technology expertise and experience.

Our ColorInSpec via RGB captures each press sheet for faster color balance in both make-ready and run modes showing operators all Densities on each color bar element from the first sheet forward with LCHab and image Color Drift too at the pixel level, live literally on each impression being laid down and sold.

A recent free White Paper on topic may be:
Manufacturing Automation - what are we waiting for?
"As one panelist at the Print '09 Executive Outlook noted, "this white paper should be mandatory reading within the print sector".
Listing 3 Challenges (e.g.: Legacy Shop Floor equipment tools slow down automation) and 3 Strategies (e.g.: Walk before you run using Real Time Manufacturing Vision systems) so this is what we do.
i.e.:
Ø Why scan a good color bar for data that may also have a bad image print?
Ø What happens when you have a good print image with a bad color bar?
Problems solved.

The GUI is made for press operator’s clients and business owners needs alerting operators to any job colorant shifts and or defects from the Golden OK press sheet or proof. Any shifts are immediately seen and known with technology documented to deliver less than “½ of 1% false rejects” as used by the US Bureau of Treasury & Engraving and others, globally.

To improve commercial print operations and profits there is no need to invest million$ for a new press with automation not as complete nor as proven. Bottom line is web or sheet fed we drive all new and legacy presses better and more efficiently to delightfully exceed your client expectations and profits.

Visit our web site or call and ask for ColorSpec or ColorInSpec Closed Loop Color and Defect Detection Systems. We automate for less be it remote ink fountains and desks, auto ink presets and or now the first to offer both CLC and Image Analyses in one. Globally.


Greg Imhoff
Director EPG Color Solutions
(800) 394 - 7130 - office
(708) 557 - 2021 - cell
Print Properties Committee Member and GRACoL G7 Expert
www.epg-inc.com
[email protected]

By Robert Chung on Nov 07, 2009

Do personal health and color management have anything in common? When it comes to personal health, do we question the value of good health and the effort required in achieving it? No, we do not. When it comes to color management, printing companies will not question the value of repeatable and predictable color. But many printers probably are not aware of what it takes to achieve it. When they do not know what it takes to achieve color consistency and portability, the business of printing is more or less as usual. Thus, there is no "struggling" to speak of.

It makes sense we (1) recognize the role of color management in a printing company's goals and objectives, (2) outline essential ingredients in implementing color management in a printing process, and (3) discuss RIO or benefits of having a color managed workflow, thus, the three pillars of color management.

In the case of personal health, many people will do the right things, e.g., proper diet and exercises, to stay healthy. Others will have little concern for diet or exercises. The same is true for achieving repeatable and predictable color – many printers view color management an essential technical competence and business strategy to stay ahead. They will invest in color management technology and do the right things such as training. But, there are printing companies who view color management as an option rather than must-have technology. Printing companies with the attitude that color management is a must-have technology is likely to succeed in its implementation.

Color management implementation requires a systems approach with the following essentials: (a) manpower – employees with knowledge of printing process control and color management; (b) machine and materials – press, ink, paper, and other consumables; (c) method and measurement – adopt printing standardization and establish quality control points in every step of the print production workflow using spectrophotometer, densitometer, plate reader, profiling software, test targets; and (d) quality assurance – making sure that right things being done.

Yes, there are upfront costs associated with color-managed workflow implementation. The question often being asked is, “how do you justify for costs of training, tools, process standardization, and process control?” Below are key areas to ponder: (a) cost – prevention (or color management upfront) costs versus internal and external failure costs; (b) quality – customer’s perception towards press-to-press match, proof-to-press match, importance of conformance to international printing standards, less customer complaints, more returned customers; and (c) productivity -- ease of press scheduling, shorter press make-ready, higher first-pass yield, less re-do, less wastes, etc.

Back to ‘Struggling with Color Management’ blog -- the term, struggling, implies something that requires extraordinary effort. As athletes are fond of saying, “No pain, no gain.” If we know color management maturity impacts quality, cost, productivity, and the competitiveness of a printing company, giving color management an extraordinary effort may very well be the right thing to do.

Bob Chung
RIT / SPM

By Michael J on Nov 09, 2009

Although I don't know enough technology to really know, it seems to me that Erik's approach is just common sense. It also makes sense to me that it would be very hard to get a hearing for his approach with the installed base of offset machinery around the world.

My focus is education and see the same thing played out there. For example, school systems evolved in service of filtering and training agricultural workers to take a place in industrial society. Those with managerial talents were identified, filtered and could move forward. For most of that time, the industrial manufacturing system was a ready source of supply for most of the rest. Those who didn't make it were for the most part ignored.

Under the pressure of new realities, the education system is going through a revolution from which is emerging a new system. Last Friday, Texas followed California changing the system for buying textbooks.

Meanwhile at the college level,Jack Welch announced that he is going into the education business by offering MBA's delivered online for $26,000. The requirements are a 2.8 average and no GMAT's.

It's only the tip of the iceberg as new business models that take advantage of tech improvements continue to scale in the education industry.

The point I'm trying to make is that sooner or later a disruptive business innovation will take hold to force offset to redefine the process. As of today, it seems that inkjet is that force. Oce, HP, Screen and soon Kodak are ready to redefine newspaper printing.

Going forward, there is little doubt in my mind that the powerhouses of offset will respond. The needs of emerging markets at the bottom of the global pyramids need a radically cheaper and more predictable approach.

At some point, it's possible that some entrepreneur in India or South East Asia will take a serious look at Erik's science and use it to gain market share at the bottom of the pyramid.

By Robert Chung on Nov 11, 2009

Graphic arts imaging encompasses capturing images from the source color space, processing pixels for monitor display, and converting pixels as colorant amounts for hard copy output. ICC color management contributes to the tone and color aspect of image processing in an open-system architecture. This approach enables interoperability across computer platforms and ensures color portability amongst different media and devices.

Unfortunately, key color management concepts as well as tools used in color management implementation are not well understood. Industry personnel are often confused, struggling, or lost in color management jungle. Some of the blogs attempt to point out causes and possible cures.

To balance between color theory and hands-on color management practice, RIT School of Print Media embarked on a journey to learn and to demonstrate the use of color management to achieve repeatable and predictable color. The result is an annual publication, titled Test Targets. Hard copy of Test Targets can be purchased online at http://carypress.rit.edu/ and select ‘print media’ category. Test Targets articles in PDF are free on-line at cias.rit.edu/~gravure/tt/. Hope this helps.

Bob Chung
RIT / School of Print Media

By Scott Levy on Nov 16, 2009

It's so refreshing to see a legitimate conversation about color management. I think that many good points have been raised above. I can especially relate to the need for controlled, repeatable processes and to the desire for users of a color management system to just want it to work - like how we just want our telephone or any other device to work.

I'd like to reach out to some of the experts on this panel for a critical review of the product that we are now releasing. It is called Veroproof and its intention is to help graphic designers and other creative professionals to create a contract proof -- without being experts at color management. I understand that in the scheme of achieving complete color management accuracy this is only one small piece of the puzzle, but our hope is that it will make live a bit easier for non-experts to produce more consistent proofs.

The very quick summary is that Veroproof:
1) Is a free open source rip (which combines some of the better existing open source color management projects out there).
2) The proofing system has been certified by the IDEAlliance for GRACoL and SWOP proofs.
3) It requires the use of a few select supported 13" x 19" sheet fed Epson or HP inkjet printers along with a processing unit.
4) It requires the use of Veroproof proofing paper that has been pre-printed with a controlled color reference bar
5) The RIP will produce a second color bar that is visually compared with the first
6) Determination of the quality of a proof created can be made by visually comparing the two bars and works for GRACoL, SWOP 3, SWOP 5 proofs.

If you are willing to provide feedback to our system, I would very much appreciate it. We are just trying to make color management both simple and accessible as early on in the creative process as possible.

By Michael J on Nov 16, 2009

Scott,
Sounds promising. I think the preprinted color bar as the control is smart.

I'm curious if the input file has to be in RGB. Also do you think the same system could be used to get a good enough proof for any of the color digital output devices.

By Scott Levy on Dec 02, 2009

Also wanted to mention that Veroproof handles both RGB and CMYK profiles.

Not sure what the other question about digital output devices was referring to but it does print to the numbers for GRACoL or SWOP so anyone else printing to a GRACoL or SWOP spec will have a similar looking proof to ours.