I was wondering whether any of you cross render your inkyet prints to the print color space of the publisher's press you are submitting your images too?
I have two particular questions:
1) Do you ask for their press specific profile and are you usually successful in getting it? Alternativeliy do you use photoshop's CMYK profiles?
2) What paper do you use to print - magazines have paper which is considerably more yellow than good inkjet paper - I don't think there is much point in cross rendering on top of the range inkjet paper.
Thanks for any tips!
Regards,
Christoph
Posted by Steve Foss on September 7, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Most mags/newspapers I submit to, if they are quality pubs, don't want me to do the CMYK conversion. Each pub has its own workflow and differences in paper, ink and press performance, and it's their techs' job to convert them. Now, a publication could give you all the specs needed to do the conversion yourself, but why go through all that rigamarole when all you have to do is ship off a TIFF in RGB and let them do the work to exactly suit their own needs?
My wife used to tone color for newspapers, as did I for three years, and there's simply too much chance of someone doing their own CMYK conversion and getting something wrong enough that we had to work twice as hard to get it ready for printing, or had to contact them and have them resend an unconverted RGB.
Posted by Don Hanson on September 7, 2008 at 3:38 PM
I think what you are asking about is called "Soft Proofing" which will let YOU see what the image may look like when published.
And Steve is right about sending the file in an RGB color space. you might check with the publisher for which one they want. For instance, many of the on-line book publishers want the image in sRGB as opposed to Adobe RGB; and it does make a difference in the quality of the product if you dont send the right one
Posted by Robert Fisher on September 7, 2008 at 7:29 PM
I agree with Steve. Best bet, usually, is to send the file in RGB and let the publication or printer do the conversion.
I've actually had several discussions with a guy in the printing business about this. His idea is that he wants the file sent in CMY so that he doesn't have to do the conversion. I've told him that the reason for this is so that he doesn't have to take responsibility if the conversion doesn't turn out well. He's admitted this is the case.
If you're going to print something yourself you don't want to send a CMY file to the printer. While most printers use CMY inks, they're considered to be RGB devices. The printer driver does the conversion or PS does the conversion based on the profile you use. If you send a CMY document to a normal inkjet printer, it won't likely look too good when it comes out. If you want to supply a 'proof print' to the printer for them to match to, print it in regular RGB.
If you are going to try to do the conversion yourself then yes, you need to talk to the printer/publication and find out what profile they're using and if they're not using a standard profile then you need to get the exact colour numbers to input into the Ink Colors dialogue under Edit>Color Settings, including whether the printer has specific numbers for the overprint colours or whether you should use the Estimate Overprints option.
From the books on color management I have been reading, cross rendering means to convert your RGB document into CMYK space, then from the CMYK space to the printer space. This is done in the print with preview option when printing through photoshop and you have to select the proof rather than the document radio button.
I am asking this, because when submitting to magazines, I would rather send them a print than a digital file - that way I know exactly what I sent them - since sometimes there can be unwelcome surprises with digital submissions. It would however also be very useful to send a print which simulates their press which supposedly is possible via cross rendering as described above. It would also let me know how I can tweak my image to minimize contrast and saturation losses as they convert from RGB to that particular presses' CMYK space.
Posted by Steve Foss on September 7, 2008 at 11:48 PM
Christoph, even if they give you all their profile settings, it's still unlikely that you'll be able to see on your screen or in a print an exact match of how it will look off their press. There are too many fine variables, many of them on the press end.
There's no way a top quality mag would want a print submitted instead of a digital file or a transparency, and sending them a print is no insurance it's going to print in the mag EXACTLY as it looks in the print. A digital file is the pure data, whereas a print is the result of that data. Then they'd have to scan the print, which is another step, and then work to recover quality lost from the print/scan. Most mags would much rather have a digital file.
At some point as a photographer, one has to realize that he/she is submitting those digital images to professionals just as committed as the photographer himself/herself, and has to be able to let go with some confidence that those pros will get it right. If it makes you feel more comfortable, you can certainly send them an actual print to accompany the digital file so they have it as a reference.
The friend that Robert mentioned who wants the photographer to do the CMYK conversion as a way to cover the printing staff's ass, with all due respect to the friend, should be looking for other employ (like a government job somewhere) or should get thoroughly trained up. His/her position is like me asking a wedding party to take their own pictures and then give them to me for processing so my ass is covered if they don't like the poses. Please! A pre-press technician should know far more about the fine points of CMYK conversion specific to his/her own press regimens than most pro photographers.
The only time the printer has asked me to do my own CMYK conversion was when I wrote, designed and did the photography for a book and, acting as the graphic designer and pre-press technician, did the conversion on the cover image to the specs offered by the printer (the inside images were B&W.)
And, as mentioned, if you convert an RGB (red, green, blue) file to CMYK (cyan, magenta, yellow, black) before making your own print, you'll have a lot of trouble getting the vivid color and look you want. Photo printers work best in RGB, while printing presses require CMYK. They are very different printing media.
I hope this helps you avoid some headaches, my friend, and best of luck to you.
Magazines like Outdoor Photographer do ask for prints, and I thought they wanted to scan the prints. After reading your comment I guess that is just to screen submissions- they probably would ask for files later.
Thanks again for the thoughtful response.
Posted by Steve Foss on September 8, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Christoph, I think you're right on OP's use of prints, though I've never submitted to them. It would be my guess that they want the digital file or transparency (for film users) for actual publication in the magazine
I haven't subscribed to OP for a couple years, but the "submissions" page on their Web site indicates they take prints (along with duplicate transparencies) for initial submissions, and then work with the transparencies or digital files, whichever is the case, for publication.
From OP: "We accept all film formats, preferring 35mm, medium format and 4x5 for transparencies and 5x7 or 8x10 for prints. In all cases, we work with digital files and duplicate transparencies."
Posted by Robert Fisher on September 8, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Steve, I told him his approach was purely a CYA move and less than customer-centric. He knows it. He's been in the printing game for, probably, 30+ years. He knows his stuff. I just don't agree with his approach in this case.
Christoph, as Steve says they wouldn't use the print for publication purposes. In the case of OP it's so they can see what you can do with a camera. They can do that with digital files or trannies too. Really the only time you want to give a print to a printer for them to use in their work is as a proof print. The printer will then work to match his/her output to that proof. A lot of printers don't like taking them because it's more work on their end. But you'll print that in RGB just as you would normally. There will often be small differences between your proof and what comes off the press. CMY is a fairly small colour space compared to AdobeRGB which many people use for their photography. The paper stock used in publications doesn't have nearly the DRange that high quality fine art paper has or the ability to reproduce the more subtle differences in tonality so you'll often lose something there too. With a good printer; however, the differences will be small.
Posted by Steve Foss on September 8, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Yeah, Robert, I came on a little strong there. Just chaps my hide to see people with that level of experience operating in a CYA manner. I know it goes on all over. My wife has been a graphic designer and pre-press expert for 25 years, and since the advent of digital, she's consistently wanted digital files in RGB so she can do the CMYK conversion herself.
I'm speculating, but based on my experiences with CMYK conversions, I bet OP wants the prints for use in cross-checking the accuracy of their work with the original "intent" of the photographer. It's really, really nice to have that when you start stiring the digital pot, whether the reference is the original chrome or a print. With chromes, they can double check their scans and digi-mods against the original. In the case of digital file submissions, having a print in hand would help them overcome differences in monitor calibration and all sorts of other problems. That puts lots of pluses onto OP's score sheet, in my book.
Posted by Robert Fisher on September 8, 2008 at 4:04 PM
Hank, in this case, I think Christoph is the photographer, not the printer.
Steve, no worries. I agree. Give them RGB and let them do the conversion. On top of that, it should be a pride issue for the printer too. They should want the best quality work coming off their presses. An inexact CMY conversion won't give that and could reflect unfavourably on the printer in the future.
" Hank, in this case, I think Christoph is the photographer, not the printer."
Huh? Never thought otherwise.
On the broad question of CMYK conversions, heads rolled in a major print shop on one project I shot. I went in with the authors to review the proofs and discovered a real mess. Their reaction to our criticism was way out of whack, with the staff getting downright aggressive with us when we said the project simply couldn't go forth without the colors cleaned up. Turns out they had already printed the large run of books.
We got to work with new employees the next time around, and as a part of the proof review we (both authors and I) were asked to sign and date each page. THEN the second printing was done.
Whoa, looks like there has been quite some activity here.
Thanks for all the thoughts and feedbacks! They are greatly appreciated.
Posted by Robert Fisher on September 8, 2008 at 7:07 PM
"I'm speculating, but based on my experiences with CMYK conversions, I bet OP wants the prints for use in cross-checking the accuracy of their work with the original "intent" of the photographer."
Then the statement above confused me, Hank. Sorry, please forgive me for being so stupid.
I'm sure that you're NOT stupid Robert. More like a writing failure on my part.
Let's try this: As in my example from the book fiasco, folks in the print shops can run into problems with color if they don't have some kind of reference point for comparison after they convert to CMYK. That's especially true when receiving digital files with critical colors. By asking for a print, OP is getting around differences in calibration and all sorts of other snags simply by having the hard copy reference on hand.
I'm by no means a CMYK expert, but it's so specific if a photographer is preparing CMYK files for someone else they really need to know which paper and ink, and even which printer they are being used at the print shop in order to first calibrate your own system and produce accurate colors. Then there's the problem that the color scale in CMYK is not continuous. There are holes in it, and the printer (as in the person running the printing press) and GA are down to guessing what is best fit to cover the holes. Stir in a digital file that was originally prepared on a monitor calibrated differently than the print shop (or magazine), and all hell can break out. That's all a bunch easier and more accurate for OP when they've got a print from the artist. The print "sezz it all" as a reference.
In the book example I cited, the products I photographed virtually all had colors that landed in the cracks of the CMYK scale. A little common sense by the folks in the print shop would have saved their jobs even without us reviewing the proofs. For example, have you ever seen halibut flesh that was as orange as a pumpkin?
Posted by Steve Foss on September 9, 2008 at 8:07 AM
Well said, Hank. My spouse has been a graphic designer and pre-press expert for 25 years, and I learned enough from her that I could do RGB to CMYK color conversions and toning for the press for four years at a newspaper (she remaines the real conversion assassin between us). While daily newspapers tend to be in a bigger hurry than magazines, we still appreciated a hard print to go along with a digital file so we could honor the photographer's intent.
It's the same with our book publishing. Whether we take digital files or scan an artists's work on the flatbed or drum scanners, we hold onto the work (and like a hard print of digital files though in most cases that's not really necessary) so we can duplicate as closely as possible the color subtleties using the dreaded CMYK.
Life would be much easier for digital photographers if print presses used RGB technology instead of CMYK, or if presses, like our inkjet and dye photo printers, could do the RGB to CMYK conversion in their heads. Yeah, sure, let's get right on that. A worldwide press conversion.
It occurs to me that the confusion probably comes from my loose use of the term "printer." I meant the person pushing the button or the company doing the work, rather than the machine itself. As desktop photographers we tend to use the term to mean that little machine sitting beside us, but the moment you tag CMYK onto the discussion, the focus moves to the person, the company, and their machine rather than yours. The familar desktop machines run on RGB, while the pro services I reference are on CMYK.
Discussion
17 repliesI was wondering whether any of you cross render your inkyet prints to the print color space of the publisher's press you are submitting your images too?
I have two particular questions:
1) Do you ask for their press specific profile and are you usually successful in getting it? Alternativeliy do you use photoshop's CMYK profiles?
2) What paper do you use to print - magazines have paper which is considerably more yellow than good inkjet paper - I don't think there is much point in cross rendering on top of the range inkjet paper.
Thanks for any tips!
Regards,
Christoph
My wife used to tone color for newspapers, as did I for three years, and there's simply too much chance of someone doing their own CMYK conversion and getting something wrong enough that we had to work twice as hard to get it ready for printing, or had to contact them and have them resend an unconverted RGB.
And Steve is right about sending the file in an RGB color space. you might check with the publisher for which one they want. For instance, many of the on-line book publishers want the image in sRGB as opposed to Adobe RGB; and it does make a difference in the quality of the product if you dont send the right one
I've actually had several discussions with a guy in the printing business about this. His idea is that he wants the file sent in CMY so that he doesn't have to do the conversion. I've told him that the reason for this is so that he doesn't have to take responsibility if the conversion doesn't turn out well. He's admitted this is the case.
If you're going to print something yourself you don't want to send a CMY file to the printer. While most printers use CMY inks, they're considered to be RGB devices. The printer driver does the conversion or PS does the conversion based on the profile you use. If you send a CMY document to a normal inkjet printer, it won't likely look too good when it comes out. If you want to supply a 'proof print' to the printer for them to match to, print it in regular RGB.
If you are going to try to do the conversion yourself then yes, you need to talk to the printer/publication and find out what profile they're using and if they're not using a standard profile then you need to get the exact colour numbers to input into the Ink Colors dialogue under Edit>Color Settings, including whether the printer has specific numbers for the overprint colours or whether you should use the Estimate Overprints option.
From the books on color management I have been reading, cross rendering means to convert your RGB document into CMYK space, then from the CMYK space to the printer space. This is done in the print with preview option when printing through photoshop and you have to select the proof rather than the document radio button.
I am asking this, because when submitting to magazines, I would rather send them a print than a digital file - that way I know exactly what I sent them - since sometimes there can be unwelcome surprises with digital submissions. It would however also be very useful to send a print which simulates their press which supposedly is possible via cross rendering as described above. It would also let me know how I can tweak my image to minimize contrast and saturation losses as they convert from RGB to that particular presses' CMYK space.
There's no way a top quality mag would want a print submitted instead of a digital file or a transparency, and sending them a print is no insurance it's going to print in the mag EXACTLY as it looks in the print. A digital file is the pure data, whereas a print is the result of that data. Then they'd have to scan the print, which is another step, and then work to recover quality lost from the print/scan. Most mags would much rather have a digital file.
At some point as a photographer, one has to realize that he/she is submitting those digital images to professionals just as committed as the photographer himself/herself, and has to be able to let go with some confidence that those pros will get it right. If it makes you feel more comfortable, you can certainly send them an actual print to accompany the digital file so they have it as a reference.
The friend that Robert mentioned who wants the photographer to do the CMYK conversion as a way to cover the printing staff's ass, with all due respect to the friend, should be looking for other employ (like a government job somewhere) or should get thoroughly trained up. His/her position is like me asking a wedding party to take their own pictures and then give them to me for processing so my ass is covered if they don't like the poses. Please! A pre-press technician should know far more about the fine points of CMYK conversion specific to his/her own press regimens than most pro photographers.
The only time the printer has asked me to do my own CMYK conversion was when I wrote, designed and did the photography for a book and, acting as the graphic designer and pre-press technician, did the conversion on the cover image to the specs offered by the printer (the inside images were B&W.)
And, as mentioned, if you convert an RGB (red, green, blue) file to CMYK (cyan, magenta, yellow, black) before making your own print, you'll have a lot of trouble getting the vivid color and look you want. Photo printers work best in RGB, while printing presses require CMYK. They are very different printing media.
I hope this helps you avoid some headaches, my friend, and best of luck to you.
Magazines like Outdoor Photographer do ask for prints, and I thought they wanted to scan the prints. After reading your comment I guess that is just to screen submissions- they probably would ask for files later.
Thanks again for the thoughtful response.
I haven't subscribed to OP for a couple years, but the "submissions" page on their Web site indicates they take prints (along with duplicate transparencies) for initial submissions, and then work with the transparencies or digital files, whichever is the case, for publication.
From OP: "We accept all film formats, preferring 35mm, medium format and 4x5 for transparencies and 5x7 or 8x10 for prints. In all cases, we work with digital files and duplicate transparencies."
Christoph, as Steve says they wouldn't use the print for publication purposes. In the case of OP it's so they can see what you can do with a camera. They can do that with digital files or trannies too. Really the only time you want to give a print to a printer for them to use in their work is as a proof print. The printer will then work to match his/her output to that proof. A lot of printers don't like taking them because it's more work on their end. But you'll print that in RGB just as you would normally. There will often be small differences between your proof and what comes off the press. CMY is a fairly small colour space compared to AdobeRGB which many people use for their photography. The paper stock used in publications doesn't have nearly the DRange that high quality fine art paper has or the ability to reproduce the more subtle differences in tonality so you'll often lose something there too. With a good printer; however, the differences will be small.
Steve, no worries. I agree. Give them RGB and let them do the conversion. On top of that, it should be a pride issue for the printer too. They should want the best quality work coming off their presses. An inexact CMY conversion won't give that and could reflect unfavourably on the printer in the future.
Huh? Never thought otherwise.
On the broad question of CMYK conversions, heads rolled in a major print shop on one project I shot. I went in with the authors to review the proofs and discovered a real mess. Their reaction to our criticism was way out of whack, with the staff getting downright aggressive with us when we said the project simply couldn't go forth without the colors cleaned up. Turns out they had already printed the large run of books.
We got to work with new employees the next time around, and as a part of the proof review we (both authors and I) were asked to sign and date each page. THEN the second printing was done.
Thanks for all the thoughts and feedbacks! They are greatly appreciated.
Then the statement above confused me, Hank. Sorry, please forgive me for being so stupid.
Let's try this: As in my example from the book fiasco, folks in the print shops can run into problems with color if they don't have some kind of reference point for comparison after they convert to CMYK. That's especially true when receiving digital files with critical colors. By asking for a print, OP is getting around differences in calibration and all sorts of other snags simply by having the hard copy reference on hand.
I'm by no means a CMYK expert, but it's so specific if a photographer is preparing CMYK files for someone else they really need to know which paper and ink, and even which printer they are being used at the print shop in order to first calibrate your own system and produce accurate colors. Then there's the problem that the color scale in CMYK is not continuous. There are holes in it, and the printer (as in the person running the printing press) and GA are down to guessing what is best fit to cover the holes. Stir in a digital file that was originally prepared on a monitor calibrated differently than the print shop (or magazine), and all hell can break out. That's all a bunch easier and more accurate for OP when they've got a print from the artist. The print "sezz it all" as a reference.
In the book example I cited, the products I photographed virtually all had colors that landed in the cracks of the CMYK scale. A little common sense by the folks in the print shop would have saved their jobs even without us reviewing the proofs. For example, have you ever seen halibut flesh that was as orange as a pumpkin?
It's the same with our book publishing. Whether we take digital files or scan an artists's work on the flatbed or drum scanners, we hold onto the work (and like a hard print of digital files though in most cases that's not really necessary) so we can duplicate as closely as possible the color subtleties using the dreaded CMYK.
Life would be much easier for digital photographers if print presses used RGB technology instead of CMYK, or if presses, like our inkjet and dye photo printers, could do the RGB to CMYK conversion in their heads. Yeah, sure, let's get right on that. A worldwide press conversion.
It occurs to me that the confusion probably comes from my loose use of the term "printer." I meant the person pushing the button or the company doing the work, rather than the machine itself. As desktop photographers we tend to use the term to mean that little machine sitting beside us, but the moment you tag CMYK onto the discussion, the focus moves to the person, the company, and their machine rather than yours. The familar desktop machines run on RGB, while the pro services I reference are on CMYK.