ipa proofing and jdf roundups 2009 -...

IPA Proofing and JDF RoundUPs 2009 Procedures and protocol Martin Habekost

Larry Warter

Larry Water & Martin Habekost IPA_Proofing_round_up_2009_V4d.doc of 15

IPAProofingandJDFRoundUP2009–ProceduresandprotocolV4

February18,2009http://www.ipa.org/2009‐ipa‐technical‐conference

Documentname: IPA_Proofing_round_up_2009_V1.docDate: January12,2009Author: MartinHabekost/LarryWarterRevisionhistory: Version1Documentname: IPA_Proofing_round_up_2009_V1A_ASEdit.docDate: January18,2009Authors: MartinHabekost/LarryWarterRevisionhistory: Version2Changes: ReceivedandincorporatedwrittencommentsfromAbhay

SharmaandSteveBonoffDocumentname: IPA_Proofing_round_up_2009_V3b.docDate: January30,2009Authors: MartinHabekost/LarryWarterRevisionhistory: Version3Changes: Includednewtestsset‐upbyAbhaySharmaandMartin

HabekostDocumentname: IPA_Proofing_round_up_2009_V4.docDate: February18,2009Authors: MartinHabekost/LarryWarterRevisionhistory: Version4Changes: IncludedchangesfromthevendorcallandJDF


TableofContents

1. IntroductionIPAProofingRoundUP........................................................................4

2. Procedure(s) ............................................................................................................5

3.Testdescriptions.........................................................................................................6 3.1Hard&Soft(monitor)proofingtestprocedures......................................................................................6 3.1.1Generalprocedures ..........................................................................................................................................6 3.1.1.1ApplicationDataSheetclarity ................................................................................................................6 3.1.1.2TestForms.........................................................................................................................................................6 3.1.1.3HardCopyProofingSystemsTests ........................................................................................................6 3.1.1.4MonitorProofingSystemsTests .............................................................................................................7 3.1.2.MatchingSWOP/GRACoL .............................................................................................................................7 3.1.3.GreyBalance.......................................................................................................................................................7 3.1.4.Stepwedge ..........................................................................................................................................................7 3.1.5Opticalbrighteners...........................................................................................................................................8 3.1.6MulticolorproofingNcolorprofiles ........................................................................................................9 3.1.7.Spotcolours(Pantone/PantoneGOE™).................................................................................................9

3.2“Normal”marketplaceresults .........................................................................................................................10 3.2.1Fullgamutandoptimizedproofs............................................................................................................ 11

IPAJDFRoundUP2009 .................................................................................................13 Concept................................................................................................................................................................................13 CertifiedProducts ..........................................................................................................................................................13 LayCrimpICS....................................................................................................................................................................13 MIStoPrepressICS .......................................................................................................................................................13 Practicalities .....................................................................................................................................................................14 Outcomes............................................................................................................................................................................14

Bibliography .................................................................................................................15


IntroductionIPAProofingRoundUP

The IPA Proofing RoundUP has been part of the IPA Technical Conference since2001,excludingthe2008conference.Theprocedureof theProofingRoundUPhasbeen refined over the years and went from visual tweaking by knowledgeableoperators toproofingby thenumbersaswas demonstratedat the2006 technicalconference.

The2006resultsweregroundbreaking in that itdemonstrated, for the first time,vendorswere able to produce proofswithin industry tolerances for visualmatchusing just color management numerical techniques. In 2007 Proofing RoundUPvendors and users again submitted proofs of the digital test file prior to theconference.Thevendorshadnodifficulties inachievingavery closematch to thereferencefilebyhavinganaverageΔEof1.01fromthetargetvalues,whiletheusershad a surprising low averageΔE of only 2.21 from the target values. Since thisappearedtoconfirmthattheindustrywasfullycapableofproperlyusingproofingsystems, the Proofing RoundUP was eliminated in 2008. But, anecdotal reportsfromusersat theconferenceindicatedthatactualpracticewasstill far fromthesepotentialresults,andtheRoundUPhasbeenre‐institutedfor2009.

Since the suppliers and users are still able to match the reference printingconditionsitisnecessarytofocusontheactualstateofproofingintermsofmatchtothereferenceprintingconditionsthatisusedineverydaybusiness.Assuppliersare able to routinelymatch characterization data, it is nowof interest to exploreother issues relating to color proofing, which could be causing the reportedproblems,suchasanypossiblemisinterpretationsoftheADS’s,anyproblemswithmeasurement or other controlmechanisms, the generalwillingness and ability ofusers to make every effort to try to achieve the same results as the experts, allresulting in a “spot check” of the real current status of proofs being supplied byproofprovidersinthecommercial,publicationandnewspapermarkets.,

Atthe2007IPATechnicalConferenceatestwasalsodoneinregardstotheabilityofproofingsystemstoconveyPantone®spotcolors.TheproofswerecomparedtoPantone®colorchips.Whiletherewasonlyavisualcomparison,resultsseemedtosupportuserreportsthattheproofingsystemshadtheabilitytomatchspotcolors.Therearehoweverconflictingreports that,while initialspotcolorproofingmeetsuserexpectations,repurposingofthosecolorsgivesgenerallypoorresults.ThiswillbeinvestigatedaspartoftheupcomingRoundUP.

Finally,throughtheadvancesofdisplaytechnologyitisnowpossibletohaveviablesoftproofingsolutions.Thequestioniswhethertheycanbeheldtothesametighttolerancesashardcopyproofs. Obviously thecontrollingsoftwarecanholdthesetolerances, but the LCD display technology, which is the enabler of soft proofing


solutions,introducesitsownsetofchallenges.InthisiterationofthesoftProofingRoundUP the conference participants will be able to see which colors posechallenges to soft proofing and also that the type of LCD display being used cancontributetopossiblecolorchallenges.

1. Procedure(s)

Hereisasummarylistoftheproposedtestsforthe2009ProofingRoundUP;

Hard&Softproofing–ADSStudy

– MatchingSWOP/GRACoL

– GreyBalance

– Stepwedge

– Remoteproofing

– Opticalbrighteners

– Multicolorproofing

– Spotcolours(Pantone/PantoneGOE™)

– Marketplacesurveyofcommercialproofproviders

– End‐Uservalidation


3.Testdescriptions

3.1Hard&Soft(monitor)proofingtestprocedures

3.1.1Generalprocedures

3.1.1.1ApplicationDataSheetclarityAn on‐site evaluation of the SWOP/GRACoL ADS. Can a knowledgeable userunderstand and follow the ADS instructions. and “pull” a proof that meetsspecifications?Isthereaderconfidentthattheyknowwhatisrequiredassumingabasicknowledgeoftherespectiveproofingequipment.IstheADSandthesoftware“insync”?IPAteammembersandanywillinguserswillconducttheevaluationon‐site forequipment in thevendorarea andat local sites forotherequipmentwithsupplierguidance.Outcome:TheintentionofthistestistoexoneratetheAds’sforanypossible contributiontoproofingvariation inpracticeor tomake suggestionsfor improved clarity of the documents. Since, the format of the ADS is presentlyunderreview,itwillalsoserveasanopportunityforuserstoreviewandcommentontherevisedprocedures.

3.1.1.2TestFormsThe sheet should contain the IT8.7/4 and also standard images. These imagesshould include saturated cyan colors so that in the soft proofing systemswe canexploretheadvantagesofextended‐gamutdisplays.Possibleissuesinregardstotheproofingpiecewillbedocumentedonly.Othercontrolelementsontheformbesidesthe IT8.7/4 targetwill the P2P target , both the old and new IDEAlliance controlstrips and theHutcheson proofing target. For this test a test form, similar to thatused in the2007RoundUPwillbemadeavailable fordownload from thewebsiteassociatedwiththeproofingRoundUp.

3.1.1.3HardCopyProofingSystemsTestsFor hard copy proofing systems, suppliers/vendorswill be asked to submit theirproofs fourweeks before the conference so the data analysis can take place andpropermeasurementproceduresbeestablishedthatwillalsobeusedfor theuservalidation part of this RoundUP. Vendorswill be requested to premeasured andtabulate the results from the IT8.7/4, the P2P and new IDEAlliance control strip.The reports will indicate what percent of the delta E error was attributed tomeasurementandtocomparethedeltaEerrorof the IDEAllianceControlStriptotheIT8.7/4error.Incasesoflargemeasurementerrors,asecondgoroundmayberequired. Profiles should not include patches from the IDEAlliance target or theHutcheson target that are not in the IT8.7/4 in order to determine whether theprofilingprocessisaccuratelypredictingothercolors.


3.1.1.4MonitorProofingSystemsTestsThesoftproofingsectionoftheRoundUPisnotmeanttofindoutwhichsolutionisbetterthantheotherone,buttoshowthechallengescertaintypeofimagesposetoall of these systems. Specificallya comparisonwillbemadebetweennormalandwidegamutdisplaysandespeciallyhowwelltheydisplayimagescontainingcertaintypesofsaturatedcyancolors. Thethesis forthissectionisthatmonitorproofingsystems with wide gamut displays will have essentially the same ability toreproduceGRACoLreferencecharacterizationvaluestothesametolerancesashardcopy proofing systems in the following tests, but lesser monitors will requireapproximately twice the tolerances to accommodate the colors that can’t bereproducedandareclippedbacktothemonitorgamut.The followingtestswillbedoneat theconferenceontworepresentativemonitorswhichwillbethesameforallvendors.

3.1.2.MatchingSWOP/GRACoLAwell established test that checks for amatch to a reference printing condition.Suppliersprovideaproof containingan IT8.7/4 target that shouldmatchGRACoL#1orSWOP#3,etc.Justification:Thisisa“sanity‐check”toensurethatcommercialproductsareworkingas intendedand that commercialproducts can stillproduceproofsthatformthebasisofcertification.

3.1.3.GreyBalanceInthistestsupplierssubmitaproofingsheetthatcontainstheP2Ptarget.Fromthistargetwemeasureanddetermine compliancewithG7.Weask thequestion if theproofmeetsGRACoLandtheGRACoLcharacterizationdatasetwasdevelopedwiththeG7neutraldensitycurvecalculatedintotheprocess,doesitalsomeetG7?Ithasbeenassumedthatitshould,butitisaveryusefulandrelevantquestiontoaskarethere any potential problems with this thesis. It also highlights the differenceconceptually betweenGRACoL andG7. TheG7 process can be analyzed using theIDEALink Curve software analysis tool. The whole test will begin to determinetolerancesfortheG7process,atthemomentthereisnothingthatsays“thisproofmeets G7”. The issue of gray balance is the underlying parameter, so thiswill beindicatedbyalsousingISO12647‐7tolerancesfor∆H,huedifferencebetweenCMYandK.TheP2Ptargetispartofthetestformdescribedin3.1.2,butonlytheproofsgeneratedtomatchGRACoL#1printingconditionswillbeevaluated.Sincethistestis part of the test in 3.1.2 the same time line for vendor/supplier submissionsapplieshereaswell.

3.1.4.Step‐wedgeThe use of the new IDEAlliance ISO 12647‐7 2007 Color Control Strip will beevaluated.Doesmeasurementof thisstripensureGRACoLcompliance?ShouldtheIDEAlliancetargethavelargertolerancesinpracticethantheIT8becauseithasto


beexptrapolated? AreRIPsable to interpret thedecimalvalues in this file? Ifyoupassthecontrolstriptest,doyoualsopassthefull1617patchtest?Howusefulisthecontrolstripinverifyingacompliantproof?Doesthe2008versionofthecontrolstrip give more accurate readings than the 2007? The IDEAlliance ISO 12647‐72007ColourControlStripispartofthetestformdescribedin3.1.2.Thereforethesametimelineapplieshereaswell.

3.1.5OpticalbrightenersThistestisactuallyaconcertedeffortbythevendorstoaddressandgiveguidanceto their customers on how to address a very pressing need in the industry. Itevaluates any proofing system’s ability to match a press sheet with opticalbrighteningagents (OBA).All commercialpress sheets containOBAs,whichmakethe paper lookwhite andmeasure blue. In colormanagement the best advice todatehasbeentocreateafalsesituationbyremovingUVlightandtheeffectofOBAs.Thisisnotrealistic.SuppliersareaskedtomatchapressheetthatcontainsOBA’s.AstandardpresssheetwillbeprintedatRyersonUniversityonacoatedpaperwithhighOBA.Proofingsupplierswillbeaskedtouseanytechnology/solutionsattheirdisposaltocreateamatchtothispresssheet(therehastobesomeformulationinthe process like “average the profiles developed with and without UV in themeasuring source” so that users could reproduce the technique. It cannot be anunexplained visualmatch.) and document the tools/techniques used to achieve agoodresult.

The proofwill be compared to the sheet under standardD50 lighting conditions.ConferenceattendeescanevaluatetheinfluenceofOBAsusingtheJUSTNormlichtLED light boothwhich enable to add or subtract UV light from the viewing lightsource.Thevendorspartakinginthistestneedtodocument:

– theOBAcontentintheinkjetmedia

– thetoolsusedtocorrectmeasurements

– anyfiltersettingsusedinthemeasurements.

– Theformulaforthematch.

Thebrightnessof thepapers (press andproof)willbeevaluatedusing theTAPPI452method thatmeasures the brightness at 457 nm and CIE LabmeasurementswithandwithoutUVincluded.

Outcomes:averyinterestingpracticaltestthathelpsexplaintothecommunitythechallenges ofOBAs in proofing and printing paper. This test is applicable to bothhardcopyandsoftcopysystems.

For this test the test form described in 3.1.2. will be printed on the PrintmasterPM74 press at the School of Graphic Communications management.


Vendors/supplierswhowishtoparticipatehavetostatetheirintentby[DATE].Thepress sheetswill be sent to themvia FedEx orUPS. They vendors/suppliers have[AMOUNT] weeks time to return the proofs to the School of GraphicCommunicationsManagementforevaluation.

Timing: Sincethis isanesthetic trial, there isnotimerequirements. Vendorsareencouraged to submit and re submit proofswhichwill be compared to the presssheetsundertheviewingboothfortheconferenceandthedegreeofmatchwillbegiven and whether the match was improved by increasing or decreasing the UVcomponentofthelightstoaidinsubsequentattempts.

3.1.6MulticolorproofingN‐colorprofilesUse ofmulticolor (CMYK + 2 or 3 special colors, or extended ink gamut set), forpackaging applications. The special colors in inkjet printersmakes this a relevantinvestigationsinceinkjetproofingsystemscanuseuptoeightcolors.Itispossibletoexaminethosesystemsthatmaybeusingspectralmixingmethodsorsomeotherform ofmathematicalmixing between the 100% solid and the tone scales. Somesystems are based on spectral data, while others have a system that is based onmathematicalmodeling. It isuseful to test/evaluatemulticolorprintingsystemforhardcopyandsoftcopysystems.

Thecommitteewilldeterminewhetherwecanusearealjobthathasbeenprintedusingtheactualprofilesforthejob.Ncolorproofswillbemadeusingthoseprofiles.

3.1.7.Spotcolours(Pantone/PantoneGOE™)ThenewPantone system is available.Does theRIPhandle thisnewsystem?Doesthe proofing system identify and process the GOE™ colors correctly? This test isavailable for hardcopy and softcopy. The GOE™ library is available for AdobeCS3/CS4andavailablefordownloadoronCDROM.Doesanyonecare?

First the committeewill canvas the IPAusersanddeterminewhatpercentageareusingGOE™andwhatpercentagewouldwantto.Ifthenumbersaresufficient,asetof10Pantoneand/orPantoneGOE™colorswillbeselected.Suppliers/vendorshavetoindicatetheirparticipationinthistestby[DATE].ThisisnecessarydeterminetheamountofPantoneswatchbooksthatareneededforthistest.Thecolorchipswiththetestcolourswillthenbesenttothesuppliers/vendorsthatwhichtoparticipatein this test.A templatewillbegenerated forplacementof the color chipsand theproofed samples. The results of this evaluation will only show the numericaldeviation from the standard. The minimum and maximum deviation will berecorded,butnoproofingsystemwillbeidentified.


3.2“Normal”marketplaceresultsForthehardproofingtests,proofswillbesolicitedbyprintbuyersfromtheirprintserviceproviders.Theproofwillbemadefroma file thatlooks likeareal job,butconsistsoflesserknowSCIDimagesalsocontainingtheIDEAllianceproofingtargetProofs will be made to match any of the following printing conditions: GRACoL,SWOP3, SWOP5 and SNAP. Three groups of print buyers will be approached: 1.Agencyandbrandmanagers from thepublishing industrywillbeasked to supplySWOPproofs;2.DesignersidentifiedthroughorganizationslikePrintBuyersOnlinewill be asked to supplyGRACoLproofs; 3. Agency and brandmanagers from thenewspaper markets will be identified through NAA to supply SNAP proofs. Theprintbuyersfromallthreegroupswillbeaskedtorequestsproofsmadeusingtheabove targets from their current print service providers. They will request theproofbemadepertheappropriateSNAP,GRACoLorSWOPspecifications.

Abest case scenarioof this it to testproofingdoneatdifferent sites,proofing thesame test filebutwithdifferentdevices.This test also looksat consistencyacrossdifferentlocationswheretheusershavetheneedtomatchunits.Thisrelatestothesituationofaprinterandalsothecustomerbothhavingthesameproofingsolutionsandbeingable to “pullproofs”. If the suppliersagree, this test can bemademorechallenging bymatching theirproofswith different devices, e.g. the suppliers canuseanEpson4800andaHPdesignjet..Forthistestthetestformdescribedin3.1.2willalsobeused.Vendorscanaskcustomerswithvarioussitesacrossthecontinentor across the world to proof the test form and submit it a week before theconferencetotheIPA.Theevaluationwilltakeplaceduringtheconferencesincethemeasurementprocedureshavebeenestablished.

Also, leadinguptotheconference,userswillhavetheopportunity tosubmit theirownproofs. For this purpose the test file described in 3.1.1.2.which includes theIT8.7/4 test target will be made available for download from the conferencewebsite.

ThemeasurementdatagatheredfromtheIDEAlliancetargetontheseproofswillbecompared against the chosen reference characterization data for those patches.Sincethis isobviouslynota testof the individualsystems, theresultswillonlybepublished as aggregate results bymarket place and in total. Variation by type ofsystemswillbepublishedifthereisadefinitetrend,buttheuseridentificationwillnotbepublished(exceptincaseswheretheuserqualifiesforacertificate)

Thebenefit to theprintbuyerwillbeanassessmentof theaccuracyof theirproofsupplier by comparison to industry average as well as to the ideal conditionsidentifiedin2007.Tomakeitworthwhiletotheproofsuppliers,theywillbeofferedadiscountontheTechnicalConferenceregistrationfeesaftertheyhavesubmitted


theirproofs. Also,iftheirproofshavemetindustrytolerances,theywillreceiveacertificate to the effect that they have demonstrated that they meetSNAP/GRACoL/SWOP compared against ISO 12647‐7 tolerances (less restrictivethanSWOP).inablindtestunderproductionconditions.

Aninitialtrialwithlimitedprintbuyers,totesttheprocesswillbesetup.

Themarketplace surveywill also include realworldproofs that contain identifiedPantone®colors(withingamut)andwillbesolicitedfromprintersandpublishersacross the industry. The proof will not be shown publicly, only the proofedPantone® color patches, the numeric matching results, the marketplaces and ageneric product descriptionwill be released. For the submissionof theproof twoquestionsneedtobeanswered:

• WasaPantone®colorchipprovidedwiththeproof?

• Wastheproofandtheresultantprintdeemedacceptablebytheproofbuyer?

Tofacilitatethevisualandmeasurementaspectsofthetest,Pantone®willbeaskedtosupplyfivegoodswatchbooksforthistest.MeasurementsofthePantonecolorsfrom these five books will be averaged and used as the color standard for thePantone® color(s) present on the proof (statistical variation will be noted). ThepaperwhiteoftheproofingpaperwillalsobemeasuredandcomparedagainstthepaperwhiteofthePantone®bookstodeterminethebaseinduced∆Eandwhetherthishasmuchbearingonanyvariation.

3.2.1FullgamutandoptimizedproofsVendorsandalsoconferenceattendeeswillhavetheopportunitytosubmitproofs,constrained for a reference characterization data of two IT8.7/4 targetswith onetarget setwithout any colormanagement to show the full gamut of the proofingdevice.EachtargetwillthenbeusedtomeasurehowmanyPantone®colorscanbereproducedwithintheeffectivegamuteitherthecharacterizationdatasetorthefullgamut of the proofing process using the Graeme Gill’s Argyll color managementsystem(Gill).Participantswillgetacertificatethatwillstatetheamount(percent)ofPantonecolorstheirproofingsystemcanshow.


IPA JDF RoundUP 2009 Procedures and protocol Abhay Sharma Martin Habekost

Larry Warter


IPAJDFRoundUP2009

ConceptTheconceptfortheJDFRoundUPtestisverysimple.AJDFfilewillbecreatedinasoftware“manager”applicationandthatfilewillbeofferedto“workers”toconsumeandinterpretthefile.AnyinstructionsorcontentthatarecontainedwithintheJDFfile should be executed. If there are instructions for a proof, for example, the testseeks to determine if the software accepting the JDF file correctly interprets theinstructionsintermsofcropmarks,taglines,andpagesimposedfromsourcePDFdocuments.This test isrelevantasmanysuppliersprovidesolutionsthatare“JDFcompliant”andthereisgreatinterestintheend‐usercommunitytoautomatepartsoftheirworkflow.

CertifiedProductsCIP4viaPIA/GATFcertifies thatproductsproduce JDFfiles thatmeetappropriatespecifications.A“JDFcertified”productsuchasDynagramDynastriporKodakPrepsare certified under the LayCrimp ICS. LayCrimp stands for layout, creation andimposition and ICS stands for Interoperability Conformance Specifications. Uservalidation of a JDF file can be done via the JDF Editor, a program available fromCIP4.

LayCrimpICSTheJDFRoundUPwillincludeanexaminationoftheLayCrimpICS.Inthistest,aJDFinstancewillprovidearunlistthatincludessignaturelayoutparametersaswellasparameters for theplacementofprinter'smarksandwilluseURLsto indicatethePDFfilesandotherdatafilescontainingcontentandmarks.Thetargetsheetwillnotbeprintedduplexandallcontentwillberenderedtoonesurfaceofthesheet.TheIPAteamwillcreateaflatimpositionpdfusingacertifiedproductandwillsharetheJDFfileofthejob.ThetestistoseeifasoftwaresuppliercanaccepttheJDFfile,andusingonlyinstructionswithintheJDFfile,accuratelyre‐createtheimposition.

MIStoPrepressICSIn this test a certifiedMIS toPrepressmanagerproductwillbeused, forexampleHiflex MIS. The MIS system will create a JDF job ticket containing as muchinformationaspossible.Somecategoriesofdatamaybeavailable,othersmaynot,for example, imposition preparation, platemaking, and prepress preparationmaynotbeavailable.Jobdetailslikesizeandquantitymaybeencoded.Iftheconsumingproductdoesnotuseparticularinstructions,itmusttransmitthoseunaltered.TheJDF job ticket from the MIS system will be offered to participating suppliers toconsume. Those products with certification can consume this file, even productswhohavenotsoughtcertificationcanconsumethisMIStoPrepressfile.


PracticalitiesDemofileswillbepostedforsupplierstotry.AtagivendateandtimethefinalJDFfiles will be made available. It will be necessary for vendors to provide ahardcopy/softcopy proof of this system and have IPA managers verify that allimpositionorotherjobcriterionarepresent.Itisnotnecessaryfortheproductstobe on‐site. PDF proofs could be made off‐site and sent in, or the job may bedisplayedonthescreen.

OutcomesTheprinting industry canbe considered tobeboth “a la carte”and “fixedmenu”.The content of each job is different, thus printing is “a la carte”, however theproduction of jobs is often standardized, e.g. 8‐up signatures on a press sheet.Automation is necessary as the printing industry is not a high profit marginindustry.JDFprovidesanopportunityforefficienciesfromprocessautomation,andmore accurate and more detailed feedback for costing and identification ofbottlenecks or un‐billed expenditures. At the moment, JDF is not plug‐n‐play,supplier to supplier integrationsarenecessary.This seriesof tests seeks tomovethe JDF protocol from the world of “integrations” towards the utopian world of“plug‐n‐play”.Muchprogresshasbeenmade in JDF integrated solutions– thetestwill demonstrate and applaud those successful implementations. The testswill atthesameidentifyareas inwhich JDF integration isnotworking.Examplesof“badpractice” suchasunnecessaryxmlnamespacesor improper file specnotationwillbehighlighted.


BibliographyGill,G.(n.d.).Retrieved0106,2009,fromArgyllColorManagementSystemHomePage:http://www.argyllcms.com

ISO12647‐1:20041),Graphictechnology—Processcontrolforthemanufactureofhalf‐tonecolourseparations,proofandproductionprints—Part1:Parametersandmeasurementmethods

ISO 12642-2: 2005, Graphictechnology—Inputdataforcharacterizationof4‐colorprocessprinting(ANSI/IT8.7/4-2005 is equivalent)

ISO 3664:2008, Viewingconditionsforgraphicartsandphotography

13655:2008, Graphictechnology—Spectralmeasurementandcolorimetriccomputationforgraphicartsimages

ipa proofing and jdf roundups 2009 -...

Documents