Pantone matching for digital printing

[ProWraps™]

anyone else want to shoot themselves when you try to do this? what do you tell your customers? we have one that is killing us making us try to match PERFECTLY. i keep telling her its not going to happen. the color that WILL NOT match no matter what i do is 375c. its a BRIGHT chartruse that is so far out in the color spectrum, that spraying inks, will not come close. either too yellow, or too green. now its getting costly due to the amount of time, and materials we have wasted. any suggestions? oh and of course she says "oh we have never had a problem with it before!!!". eh.. yeah.

[Pat White]

Yup I'm just getting into that world lol. We just did a wrap with that green and the guy that printed it for us did an amazing job matching it. Not sure if this pic does it justice but it was BRIGHT-almost fluorescent. He used LAB colors to match it... not sure if that helps. It was printed on a Roland... are you using Mutoh's?

[ProWraps™]

yeah we are using mutohs. i wish i could get a green like that. that is almost what im looking for.

[cgsigns_jamie]

If you haven't already, print a Pantone chart from Flexi (your favorite application) and pick the swatch that is closest to the actual pantone color.

That's one of my favorite features of our Roland, the "Spot" color library that is built into the RIP. Just specify the color number and the RIP will convert it to the proper color every time.

[Jester1167]

I always show them the Pantone Color Bridge.

The one on the left is a SOLID SPOT COLOR which would be like a screen printers ink. The one on the left if 4 color process which is like a CMYK printer. The colors on our Roland usually are close the the spot color or halfway in between.

I have noticed when I convert a Pantone to CMYK the colors are less intense on screen as well as printed. You might mess with the RGB version instead. It is my understanding that printers have a wider color gamaut than the CMYK color pallet will allow?

[bob]

anyone else want to shoot themselves when you try to do this? what do you tell your customers? we have one that is killing us making us try to match PERFECTLY. i keep telling her its not going to happen. the color that WILL NOT match no matter what i do is 375c. its a BRIGHT chartruse that is so far out in the color spectrum, that spraying inks, will not come close. either too yellow, or too green. now its getting costly due to the amount of time, and materials we have wasted. any suggestions? oh and of course she says "oh we have never had a problem with it before!!!". eh.. yeah.

I point to the large Pantone chart on the wall that I printed on like media and tell them to pick a color they like. I tell them that that chart is the truth and all else is illusion. If that won't do then I guess they can go elsewhere.

[luggnut]

the color gamut on most printers are larger than the cmyk in the pantone bridge. i noticed on my mutoh it will hit colors closer than the patone color bridge shows as the cmyk equivalent. on some colors i have use the pantone process color palette out of flexi and have gotten some very vivid colors. if you are printing a raster from Photoshop or something then the color will be even harder to get. maybe if you change your rendering intents for rasters to relative colormetric? (if it is raster) i don't know that one for sure.

[Fuzzbuster]

the only way to fly is to print your own pmschart because thats what you CAN print, and let her decide on the color.

you may never get to the color she wants

her eyes might be wrong too!:banghead:

good luck!!

[jasonx]

Are you viewing the printed samples outside or inside? Make sure your checking the color in the same environment it will be used in. Pretty amazing the amount of color shift from fluorescent lights to outdoors.

[luggnut]

if you print from flexi with no color correction for vectors... but what about rasters that are set to perceptual? your working color space (adobe rgb1998 or srgb) effects how the colors are rendered as well as the rips rendering intent and rgb color space settings. i would think Prowraps uses photoshop for most wraps and the pantone from flexi unless made in PS would not really be useful.

if you use adobe rgb 1998 and don't have everything down the line set up with adobe rgb ... if there is ever a conversion back to sRGB the colors will be muted.
most everything is set to sRGB by default so i started using that as my color space and the colors seem more vivid from PS files now.

then of course the media profiles....

[ddarlak]

Pretty amazing the amount of color shift from fluorescent lights to outdoors.

:goodpost:

that has gotten me more times than i can count....

walk outside with the sample!

[bob]

Are you viewing the printed samples outside or inside? Make sure your checking the color in the same environment it will be used in. Pretty amazing the amount of color shift from fluorescent lights to outdoors.

That would depend on the lights. If you use 5600K or higher tubes, and you use enough of them, there's not just a whole hell of a lot of difference.

My shop is lit with 6000K T8 tubes in sufficient number and placement such that there is no shadow anywhere. It's pretty much indistinguishable from daylight. The T8's tend to be a bit more full spectrum than the old T12's but its the 6000K that really matters.

[jasonx]

Hey Bob,

That was my point to match the color in the right lighting conditions. If your lighting setup of you have a light viewing booth to match your colours then I guess that's fine.

[Checkers]

Without a proper color management "system" you're just shooting at a moving target with you eyes closed.
All of your equipment needs to be profiled and you need to use the profiles in a consistent manner.
There are training programs available from equipment manufacturers and private vendors and are well worth the investment. The one day class I took paid for itself in less than a month. Quality increased dramatically and mistakes with color matches went down to near zero.
Check out:
www.color.org
www.xrite.com

Checkers

[jdigital]

I agree with everyone here. There are a lot of variables involved with color matching for Digital printing. For instance, there is no Pantone Book created specifically for digital printing (and probably never will be) A good color match depends on Profiles, Software and color management. For me, I found that if you can verse yourself with LAB values and how to tweak them, it may be more consistent. Especially if you need to recalibrate your profiles or machines.

We are currently using ColorGate RIP software which has a module for Media Device synchronization. This is used if your printer somehow happens to start printing colors differently than the original settings. (for example.This could happen if the voltage to the machine changes,etc.) By using LAB values rather than CMYK or RGB, it is more reliable to acheive your original color when using this module.

Sorry to ramble about ColorGate.

Again, color management is a science. I agree that printing a pantone chart and showing your clients your printer capabilities is the way to go. If you need a specific color that's different than your pantone prints, then I would suggest trying LAB values and tweaking from there.

[Rooster]

A couple of things that will help you get out of gamut colors. Slow the printer down. A higher number of passes lets you lay down more ink. Obviously this affects your gamut size tremendously.

The other is to use relative colorimetric as your conversion type. Perceptual will create bright pleasing color, but it's nowhere near as accurate as RC when you're dealing with the outer edges of your available gamut. the way it renders out of gamut color and edge of gamut colors is significantly different. That why they use the Relative Colorimetric rendering intent for proofing and not Perceptual.

Checking that Pantone number against my in-house profiles shows the fastest my printer can run to hit it would be about 720 x 1080 24 pass (JV33, ES3 inks, CMYKCMLcLm). It's pretty darn close on faster speeds too, but it's not "in gamut". It's possible to hit that particular color on pretty much any decently white glossy media if you slow it down enough to lay down the required ink density. It could even be within your available gamut, but your rendering intent is shifting the hue.

Understanding color management and soft proofing allows you to see if a job is going to be a problem before you ever hit print. Creating custom profiles and being familiar with all aspects of the process (GCR, UCR, Rendering intents, Tone Compression Curves, etc.) means never having to reprint jobs.

[MachServTech]

Understanding color management and soft proofing allows you to see if a job is going to be a problem before you ever hit print. Creating custom profiles and being familiar with all aspects of the process (GCR, UCR, Rendering intents, Tone Compression Curves, etc.) means never having to reprint jobs.

:thumb: 101%

No color management = feeding the dumpster

[Fred Weiss]

How many here signed up for and attended the free webinar on color management given today by Castek Resources?

[Jim Doggett]

Pantone!!! I hate it. It's so irrelevant, today. A company chooses a Pantone color for their logo and noone will ever see that color. Their Web site is RGB, and they cannot control brightness contrast. Ditto on TV. Magazines are CMYK, as are brochures, newspaper and every other device a company uses to reach buyers.

Meanwhile, someone at a cocktail party actually get a business card with the Pantone color on it. Yippee!!!

Companies should standardize on RGB and CMYK, which will actually reproduce in the real world ... plus they don't have to pay for effing color chips and matching guides for their "designers."

OK, off my soapbox.

:^)

Jim

[ProWraps™]

Pantone!!! I hate it. It's so irrelevant, today. A company chooses a Pantone color for their logo and noone will ever see that color. Their Web site is RGB, and they cannot control brightness contrast. Ditto on TV. Magazines are CMYK, as are brochures, newspaper and every other device a company uses to reach buyers.

Meanwhile, someone at a cocktail party actually get a business card with the Pantone color on it. Yippee!!!

Companies should standardize on RGB and CMYK, which will actually reproduce in the real world ... plus they don't have to pay for effing color chips and matching guides for their "designers."

OK, off my soapbox.

:^)

Jim

i couldnt have said it better myself. imagine the smile on my face when i told the customer, none of it mattered since there will be a lam-shift once its laminated. i mean give me a break.

[mark in tx]

Profiling your systems will solve 98% of these problems.

The other 2% is just that digital printing will not simulate all Pantone colors everytime.

correctcolor.org (http://correctcolor.org)

This is who does all my profiling.

[Rooster]

i couldnt have said it better myself. imagine the smile on my face when i told the customer, none of it mattered since there will be a lam-shift once its laminated. i mean give me a break.

That's why I profile stuff like IJ180 after lamination. Works great. The color only gets better in the deeper saturates (it loses a little on the brightest end of the scale). Who uses a 2mil cast without lam?

[Rick]

Pantone!!! I hate it. It's so irrelevant, today. A company chooses a Pantone color for their logo and noone will ever see that color. Their Web site is RGB, and they cannot control brightness contrast. Ditto on TV. Magazines are CMYK, as are brochures, newspaper and every other device a company uses to reach buyers.

Meanwhile, someone at a cocktail party actually get a business card with the Pantone color on it. Yippee!!!

Companies should standardize on RGB and CMYK, which will actually reproduce in the real world ... plus they don't have to pay for effing color chips and matching guides for their "designers."

OK, off my soapbox.

:^)

Jim

This statement is a load of crap...

All the finish products of print (especially gang printing), monitors/web, digital print, PMS Paint match, letterpress and screen printing all have inconsistencies. Pantone is just as good as any "standard" to start with to keep a consistency of color throughout all processes. Any idiot (not calling anyone here one) can press "print" or pull a stock color from the shelf, it really is an art (and frustration) to match color.

BUT! we snotty, obsessive designers need to learn the limitation of the output device, inks, paints, monitors or person running the machine.

When dealing with a new vendor they print me the PMS Colors (whichever one I am designing to) and match from that chart. Or I look for a qualified vendor to paint match PMS or spend a little extra time to attempt some color matching. That way it reduces most color issues at output and puts the responsibility on me who spec'ed the color in the first place. But I also expect to get charged for the time it takes and I always bring it up before a job is contracted.

[gabagoo]

I deal with this issue daily and it can be frustrating until you get a handle on it. I have printed the pantone coated chart from flexi on vinyl and banner and have done it 360 x 540 720 x 720 and 1440 x 720. I always use that to match as close as possible inside and outside, and MOST customers are agreeable in using the colours we find for them. Sure theres the odd hard *** but as Bob said, I let someone else deal with them. I will suppose a 6 colour printer and an 8 colour printer can achieve higher limitations than 4 colour, but is it worth it in the end?

[Jim Doggett]

Rick,

RGB / CMYK = within the spectrum the of technology that will be used to reproduce it; and noone pays a license fee to trademark attorneys (read: Pantone upper management)

Pantone = trademark attorneys are happy and colors that are within the spectrum of mixed printers inks, which are used with less and less frequency, every day.

I don't argue that it's a standard that's used, still, and frequently. But better, free standards exist in RGB and CMYK. I'd lobby for folks to start using in greater frequency the standards that are consistent with the reproduction technology that will be used to match them, which also happen to be free of licensing fees.

If that's a load of crap in your view, so be it. You're a trademark attorney's wet dream.

[Rick]

Rick,

RGB / CMYK = within the spectrum the of technology that will be used to reproduce it; and noone pays a license fee to trademark attorneys (read: Pantone upper management)

Pantone = trademark attorneys are happy and colors that are within the spectrum of mixed printers inks, which are used with less and less frequency, every day.

I don't argue that it's a standard that's used, still, and frequently. But better, free standards exist in RGB and CMYK. I'd lobby for folks to start using in greater frequency the standards that are consistent with the reproduction technology that will be used to match them, which also happen to be free of licensing fees.

If that's a load of crap in your view, so be it. You're a trademark attorney's wet dream.

But if monitors all display differently and all printers print differently then what kind of standard is that? Really tying trademark attorneys to a color standard is reaching quite a bit (The color conspiracy?). A consistent standard is one that a designer in Wyoming has in his hand is the same exact one the printer in California has. Don't like Pantone, use another, but color matching to a cheap Walmart screen compared to a high end monitor is not going to set any benchmark for quality results. My wet dream is getting my stuff to look how I design it and handed to me by a woman dressed up in a Hooters outfit carrying a plate of hot wings and a pitcher of beer... Not that I want you thinking about my nocturnal sleeping habits... :rolleyes:

[Jim Doggett]

i couldnt have said it better myself. imagine the smile on my face when i told the customer, none of it mattered since there will be a lam-shift once its laminated. i mean give me a break.

Thanks, PW.

Agreed. Folks need to quit sweating minute (an unavoidable) color-shifts and go back to building profits with gimmickry like, marketing, sales, channel-leverage, product design/development, manufacturing efficiency and other things that actaullly affect and matter to buyers.

True story: in the early days Microsoft gray was a trademarked color (some company in Japan made and licensed custom colors). Gray is a printer's nightmare to start with, and it was nothing but a nightmare for Microsoft in product packaging and collateral development. Vendors and Microsoft product managers spent more time trying to get close to the color than they did producing and selling the effing product. Huge costs and delays in service of something that was utterly meaningless to buyers of Microsoft products.

It was pure designer and corporate ego-stroking. And stoooooopid. But to their credit, Microsoft killed it off quickly.

Best,

Jim

[Jim Doggett]

But if monitors all display differently and all printers print differently then what kind of standard is that?

Matrix wisdom: there is no spoon (nor standard)

:^)

Jim

[Gino]

We tell customers that it is only a reference chart and can only be used to get as close as humanly possible.

Here's a trick. Take a PMS book and compare it to another one and guaranteed... the colors will not all match either. Take a customers' business card or some other article of advertisement and compare it to anyone's chart..... it will be close, but none of them are on the money.

All the mumbo jumbo of explaining crap these people don't understand just confuses them further and makes you look like a jerk trying to get out of matching their color. Tell them from the start it's a reference point and you'll appear more professional than explaining all of your knowledge that sounds hokey.

[ProWraps™]

gino, thats exactly what i did. problem is these corporate pencil pushers that just dont get it, only know how to say IT HAS TO BE PERFECT. ugh... $70 in over night shipping later, we finally got close enough they approved it. gotta love it!

[Rick]

(reworded as Gino's wisdom has enlightened me on the use of properly inserted words)

But if monitors all display differently and all printers print differently then what kind of reference is that?

[Jim Doggett]

Really tying trademark attorneys to a color standard is reaching quite a bit (The color conspiracy?).

True statement. Pantone is in the trademark business, purely. Their execs are quite often trademark attorneys. The color spectrum is in the public domain. (Godgiven) But describing color as P185, PMS Red 185 or on a color chip that looks at all similar to a Pantone Color Chip infringes their trademark.

[Ponto]

[quote=Gino;558800]

"Take a PMS book and compare it to another one and guaranteed... the colors will not all match either.

...and furthermore, we are all expected to "...replace this guide annually." I'm interested if any shops follow this recommendation found on the back of the Pantone guides...


JP

[Rick]

True statement. Pantone is in the trademark business, purely. Their execs are quite often trademark attorneys. The color spectrum is in the public domain. (Godgiven) But describing color as P185, PMS Red 185 or on a color chip that looks at all similar to a Pantone Color Chip infringes their trademark.

So you think we should throw away all our color REFERENCES and destroy the big color machine that is Pantone with the obsessive designer minions?... JUST PRESS PRINT! (or spray, or press, or squeegie) viva la revolucion'

[Jim Doggett]

But if monitors all display differently and all printers print differently then what kind of reference is that?

Excellent. Once accepting there is no standard, you'll see it bends as easily as the Matrix spoon. Thus "reference" is far more apt, and accurate.

So once folks get into a mindset of "it varies by medium so we want to be close to something" why not choose a "something" that's based on the same models used by the reproducing mediums, which are widely supported, well and easily understood--and FREE???

Just a thought.

[Rooster]

True statement. Pantone is in the trademark business, purely. Their execs are quite often trademark attorneys. The color spectrum is in the public domain. (Godgiven) But describing color as P185, PMS Red 185 or on a color chip that looks at all similar to a Pantone Color Chip infringes their trademark.

They have trademarked their production methods, reference guides, and the artwork associated with it. No different than we like to protect our own design work. They have not as you imply trademarked the color spectrum. They have also developed their own base inks and mixing formulations that allow printers to mix up inks correctly to match the colors specified in their guides. Then they have gone to the trouble of cross referencing those to other reproduction standards SWOP, etc. Certainly an amount of work and effort that deserves to be legally protected.

Pantone provides a useful guide that allows people in different locations to discuss color with a reference that you can hold in your hand and see what you're actually discussing. Try and explain a shade of forest green over the phone. Try and describe a teal. How do you do it without a reference? Would you like to try an alternate reality where we print color chips ourselves (based on a verbal description) and have to deliver them to our customers so they can see what we are discussing? Imagine how frustrating and difficult that would be without the tools that Pantone, TOYO, FOCALTONE, etc provide.

Sure, nothing is perfect. If you understand how we see and perceive color (and most pigments fugitive nature) then you have an idea of how difficult it is to try and describe a particular hue, lightness level or amount of saturation to someone without a reference.

Matching color is not rocket science. It is however science. Inexpensive tools and simple to use software are available to make it easy to do even for a beginner. If you can't match "in gamut" pantones, or print a neutral grayscale. Or even be able to tell prior to going to print whether you will be able to match a particular color. Then you're just making excuses to cover your own deficiencies. You're also throwing money down the drain in every reprint and lost customer over a color argument.

Of course you can always assume that it doesn't really matter. That customers are just too picky and anal. But I'll bet that when you send your own jobs to an outside source you're pretty darn picky about how the color looks when it comes back to you. If you get a bad print job back on your business cards, etc. you'll either complain or look elsewhere next time. But when it comes to your own customers you adopt a different attitude for some reason.

Will color management allow you to reproduce the entire pantone book? Not a chance! It's not meant to do that. Pastels with a white ink content, florescents, metallics, double strikes and their ilk just can't be made up with a CMYK or even a CMYKOG base formulation. The purity of the pigments in inkjet printers do however allow you to go WAY BEYOND the SWOP standards of your average offset press. They also allow for significantly greater matching ability to the standard pantone coated guide and a complete match of the PMS/CMYK reference guide.

These tools are available. Not only to you but to your customers. Ignore them at your own peril. Your customer base isn't. Eventually they will send a job to another shop that doesn't complain about them using an RGB black + white image, or CMY gray and all your excuses will come back and haunt you.

PS: I went on a bit of a rant there Jim. That wasn't all directed specifically at you.

[Jim Doggett]

They have not as you imply trademarked the color spectrum.

If I implied that, I stand corrected ... or at least should clarify. The color spectrum is public domain, Godgiven. I think I did more than merely imply that. Yes?

Now then, I can sell you vinyl that's any color of red I wish. But if I tell you it's 185 Red, then Pantone has infringement of their trademark. It's actionable. Fact, not fiction.

Now for some fiction: art schools tell students to "pick a Pantone color" from the guides required for this class and sold at the "student" store. Bingo. You'll get matching color from Milwaukee, California and Kalamazoo. Pure fiction. And it perpetuates a myth that results in frustration for vendors the world over, including many sign companies.

I think that's nuts.

Jim

[Mikeifg]

Been there with a pantone green and brown for a customer. Their Photoshop wiz came to my shop and played with the colors the whole day after I had sent examples etc... and he could not match it right. Sometimes people are so anal and they think they know the industry - equipment etc.. better than us.

[Jim Doggett]

Pantone provides a useful guide that allows people in different locations to discuss color with a reference that you can hold in your hand and see what you're actually discussing. Try and explain a shade of forest green over the phone.

Wait a minute!!! Not even a valid argument for Pantone.

Forest Green, from the CorelDRAW palette: 40,0,20,60 or 73/95/95. Unambiguous and nobody needs to buy matching guides for both ends of the phone conversation.

How on earth does Forest Green become less ambiguous over the phone when speaking Pantone numbers? It's not on the Pantone list; and is as best as I can tell somewhere in the range of PMS 5480ish????

Pantone is soooooo obsolete.

Jim

[Rooster]

Wait a minute!!! Not even a valid argument for Pantone.

Forest Green, from the CorelDRAW palette: 40,0,20,60 or 73/95/95. Unambiguous and nobody needs to buy matching guides for both ends of the phone conversation.

How on earth does Forest Green become less ambiguous over the phone when speaking Pantone numbers? It's not on the Pantone list; and is as best as I can tell somewhere in the range of PMS 5480ish????

Pantone is soooooo obsolete.

Jim

What version of CMYK are you using? Inkjet pigments (which manufacturer) or Standard Web Offset Printing (SWOP), or Hexachrome (PANTONE 6 color process) pigments. Ever compared them all? Do you think they match? Will they create the same color when mixed at the same percentages? Not a hope in hell. In fact even using the same inks will produce different colors on different medias.

If I have a two color print job what do I do to match the forest green when I want to run just it and say a black for text on a print run of 500,000 door knockers. Where do I go to buy a can of COREL forest green? Should I be forced to run process color to simplify your life? What if the SWOP inks from the offset press produce a different color green than the inkjet inks do? Who as the customer do I point the finger at?

Since you want to go by just the color name. A customer recently wanted a forest green for some store signage to match the green on their website.

RBG value was 8/50/7 under the AdobeRGB 1998 input profile
RGB Value was 0/46/0 under the sRGBIEC61966-2.1 input profile
RGB value was 0/36/0 under the Generic RGB profile input profile

CMYK Values were 100/51/100/58 using the US Sheetfed Coated v2 Output profile converting from the AdobeRGB 1998 colorspace.
CMYK Values were 79/53/86/69 using the US Web Coated (SWOP) v2 output profile converting from the sRGBIEC61966-2.1 input profile.

Confused yet? Quite a variety of different methods to achieve the same color. And yes.... they are all the same exact color.

Me, I went to their website, did a screen capture, opened that in photoshop and grabbed the color with the eyedropper.

On my banner stock the CMYK values were 65/3/100/50 using my custom profiles.
On my gloss vinyl stock the CMYK values were 65/2/98/56 using my custom profiles.

The weird thing is. My colors matched their website exactly. Even across the different medias. She dropped her other supplier because I gave her what she wanted. There was zero fuss on my part to achieve a perfect match. I even soft proofed it to make sure I used the resolution and pass settings required to lay down enough ink to match the color she wanted. 8 pass wouldn't do it BTW. But I knew that before I ever hit print.

BTW: All she had told me was that she wanted a "forest green" like on her website. Think she would have been happy had I grabbed the forest green from Corel? Her mistake or mine?

Pantone is a useful reference guide. I use it, the web, RGB values, SWOP CMYK, TOYO, FOCALTONE, paint chips etc to match colors all the time. The only values that won't change is LAB.

That why my rip (and yours) converts what you send it to LAB values based on the input profile assigned to it (or the default profile set in the RIP if there's no assigned input profile). Then it converts to the output profile your rip is using (canned or custom) for that media. So if you send it SWOP CMYK values, it's not printing those numbers on your inkjet. It's printing what your inkjet needs to. To match those SWOP color LAB values.

So in the end I didn't use a Pantone reference in this case. I used RGB values from a calibrated monitor. Still there was a reference color. "Forest Green" simply would have been too ambiguous to work with. A pantone guide book is what others prefer to use. I don't care what they use as long as I have a reference to grab the LAB values from. Pantone to me is just as useful as RGB or CMYK. All it is is a reference color to match. No more difficult than any other. It's not like I can reproduce the entire AdobeRGB1998 gamut either.

For professional print buyers who make purchases that span across a variety or different production methods Pantone is a very handy tool. Who am I to tell them that they're using an obsolete method of specifying color? It's what they've chosen to use. It's up to me to adapt and provide the best match to it that I can. With the right knowledge and tools, it's no more difficult than using any other reference.

[Castek Resources]

Rooster:

Bravo! Could not have said it better.

[Ponto]

:notworthy::notworthy::notworthy:

GOTTA' COPY AND PASTE THAT STUFF... WELL DONE!

jp

[Fuzzbuster]

i couldnt have said it better myself. imagine the smile on my face when i told the customer, none of it mattered since there will be a lam-shift once its laminated. i mean give me a break.

Hope you were kidding about that

all this BS about color

assuming your profiles and printing conditions are consistent

every printer same or different brand on this site would print a different color with the same profile and substrateand pms #. maybe close but 2 identical printers would have some slight differences

you know what you can print by simply printing your own color chart like I said before...and if the customer`s final job is to be laminated then laminate your sample color chart

I remember you just installed a clean room... hopefully your not havin too much trouble with temp and humidity for consistency with your cfm input/output

throw the pantone book in the garbage(not litterally) its a good guide but your color chart IS your atainable color . specifying the one
that matches the one you want and NOT what you hope to get

i print color charts evry few weeks and even they differ slightly depending even on substrate batch number

IMHO.

[Ponto]

:popcorn:
...not to mention the variations in each of our abilities to perceive color...

JP

[Jim Doggett]

Rooster,

Couple of easy ones:

Do too many people believe that by specifying Pantone whatever it will deliver to them the exact color they specify?

Is the above expectation perpetuated by the so-called "Pantone Matching System?"

I believe the only rational answer is "yes, to both." Thus I think someone needs to pop that bubble and send folks hurtling back to reality.

One way to do that is to articulate that Pantone colors are based on a system of mixing printer's inks ... something that is increasingly rare, these days. Ergo, antiquated and obsolete.

Noobs coming out of art schools, in a perfect world,, would understand how colors are reproduced and viewed. They're not, sadly. They come out thinkiong that the person that's been in the printing business all their adult lives is some kind of idiot because they can't match the goofball color the designer picked from their effing PMS color guide.

Drives me nuts. Ergo my original post: Pantone. Hate it.

Sorry if you love it, or even just kind of like it. But it's nothing but a pain in a world where 99.9% of the time color is going to look different no matter how strenuously one attempts to deliver on a brand promise (Pantone) that simply isn't doable, or rational.

My $0.02,

Jim

[Rooster]

Jim it depends on which pantone book you're talking about. The 4 color process guide set is designed to show their users what are acceptable color choices that can be reproduced using SWOP standard inks.

The Pantone formula guide is designed to show people what they can achieve when printing spot color inks.

Then there's even the pantone color bridge guide that shows the formula colors right next to how they look printed according to pantone's recommended SWOP CMYK numbers. They also have the new GOE bridge guides that offer similar functionality and not only the appropriate SWOP CMYK values, but also the sRGB and web HEX values and even screen tint percentages and their appropriate conversions to the SWOP, sRGB and WebHex values.

Informed buyers and industry professionals understand these differences. Uninformed people often think that those colors in the formula (spot ink) guide are attainable by any reproduction method. Although many are attainable using today's inkjet pigments.

This is where you need to be able to explain the differences to your customers in an articulate manner. If you're having trouble matching colors from the pantone formula guide then tell your customers to use the Pantone 4 color process guide instead. It limits their color choice with a smaller available gamut, but it shouldn't be a problem to match anything in it with any inkjet printer. As all the colors fall well within your available gamut. Explain that the CMYK based guide is more appropriate since your inkjet prints process CMYK colors like a traditional printing press. Simply explain that they are using the wrong pantone tool for their job.

Your attempts to blame Pantone for the expectations of an inexperienced or uninformed user are crazy. It's like a driving instructor blaming Ford because their students don't know how to drive. Pantone is simply a tool company. They make many of them for many different uses. You can't blame them if somebody tries to use their hammer to weld with. You can't blame your customers if you don't understand the differences enough to explain it either. People come to us because we're professionals. Not simply because we have a big wide printer.

Since you're searching for a rational answer then perhaps you need to understand how irrational you're being blaming a tool for the actions of it's users. It's not the hammers fault you keep hitting your finger.

[jasonx]

Am I correct in saying with our wide format printers the higher resolution you use the wider your gamut becomes due to the saturation levels at the higher settings?

[Jim Doggett]

Your attempts to blame Pantone for the expectations of an inexperienced or uninformed user are crazy. It's like a driving instructor blaming Ford because their students don't know how to drive. Pantone is simply a tool company. They make many of them for many different uses. You can't blame them if somebody tries to use their hammer to weld with. You can't blame your customers if you don't understand the differences enough to explain it either. People come to us because we're professionals. Not simply because we have a big wide printer.

You're killing me. I actually had to recover from this one. So it is we, the foolish end-users, who are misguided in thinking that PMS is somehow a standard by which colors are matched????

Really? It's just a tool that we are to blame for thinking it works???

That is by far the nuttiest attempt at blame-shifting I've heard in my 50+ years on the planet.

Dude!

[Rooster]

Am I correct in saying with our wide format printers the higher resolution you use the wider your gamut becomes due to the saturation levels at the higher settings?

Absolutely. You need to profile the higher resolutions to take advantage though.

The difference in gamut volume on a couple of my medias are as follows.

Roll up Display Material
720 x 540 - 6 pass has 91.2% of the 720 x 1440 - 16 pass setting.

Poster Paper
720 x 540 - 12 pass has only 75% of the gamut of the 1440 x 1440 - 32 pass setting.

Higher resolutions lay down more ink. A higher number of passes lets you lay down EVEN MORE ink.

You need to adjust your ink limits for each resolution and pass setting to take advantage of this though. You can't just use your 720 x 720 - 16pass setting and set your machine to 1440 x 1440 - 32 pass and expect to see an improvement. You'll have ink running down the sheet like you've been sitting there with a spray can.

Choosing a media that holds a lot of ink helps too.

Keep in mind that with some medias like a 2mil cast that you can overload the vinyl with ink (especially harsher solvents) and it will affect the adhesive on the reverse side. It will also soften the vinyl quite a bit until the solvents have all out gassed. You need to follow the manufacturers recommendations for total ink limits if you expect them to honor their warranties.

[Rooster]

Jim if you can't get it to work that is entirely your issue to deal with. You don't even seem to be able to fully grasp the variety of tools they offer and what they are designed for.

They work for me, exactly as advertised. I trust them every day and they don't let me down.

In fact they work so well that they have become an industry standard.

So who's foolish. The entire graphics industry..... or you?

Here's a piece of friendly advice. Make sure the wind is at your back when you urinate outdoors.

[Checkers]

Wow, there's some good debate going on here.

As this discussion shows, it would be difficult to recreate a color without knowing what you're trying to match. This is where the Pantone Matching System and other color guides come in to play.

The most important thing to remember though, is PMS and other color guides are just that - guides. There is no way possible for ANY color system to match colors with any consistency unless you're using the same media, reproduction method and ink that is used in the guide. So, to help with this issue, ICC profiling comes in to play.

The International Color Consortium (ICC) established voluntary standards (profiles) in which color can be measured and reproduced. These standards try to digitally compensate for the variables of reproducing color.

Profiling basically uses a target "number" in which all devices are calibrated to match. By using the various tools available, you are, more or less, trying to digitally dial in all of your devices to hit that target number, whether its your camera, monitor, printer, media, etc. Once you hit those target "numbers" the rest is easy :)

Personally, I would take a PMS number over "Forest Green" any day of the week because I know when I have a PMS number I have something fairly consistent to work with and match.

Checkers

[Jim Doggett]

Hi Rooster,

I have indoor plumbing. But thanks just the same.

OK; so you got lucky. The Pantone color your client insists be used in association with their brand just happens to be one that you can get real close to with CMYK ... even across varied media. Terrific.

How about their Web site? Or their magazine and newspaper ads? TV ads; everything in synch there too? Answer: no; not even.

So why on earth would they insist on color "matching" that if they're lucky will be on letterhead, envelopes, business cards and what you print for them (assuming you're not overstating), but nowhere else?

Choosing a Pantone color as a brand indentifier, whether or not you and thier envelope printer can get close is pointless. They've adopted a a color scheme designed for envelopes, which they rarely mail these days thanks to email. It would work on brochures printed 4/C + 1 or 2 or whatever. But then, they don't send out very many brochures these days because their customers would rather look them up online.

They can also rub the lamp, in which case you'll pop out and start reproducing the Pantone spectrum using your miraculous CMYK printing skills. But then again, most will not see your magical CMYK to Pantone output. They'll go online, pick up a magazine or turn on the idiot box.

Pantone is not the entire graphics industry.

[Jim Doggett]

Wow, there's some good debate going on here.

As this discussion shows, it would be difficult to recreate a color without knowing what you're trying to match. This is where the Pantone Matching System and other color guides come in to play.

The most important thing to remember though, is PMS and other color guides are just that - guides. There is no way possible for ANY color system to match colors with any consistency unless you're using the same media, reproduction method and ink that is used in the guide. So, to help with this issue, ICC profiling comes in to play.

The International Color Consortium (ICC) established voluntary standards (profiles) in which color can be measured and reproduced. These standards try to digitally compensate for the variables of reproducing color.

Profiling basically uses a target "number" in which all devices are calibrated to match. By using the various tools available, you are, more or less, trying to digitally dial in all of your devices to hit that target number, whether its your camera, monitor, printer, media, etc. Once you hit those target "numbers" the rest is easy :)

Personally, I would take a PMS number over "Forest Green" any day of the week because I know when I have a PMS number I have something fairly consistent to work with and match.

Checkers

Hi Checkers,

I agree with your premise. Indeed, you need a reference. I question if Pantone (sure; way better than "Forest Green") is the reference to be used. They should send RGB values identical to those they use when saving their logo to a JPG or GIF for their Web site; or the CMYK values they use when submitting files for ads and other 4/C offset print buys. Not Pantone.

Another problem is that when they send you the Pantone numbers it tends to presuppose that you'll be able to match their Pantone swatch. (Pantone creates that expectation) And you won't be able to, frequently. CMYK lacks the color depth.

It just creates cost, delays and frustration for them and you that is easily avoided by using the currently prevailing color models: RGB and CMYK.

Best,

Jim

[thewood]

I will take a Pantone number any day. With a Pantone number, I have a hard copy, definitive color to shoot for. If I can't reach it exactly due to the limitations of process printing, then so be it. But, more times than not, I can reach the color.

I loathe designs that include CMYK or RGB values with no Pantone reference. They were most likely values that someone toyed around with until they looked acceptable on their monitor. Was that monitor calibrated? To what color space? Will the process output match what it looks like on their screen? Give me a hard copy color swatch in the form of a Pantone number anyday.

[Checkers]

Hiya Jim,

I understand your logic, but the catch 22 with using CMYK or RGB models is what Rick mentioned; no 2 monitors, printers, etc, can reproduce color in the exact same way. So, the values will change according to how the image is printed, reproduced and/or displayed. And, without having a known standard to work from, that red you're trying to match today may morph into orange or something totally different down the road.

The reason why PMS is the "standard" reference guide in the design and printing industry is it's a relatively easy system to use. As a print producer or designer, can you imagine trying to look up or figure out what color equals RGB 198,12,48 or CMYK 0,100,75,4? Or would you rather know it's PMS 186 red and let your software/hardware match it and/or just pull a can of 186 red ink off the shelf?

PMS is far from a perfect solution. However, it does create a widely accepted, known standard (or goal) to shoot for when trying to reproduce color across multiple platforms.

In situations where CMYK or RGB isn't a perfect match to a PMS number, it is also our job to inform the client that there are limitations or we need to find and offer a more appropriate (and possibly more expensive) solution to keep the client happy. Actually, if the client is specifying PMS or another, they should realize there are limitations to the system too. But that's a discussion for another time :)

Checkers

[Jim Doggett]

I loathe designs that include CMYK or RGB values with no Pantone reference. They were most likely values that someone toyed around with until they looked acceptable on their monitor. Was that monitor calibrated? To what color space? Will the process output match what it looks like on their screen? Give me a hard copy color swatch in the form of a Pantone number anyday.

This is merely a heuristic argument, but why? What's being matched? A Pantone swatch, or the client's varied materials? If we're praying to the god of consitency, aren't they the same values, toyed with or not, that are used in reproducing everything else the client puts into the market? It seems like a lot of effort is being put into matching Pantone swatches, but to what end?

[rjpjr]

:popcorn:

[Jim Doggett]

The reason why PMS is the "standard" reference guide in the design and printing industry is it's a relatively easy system to use. As a print producer or designer, can you imagine trying to look up or figure out what color equals RGB 198,12,48 or CMYK 0,100,75,4? Or would you rather know it's PMS 186 red and let your software/hardware match it and/or just pull a can of 186 red ink off the shelf?

Hi Checkers,

Point well made. But I think it's a standard that's fading, rapidly. Art submissions are no longer film and chromalins, much less boards and color chips. 10 grand in prepress is being replaced with a PDF upload that costs zip and trims days or even weeks off the schedule. Or it's electronic, with tons of budget shifting that way. Companies, the smart ones, are more concerned with eyeballs and metrics than with nominal (and unavoidable) variations in color.

I think Pro Wraps started this thread to express frustration about the dweebs who waste time and FedEx expense in service of something that's really last century. I agree completely with Pro Wraps in this regard ... designers, IMO, need to wake up and smell the 21st century. Sweating bullets on Pantone matching is increasingly pointless.

IMHO,

J

[Castek Resources]

Both sides of this discussion are making valid points. If I was to paraphrase Jim's essential position, at least in part, he is objecting to Pantone's trademark/ license enforcement of their PMS color system (I don't want to put words into your mouth Jim). At the same time, it is true that there are a multitude of variables that will limit the effectiveness of using RGB and CMYK-based color models as a substitute color standard.

I might suggest that neither of these offer the 'best' solution. If a true, independent standard is the goal, without intrusive and onerous licensing restrictions, such an animal does exist - L*A*B* color. It is an encompassing color gamut that defines color in an absolute manner, with no room for subjectivity or variability.

At the same time, LAB is not a panacea. It 'suffers' from some of the same issues that beset Pantone, namely that it's gamut is much larger than even Pantone's and certainly larger than process CMYK. It does however remove the subjectivity of process color models and do so without any trademark/ IP/ licensing isues, a la Pantone.

Castek Resources

[Checkers]

...but to what end?

Good question Jim, but the end is (unfortunately?), PMS.

Because color is so important to society, someone had to create and maintain some sort of standard for accurate color reproduction and right now in the USA it's Pantone.

Is there is an equivalent or better system than Pantone that doesn't cost anything to maintain? If so, I would like to learn more about it.

BTW, there are other systems available, but I'm not familiar with them, so I can not comment...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantone#See_also

Checkers

[Rooster]

I've never argued anything other than thatHi Rooster,

I have indoor plumbing. But thanks just the same.

OK; so you got lucky. The Pantone color your client insists be used in association with their brand just happens to be one that you can get real close to with CMYK ... even across varied media. Terrific.

Pantone colors are specified in far more place than simply logos.

How about their Web site? Or their magazine and newspaper ads? TV ads; everything in synch there too? Answer: no; not even.Newspaper ads rarely ever achieve a color match I'll give you that. Newsprint is a very gray crappy stock. Often major advertisers will pay for an ultrabright stock if they're running a full color ad. This helps tremendously.

Major magazines are all running to high color reproduction standards (demanded by ad agencies). They also offer the ability for advertisers to run an extra color if they require a perfect match to a specific pantone color. You wouldn't believe how many ads (or even entire print runs) are comped when they don't meet those color standards.

As for Web and TV. Since these use an RGB color space there shouldn't ever be an issue in reproducing colors accurately to match a pantone chip. Unless you're using a metallic, florescent, or pastel shade (requiring white ink to achieve). Well within the available gamut, and pantone offers the RGB and LAB color specs in their digital libraries (the color palletes within say the adobe creative suite) to make reproduction as easy as selecting the appropriate number.


So why on earth would they insist on color "matching" that if they're lucky will be on letterhead, envelopes, business cards and what you print for them (assuming you're not overstating), but nowhere else?

Choosing a Pantone color as a brand indentifier, whether or not you and thier envelope printer can get close is pointless. They've adopted a a color scheme designed for envelopes, which they rarely mail these days thanks to email. It would work on brochures printed 4/C + 1 or 2 or whatever. But then, they don't send out very many brochures these days because their customers would rather look them up online.They do it because they can. Because that specific color is important to their brand identity. That desire for consistency is no different than the reason why a big mac tastes the same no matter which location you buy it at. I'm hardly a marketing genius, but even I understand the importance of branding and maintaining a consistently recognizable image. Often large corporations will choose colors out of the standard gamut because they "pop". They stand out from the crowd. They become more easily recognizable. For some companies it's worth the added expense.

Since you wish them to choose to run everything in an RGB or CMYK spec you're forcing them to pay for process printing where it is not necessary. Where do I buy a can of C100/M40/0Y/14K ink if I want to run a two color offset or screen printing job? How do you spec the color for non-standard process printing like the N-color process used throughout the packaging industry. Process inks are not the entire graphics industry.

They can also rub the lamp, in which case you'll pop out and start reproducing the Pantone spectrum using your miraculous CMYK printing skills. But then again, most will not see your magical CMYK to Pantone output. They'll go online, pick up a magazine or turn on the idiot box.

Pantone is not the entire graphics industry.If having well maintained and accurately profiled equipment and a thorough understanding of how it works and the process it uses to lay down ink is considered miraculous then call me freakin Moses. To me however, I just call it having a commitment to quality and being a professional who follows well communicated and defined industry standards. There's no burning bush imparting any mystical secrets to me. I'm not thumping my chest here. I'm simply telling you the answers to your problems are out there. All you need to do is seek them out. Shoot. If I can do it, then you can too.

[Jim Doggett]

They do it because they can.

I believe that as well.

Because that specific color is important to their brand identity.

I also believe they think that; and that if it's not the spot-on match to Pantone whatever, then recognition (what's important) diminishes. Not true. Color ranges, to an extent. More important is shape and placement.

What are the Pantone values being used on the brand-ID elements at these category-leading companies' home pages?

www.apple.com (http://www.apple.com)
www.microsoft.com (http://www.microsoft.com)
www.att.com (http://www.att.com)

Jim

[bbeens]

Rooster-

I have been following this thread. I will agree with Jim's dislike of Pantone but I understand the issue is not with the Pantone people it is with people in the digital printing world being overly obsessed with PMS numbers and not understanding what they should be used for or how to use them. In the end PMS should be a dying standard based on no inkjet printer is ever loaded with Pantone ink. LAB is the real answer to the 'color standard' question as Bob mentioned above, I might disagree with some of Bob's caveats - but that is another topic.

With your understanding of how PMS can be used in a digital workflow I would expect you would not have the issues the OP was complaining about. I am quite certain you have a good understanding of color management with regards to your workflow.

I will disagree with the comments that CMYK or RGB is a valid alternative unless a specific flavor of CMYK or RGB is also defined. Just stating CMYK means nothing to a printer without knowing the profile the file was created with. Same with RGB.

Learn LAB and love it. The complaints of different monitors, printers, etc producing different colors are a moot point with LAB (given the monitors are profiled and well maintained and the color asked for is within gamut on each of the different printers and rendering intents are specified correctly).

Bryan

[Gino]

Let's throw out all colors and tell people they have to match according to my 'Crayola' box of crayons. If ya don't like it... lump it.




:clapping:

[Jim Doggett]

I have been following this thread. I will agree with Jim's dislike of Pantone but I understand the issue is not with the Pantone people it is with people in the digital printing world being overly obsessed with PMS numbers and not understanding what they should be used for or how to use them. In the end PMS should be a dying standard based on no inkjet printer is ever loaded with Pantone ink. LAB is the real answer to the 'color standard' question as Bob mentioned above, I might disagree with some of Bob's caveats - but that is another topic.

Absolutely!!! And no buts about it. Pantone is what it is. My gripe is with folks who think it the Holy Grail and make unreasonable work for and demands of sign-makers, in the service of an objective that is highly over-rated from a brand-ID standpoint.

[Castek Resources]

I might suggest that neither of these offer the 'best' solution. If a true, independent standard is the goal, without intrusive and onerous licensing restrictions, such an animal does exist - L*A*B* color. It is an encompassing color gamut that defines color in an absolute manner, with no room for subjectivity or variability.

At the same time, LAB is not a panacea. It 'suffers' from some of the same issues that beset Pantone, namely that it's gamut is much larger than even Pantone's and certainly larger than process CMYK. It does however remove the subjectivity of process color models and do so without any trademark/ IP/ licensing isues, a la Pantone.

Castek Resources

Bryan:
I'm curious what you would disagree with the above. I'm a big proponent of LAB, but everything that I stated is accurate to my understanding (note the quotes, meaning that LAB does not really suffer from being too large, in fact that is one of it's greatest assets).

[bbeens]

The only part I would disagree with would be that I didn't notice the quote marks. Please disregard my comment with regards to your caveats. Next time I will try to fully understand what I am responding to.

Cheers,

Bryan

[kev3232]

[QUOTE=bbeens;559383]Rooster-

" the issue is not with the Pantone people it is with people in the digital printing world being overly obsessed with PMS numbers"

I don't think it's "people in the digital printing world" that create so many problems with PMS colors. It's every "designer" jackass that thinks he's setting the world on fire because he has a "vision" of how his clients "look" should be. The problem is they don't have a freakin' clue how the "real" printing world works because he sits behind his 30" Apple monitor all day playing with Illustrator thinking anything is possible.

[Rick]

Everything is possible.... :rolleyes:

[ProWraps™]

I don't think it's "people in the digital printing world" that create so many problems with PMS colors. It's every "designer" jackass that thinks he's setting the world on fire because he has a "vision" of how his clients "look" should be. The problem is they don't have a freakin' clue how the "real" printing world works because he sits behind his 30" Apple monitor all day playing with Illustrator thinking anything is possible.


thank you kev! you got it right on the head. and if some of you look at the color i was trying to match it is pretty much a pastel. one that would need some sort of white to reach. i had no idea that this thread would get this large. but it is very informative to say the least.

[kev3232]

thanks, i just call it like i see it!

kev

[Checkers]

Actually, anything is possible.

Show me the money and I can make it happen - if the client is willing to pay for it :)

Checkers

[kev3232]

oh yeah checkers? then print me a swatch that matches gerber bright orange!

i got a customer that can't get through his head that it's almost impossible to match ink to vinyl, especially oranges!! he's insists that my 30 thousand dollar machine is a piece of junk because i can't match pigmented vinyl!
gotta love customers!!
kev

[Rooster]

Pantone provides a number of tools designed specifically to provide colors that can be matched using CMYK inks. The they also provide their formula (spot ink) guide. Many colors within than can also be reproduced, many colors cannot. They actually show you within the guide which ones can and cannot be using SWOP CMYK inks.

All it takes is a calm and rational explanation to the customer as to why those colors are not an appropriate choice for CMYK reproduction. As I've stated previously, these people come to us because we are professional printers. They expect us to be able to do it, or at the very least be able to explain to their satisfaction why it's not possible. If you can show them the errors of their ways and explain to them the limitations of the process you will save them time, money and hassle down the road.

There's a tremendous amount of frustration that goes with color matching. I know this personally because for many years my business focused on fine art giclee printing. You think matching pantone is tough, try matching artists pigments with no formula guide. Color management solved 98% of these problems for me. It didn't allow me to match every color under the sun, but it did allow me to see if there was going to be a problem before I even started. It also provided the closest match to out of gamut colors without any fuss and muss.

The sign industry is focused on CMYK and the fastest print speed possible. Other parts of the wide format market use printers with up to 16 colors and greatly increased gamut sizes. The Epson GS6000 is the first solvent printer to come standard with a special OG inkset (basically Pantone Hexachrome process inks). Since orange and green have traditionally been the weakest portions of the CMYK spectrum this inkset greatly increases the number of colors than can be reproduced. Pantone claims 90% of the formula guide, which they say is more than twice the amount that traditional SWOP CMYK can achieve.

Not all of that comes strictly from the OG inks. The Hexachrome CMYK inks are much brighter and more vivid. More like the inks we have on our inkjet printers. Even without the OG addition these inks would greatly expand the number of colors available on press. Much the way our inkjets are able to produce brighter more vivid prints than a traditional offset press.

For example comparing the gamut size of USWebCoatedSWOP, the default profile in the north american pre-press settings with the adobe creative suite to what I'm able to attain using a production speed on my inkjet (720x720 - 16pass on a cheap lustre finish photo stock). Shows that the WebCoated profile can only handle 50.3% of the colors that my printer is capable of. A much better comparison is to use the USSheetfedCoated profile which represents the sheetfed presses that we see more commonly. In that case we see that the USSheetfedCoated profile can handle 65.9% of the colors my inkjet is capable of. The inkjet is still able to produce almost 50% more colors than a sheetfed press using standard (non hexachrome process inks). The brighter hexachrome CMYK inks would definitely close this gap.

Now the standard color management with your RIP will automatically "boost" the colors you print. Mapping the smaller gamut to larger inkjet gamut. Especially if you're using a perceptual rendering intent. Here's the thing though. If you take the artists artwork and convert it to CMYK. You're cramming it all into those tiny little press gamuts. It remaps the colors to something that can be produced with it's smaller range of available colors. You see how this changes the colors. Especially if you're using the WebCoated default profile. Then your rip is using a series of mathematical algorithms to map the colors in that smaller gamut to the larger available gamut in either your canned or custom profile. So if you started with an in-gamut pantone spot, converted to CMYK and then sent it to your rip. You're going to have a hell of a time matching colors. First you took a color within your available gamut, changed it to fit within a much smaller gamut, and then "hope" that the gamut mapping of the perceptual intent will put it back to where it was to begin with. Now if you understand anything about how the perceptual intent works you realize that it's going to make hue adjustments anyhow to maximize the brightness and dynamic range of your photos. This creates a color shift on anything near the edge of the available gamut.

Using an RGB input work flow, and keeping the colors in spot form (maintaining their LAB values). Then making a single conversion in the RIP to a much more accurate custom profile allows you to print every color that's within the printers available gamut. Using the Relative Colorimetric intent will also maintain the hues better than perceptual will. Although this sacrifices some "punch" for greater accuracy. This method is far better at matching colors that are within the available gamut of your machine. Often many of the colors you're trying to match are possible. It's your workflow that's messing with them and moving them around. Far more than you realize are there for the taking. You're just hiding them on yourself.

The RGB workflow is a double edged sword however. Designers working in RGB will see all the wonderful colors available within the RGB gamut. Of which the production speed custom profile I noted above can only capture 45% of (adobeRGB1998). However, the end product produced by my workflow still provides up to twice the available colors as can be reproduced using a web offset press. It also produces a much more accurate representation of more pantone (or other reference guide) colors. If the designer thinks you're going to match every color on their screen then you will have a problem. In my experience they do not ever think this. If they have ever sent a job out before they've experienced the dramatic shift in color already. It might be difficult to explain to somebody's secretary why the RGB green prints so differently than what she sees on her screen, but most "designers" have either been schooled in the difference or experienced it already.

Having a ready explanation in layman's terms of the differences between additive and subtractive color helps to either explain the differences. Or it leaves them so baffled and impressed that they trust your expertise. I don't deal with too many of these issues as the majority of my clients understand much of this. Many of them have sought me out due to the expertise I offer in this area. Even the ones that don't get it, have it explained to them when they see a soft proof on screen. They see the differences in color and ask about it. I rarely provide hard copy proofs anymore. Another additional benefit of color management.

So there it is in all it's glory. The secret to my success. Although it's hardly a secret. This is just a summary of the proper workflow in a well maintained color managed shop. It's not as if it's my invention. I do attest that it works. It works very very well. If your workflow is set-up using CMYK. If you're using canned profiles. If you're using one profile for a variety of different medias and resolutions. If you cannot produce an accurate and neutral grayscale. You're doing it wrong. It might work for you. It might make you a lot of money. But when you want to moan and complain about how unrealistic designers are about matching colors. Then understand that there's plenty of shops like mine out there. The more you ******** them with excuses and tell them it's simply not possible the more loyal they become when then finally walk into my shop or someone's like mine and see the difference. But don't let me tell you what to think, or what to tell your customers. You guys send a lot of business my way. Thank you for that!

BTW if you think you have it bad now, wait until you're having to compete with solvent machines that use not only a special orange and green, but blues, violets and reds. Pantone is hardly dead or antiquated. It's CMYK that is being shown the door. Digital presses and inkjet printers that allow for 6, 8, 10 or 12+ color set-ups that will knock your socks off in the years to come. We'll be buying a lot of ink in the future, but it will be filled with bright glorious color. Buy the tools and learn the methods you'll need to hit them all. You won't regret it.

[kev3232]

whoa dude. just write a response, not a book. LOL
;)

kev

[Ponto]

:clapping::clapping::clapping:... northerners rock!

JP

[cdiesel]

Anything is possible if the money's there. You could always screen print with spot colors. :)
Profiling correclty takes care of a LOT of the matching issues out there. Since the introduction of the Roland Color matching system, I haven't had a problem at all hitting spot colors. Even if it's not in the system already, a few swatches later and I've got it down.

[Jim Doggett]

Whew! Thanks for the lengthy lesson, Rooster.

Side note: didja get a chance to come up with the Pantone identifiers for the category-leading brands' home pages: Apple, Microsoft, AT&T?

I've no doubt that Pantone is scrambling for relevency in a digital world, since folks aren't mixing printer's inks too much these days. Heck; I think they even dabbled in a matching system for Web graphics ... pure comedy. Hexachrome is a player, but then, it's to a niche market ... not like the good old days when every printer in town was mixing inks.

Maybe a quick Web poll here might get an idea of how small the niche is (yes; I know it's not scientifically valid due to the selection bias):

CMYK printer?

CLcMLmYK printer?

CMYKOrGr printer?

Printer with more effing color channels still?

Then of course, are the designers who seem to know so much about brand-ID choosing Pantone CMYK or Hex values ... or is it from the good old, and antiquated, Pantone Swatch Book folks have been using since the last century?

And if the big guys apparently don't give a hoot, is Pantone on the way up or down?

I think down. I think small companies with interns and new grads from local art schools will demand this stuff. But it's a small market, and getting smaller.

Jim

[Rooster]

Jim, I'm not going to waste anymore time explaining the process.

You are free to your opinion. I just wish you operated in my market.

BTW: Pantone was recently purchased by X-Rite. Who are the world market leader in color management equipment and software. They are growing and very healthy. In fact they're only getting bigger and more relevant all the time. They are also at the very leading edge of new digital technologies when it comes to color software and hardware.

[Jim Doggett]

Healthy companies with bright futures are seldom acquired ... the cost is too high. Being acquired is typically a lifeline, and not good news. I have no wish for the demise of Pantone, especially not its employees. But I do think it speaks to their waning relevence, especially the PMS system for mixed printer's inks.

Hopefully when when someone requests a Pantone color that is outside the CMYK spectrum (many are), folks can inform based on true statements. If you deem these "excuses" so be it. I think it's being better-informed.

[Rooster]

Whatever you say Jim.

Grand Rapids, Michigan, October 24, 2007 - X-Rite, Incorporated (Nasdaq: XRIT) a leading provider of color solutions for measuring, formulating, matching, and simulating color, announced today it has completed the purchase of Pantone, Inc. for a purchase price of 180 million dollars. The transaction was funded exclusively with cash, financed through new borrowings.

Pantone, Inc., headquartered in Carlstadt, New Jersey, is the worldwide market leader in color communication and specification standards in the creative design industries. Its flagship product, the PANTONE® MATCHING SYSTEM®, is the de-facto color standard in the graphic arts, printing, publishing and advertising industries. The company also provides color standards and design tools for the fashion, home furnishings, architecture, paint, interior and industrial design industries. Pantone generated revenues of approximately $42 million in 2006 with adjusted EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) of approximately 27% of revenues.

What's 27 percent of 42 Million? I would think that 11+ million dollars is a pretty healthy profit. Obviously X-Rite valued the assets as being higher since they paid 180 million for them. Doesn't sound like much of bailout to me. I don't think they paid over 16 time earnings just to kill them off. But again.... whatever.

[Jim Doggett]

Pantone annual gross profits (EBITDA) were in the 30 million range back in the 80s. I don't have historical sales/profit trends, but then again, companies are typically acquired because they're in a bargain state: early before they get expensive; later when they've become less expensive. And the trend, it seems, is south not north ... as one might logically assume when production methods are evolving in a direction that's not beneficial to their flagship product.

But why do you care? Clearly it matters to an extent that you've budgeted more wasted time to our argument. Do you have family members who work for Pantone? Is your own success tied to Pantone technology. What up?

[Rooster]

I have no affiliation with Pantone. I don't even own a Pantone book. No need to. They've provided the LAB specs in the Adobe Creative Suite.

All I've tried to do is spread a little knowledge about making your life where it intersects with color matching simpler. You seem to have a problem in being wrong.

BTW: You must be pretty tight with the Pantone folks yourself to know what kind of revenue they were bringing in in the 80's. Considering they went private in '77 and stayed that way up until the purchase by X-Rite in 07. Or are you simply barking out of your *** and throwing numbers around to try and save your argument?

[Jim Doggett]

Considering they went private in '77 and stayed that way up until the purchase by X-Rite in 07. Or are you simply barking out of your *** and throwing numbers around to try and save your argument?

You're right; numbers are tough to find on privately-held companies. It was outlined in a lawsuit made public. Public companies are obviously easier to follow, e.g. X-Rite, which you described as being "...growing and very healthy. "

http://www.go2bk.com/xrite.jpg

Things are not quite as bright as they were in Oct 2007. Not sure why, but obviously, the south trend continues.

Best,

Jim

[Jim Doggett]

I have no affiliation with Pantone. I don't even own a Pantone book. No need to. They've provided the LAB specs in the Adobe Creative Suite.

This might explain how you are uniquely able to hit the Pantone spectrum; you're matching to the screen, not a PMS color guide.

Rooster, I am not out to get you, buddy. Really I'm not. With some minimal effort, folks can get close.

But they aren't going to match, and some they won't even get near. So I'd like folks to ask, how important is it? Is mega-accurate spot color printing where the market is trending? Or is material variety (more applications) and lower-cost a greater force in the market? My analysis says the latter is where the trend is going, with a vengence.

I had a motive in looking at that closely, about 5 years ago. I was the Summa marketing guy, and our DC-class thermal transfer printers weren't able to get anywhere near PMS colors. And our head of sales was getting requests for PMS spot printing. So do we develop Pantone-certified colors and try to negate some of the EDGE / Gerber Tone advantage? (also, inkjet was becoming more capable)

As a marketing guy, I had to wonder if the cost-benefit was there.

And in the end, I didn't see the market trending toward PMS capable printing. Indeed, it seemed to be going in the opposite direction. It's still relelevent, to a degree. But only as reference, not the spot-on matching system as it was designed back in the days of mixed printer's ink and Black + 1PMS printing, or 2 PMS or whatever (more colors with a work-and-turn).

And any customer that thinks PMS is the Holy Grail, and busts the chops of a sign-maker printing 4-color, is a pain, in my opinion ... and maybe an understanding of why 4C is not a Pantone color printing system, will help.

In any event, it's a pain that should lessen, not increase.

But it's always fun to banter :^) No hard feelings, Rooster.

Best Regards,

Jim

[Rick]

I have to chime in that to some degree it's not going to be relevant to sign shops as most sign shops produce what they design, will send out files to printers who do not do any color correcting other than the software management. Shops hold on to files to other vendors, and attempt to keep as much of the production as possible. If a sign shop is going to deal with a designer, they must charge for the service of color matching, and be able to explain the digital printers inability to hit the Pantone (and most color references)

I have to send files out to multiple vendors and they all need to have the same reference. Some is a Matthews Paint or Akzo, some is EGL, PMS, Scofield, ICI or any other ink, paint or color reference. And occasionally they have to be transferred over to CMYK. CMYK and RGB is never going to work perfectly for a paint or ink match. Without a reference that a person can touch, it will bring varying and usually poor results.

I get drawings from architects and interior designers wanting to match paint colors for print. Try matching an ICI paint color to CMYK.. or Pantone...

I have lots of stories too... like designers spec'ing concrete color, acid stain and neon to PMS colors... it ain't going to happen. But in my type of sign design, with the vendors I push to bid on certain projects, they can match PMS fairly well with Matthews Paint, Akzo Nobel, and some of the digital print vendors. Maybe I am not so hard of a designer to deal with since I used to be a printer/production monkey, pulled a squeegie or 2 and sprayed a few cabinets in my life and trying to match colors on an Edge, Electrostatic printer, and paint. Matching was sometimes a chore if the designer was picky so I understand the complaint. But as a designer, color is an important part of design and some may want to pay for that, just not to the point of hurting the client, or a never ending back and forth.

Lamest *** thing is "calling it as you see it" with the typical 30" monitor and Illustrator designer. This is again the reverse self-righteousness hard at work with no clear argument but spouting out off nothing... the same can be said about the typical self taught hack sign shop who gets a bid and is clueless about the construction, design or print process.

Production is a skill, its more than design on my screen and press print, but to most sign shops and small business, that is good enough. Pressing print is typical of the clueless hack sign shop we all dread that are flowing into this industry. Your argument seems to have softened, but pushing the bar lower may not be what we need in the industry... just press print.... it's that easy.

oh that feels better...

[Rooster]

Jim if you think for a second the market is trending away from "accurate" printing then you are just kidding yourself.

Suffice it to say. I'm very pleased that there are people like you in the digital print industry. You only make my job easier.

[Jim Doggett]

Hi Rooster,

Not accuracy, per se. But indeed, PMS color-matched is on the wane.

Also, as to Rick's point of lowering standards not being good for the industry, I think I'd say yes and no. (Everything else Rick states I agree with completely) There's been a huge influx of more attainable technology, so that's going to bring more novice ability into the market.

But, I'm not sure that improved efficiency is a bad thing. The process is really streamlined. Companies can upload a PDF and voila! That expands the markets, for sign folks anyway. Design firms, freelancers, pre-press/color houses, maybe not. But folks aren't flying to press-checks. Things are more "get 'r done," which can be a positive. Lower cost, faster turn-around and not sweating the little stuff begets doing more.

Folks who can cater to the high-end have an advantage, clearly. But low-end is the growth market ... maybe hastend by the Web. Loupes and careful press-checks are being replaced by "just put it up on our Web site." So standards are loosened, but activity ramps up dramatically.

That thinking will invariably carry over to catalog and postcard printing ... and wide format. So sorry, Roost, but I think it's kidding oneself to think that trend is not occuring.

BTW, I'm not in the digital printing industry. Merely a casual bystander for a couple decades and change ... most of that time being an executive-level marketing guy.

Best Regards,

Jim

[Rick]

Well, geez, thats what I was trying to say before you hair splitting, argumentive shlep!!! Next show I see you, at I'm going to rooster slap you with my PMS fanbook... but being the sporting man I am, watch out for a porky, wild eyed, middle aged guy eating a burrito and holding up his pants.

[Jim Doggett]

Well, geez, thats what I was trying to say before you hair splitting, argumentive shlep!!! Next show I see you, at I'm going to rooster slap you with my PMS fanbook... but being the sporting man I am, watch out for a porky, wild eyed, middle aged guy eating a burrito and holding up his pants.

Splitting hairs is what makes the banter so much fun!!! One more reason to avoid shows like te plague ... kidding!!! Burritos on me. We should all three of us go out and argue this stuff properly -- with help of beverage alcohol :^))

Have a great weekend guys .. got a Grisham book to finish.

Cheers,

Jim

[Rooster]

Yes Jim,

It's always a good thing when industries trend towards lower standards and less accuracy. You are definitely correct. We should welcome this with open arms and embrace it wholeheartedly. I would be a fool to have ever argued otherwise. American ingenuity at it's finest! I must defer to your years of expertise on the subject. I'm sure your company's product development must be run to the same stellar standards you insist the digital print industry is so lucky to be experiencing. I can't wait for next years newer crappier model to arrive!

Obviously you have had to deal with many customers over the years. I'm sure your explanations of "it's not that important" and/or "it's impossible, why bother trying" and the one I do so love the most "It's your own damn fault for picking that stupid color" have gone over well. You've demonstrated nothing but a high level of expertise and knowledge in this thread. Thank you so much for your contributions. I now have a great new arsenal of excuses to offer my clients should I ever desire to offer them an inferior product. [/sarcasm] :frustrated::frustrated::frustrated:

[kev3232]

come on guys, can't we just all get along? :) either that, it's gonna be a signs101 smakdown!!

[Jim Doggett]

Hi Rooster,

Thanks for the sarcasm notation; I wouldn't have picked up on it otherwise ;^)

Anyway, in marketing we have disciplines, too. The biggy is are we doing what we want or what the customer wants? It's easier, obviously, if we do what the customer wants -- and I'm reeeeeal lazy. Thus, market-focus. Also, indoor plumbing ... albeit, I'm not sure who is in fact peeing into the wind on this one. (Sorry; that's I lie. I am sure I know who is.)

What is, is. Tons of low-cost ecosol printers flooding the market with stuff that buyers seem to want since they're buying both the technology and output, en masse. At the same time, the leader in high-end color workflow products, X-Rite/Pantone, is hemmoraging millions in quarterly losses ... and has for a couple years, beginning almost to the day they acquired Pantone.

Doing more with less is increaslingly driving business buying decisions. That's amplified by a tightening in the economy -- but is merely one nail in the X-Rite/Pantone coffin. The other is that the technoloigy is so amazingly good. Wide format printers got about 3 times as good as they need to be the moment Epson put printheads on Roland, Mutoh and Mimaki printers.

The low-end is high-end, practically out-of-the-box.

Jim

[Jim Doggett]

come on guys, can't we just all get along? :) either that, it's gonna be a signs101 smakdown!!

I tried, but alas, I failed. :^)

[bbeens]

this thread was going somewhere interesting, then ... took a turn into two people arguing and i don't think they are arguing about the same thing. Distaste for Pantone does not equate to lower quality or less accurate color matching. Rooster has obviously worked hard to develop his color management process and I can't think of anything wrong with what he has described - well... maybe the comment about higher resolutions = larger gamut. This requires that the device dot size is not reduced when increasing resolution. Many printers will not allow larger fixed dots or variable dot modes in their highest resolutions. Epson and Roland printers come to mind.

in response to Kev - i was lumping those disagreeable 'designers' in with my statement of 'people in the digital print world'.

[astro8]

CMYKOrGr printer?

Printer with more effing color channels still?

Jim


Jim, I can see your point of view, after years of frustration with colour 'matching' ('simulation' is what I prefer to call it) this solution seems to address my problems with colour matching and Pantone issues.

After all is said and done..the customer or designer wants what they want...anything else to them is an excuse.

Start talking about CMYK as the industry standard, blah, blah, blah and their eyes glaze over fairly quickly.

They want what they want...if they can't get it from you with your CMYK printer...they'll come to me.

What we should be doing is increasing our colour output, not trying to mute it.

I actively inform the designers that supply files to me to spec PMS colours in their files.

Hold up a Trumatch swatchbook next to a Pantone book....see the difference? (I know you can, I'm just trying to make a point).

What a multi-colour inkset printer does is that it allows you far more scope.

I no longer have to use a lot of solid colour cut vinyl in signs because my CMYK or CMYK+Lc,Lm printer can't achieve certain colours and I've reduced production times and costs by doing so.

I print it.:smile:

[Jim Doggett]

They want what they want...if they can't get it from you with your CMYK printer...they'll come to me.

Perhaps :^)

But if I understand the technology, and inform the prospect, maybe they'll buy what I have to sell them.

Plus, they're a dying breed. (the Pantone-faithful) Fewer will demand it, and are demanding it, with each passing day.

Some here have countered that Pantone is the reference standard, still. And to watch out for what's coming next ... that Pantone is taking it to the next level and will be a dominant force in the market. Well, will they be?

Or is Pantone battling obsolesence ... and on the way down? I think all objective evidence points to this conclusion, unequivocally.

If you have the ability to serve this market (the Pantone-faithful), great. If not, would I advise investing time and money to serve it? I don't think so, especially not in the US market. Canada, maybe; it's a more Europeanized society/market. And the market in Europe has historically been higher-end, with greater investment in equipment and training. But that too is changing. Cost reduction is the driving market force, in Texas, Alberta and Brussels alike.

Maybe I'm wrong. If so, buy up their stock ... it's at a near 5-year low and has been downgraded by virtually every analyst of note. If it rebounds to where it was just 18 months ago, you'll see a 900% return. In truth, this might not be a bad investment. They're realigning, it seems, into vertical niches: automotive and apparel, where pigments are king and exacting color reproduction is critical. These are potentially lucrative markets, and the stock could well rebound ... maybe not to historical levels, but a doubling or tripling is not unrealistic. But the mainstream graphics arts market, I don't think so. The technology is going in a different direction.

My $0.02,

Jim

[astro8]

I agree with you on Pantone losing it's 'be all and end all' status, but I do get to quote more and more Pantone spec'd artwork everyday.

I suppose for me, as a sign maker, it's not all about Pantone per se...it's about hitting colours. Pantone, paint swatches, vinyl colours etc.

I've had clients bring in a mandarin or a paint swatch they've found and asked if I can 'match' it.

Yep, spectro it, get the values, print out "similiar colours" in the RIP.

Select from the fifty/hundred or so swatches and that's usually it. If it isn't close enough, (which I haven't come across yet by the way) at least I don't sit there thinking "What if?"

Multi-inkset printers have actually made colour 'matching' which was once a hair-pulling exercise into routine for me.

This thread started off about trying to match Pantone colours..I don't look at colours as being Pantone or Trumatch or whatever, like I used to..I just look at colours.

Colours... Pantone or otherwise can't be 'matched' by laying down dots of different colour inks as we do. It's all about perception, deception and simulation. The more colour inks you have to choose from for your 'dots', the more likely you are to simulate the colour.

It's an interesting thread...

[Jim Doggett]

All good and valid points ... and an exceptional approach. I think Bbean's point, too, is noteworthy. Not hitting Pantone colors, which process color does not do, does not equate to low quality by any means.

Quality these days is stupid good, even at 720 by 720 ... high speed, big images and it's desktop printer quality. I simply cannot imagine anyone not being blown away at how good the prints look ... so if the Pantone 1585 C orange is off a bit, the "OMG this looks great" factor can compensate and probably overcome. And no doubt, 4C+OG is going to get closer to 1585 than a 4C printer will, maybe even much closer. But it isn't going to be Pantone whatever on C1S stock. It's vinyl, not coated paper.

Blues and Reds, however, CMYK nails consistently. Kudos to Coke and IBM for choosing corporate colors that reproduce everywhere (a lesson plan for art schools to consider?)

Plus printed swatches is absolutely the way to go. Kudos again. Let the customer circle the color they want and move on.

But if they're folding over the print and laying it across a Pantone swatch / chip, you're going to have to have the blah-blah-blah chat, regardless of which process color printer you're using. Less blah-blah-blah with 4+OG in some cases, but the chat will nevertheless be had if the customer isn't already in tune with "close = best possible outcome."

So I guess my objective in all my blather is this: I think folks need to be prepared to have the chat, and not feel that they're screwing up or making excuses when they do. The noobs with the loupe and the Pantone chip need some schoolin' in the real world; they ain't in art school no more.

IMHO,

Jim

[Rooster]

Damn those evil bastards at Pantone and their nefarious book of colors.

Damn them, damn them all to hell.

Explain to me if you will please Jim, how the same color on vinyl is somehow different than the color in the swatch book? Also how are the colors from pantone any different than those we come across in the wild. What makes them so much more difficult to match than the rest of the colors in world that surround us?

[Jim Doggett]

Explain to me if you will please Jim, how the same color on vinyl is somehow different than the color in the swatch book?

Gloss level, buddy. Pantone has different color guides for uncoated and coated paper; vinyl is at another level entirely.

I don't think Pantone evil, merely less relevant in a process-printed and projected-light RGB world. Corporate communication simply evolved in a direction that no longer suited a color-matching system designed for mixed printer's inks. I think they're a player in automotive, apparel and manufacturing, where pigments and exact color matching is relevant. I wish them nothing but success in that regard. But in the broader graphic arts market, and corporate communication in particular, they're dying on the vine (lost well over $100 million in the last year alone).

The market is a brutal indicator of what's relevant. Sorry, man. But it is what it is.

Jim

[Rooster]

So if I were to print an offset job and expect to match a pantone book I would then have to print on the same paper as the pantone book is printed on. Or one that has an identical white point and gloss level. This what you're saying, correct? Otherwise I will not be printing an acceptable match to their colors?

I would also never be be able to match their color swatches using any sort or additional gloss coating (varnish, aqueous, UV, etc)? Correct?

[Jim Doggett]

Correct. I think you're starting to get a sense of where printing has gone since Gutenberg printed a Bible. Pantone's glory days were when 2-color sheet-fed printers sprang up in every town in America, and elsewhere. Cover or text stock; coated and uncoated.

Web offset came came into vogue, and then evolved and became more affordable. Flood gloss, ultra varnish, flood dull, brightness, opacity, etc., etc. Companies (smart ones) began to wonder if busting their humps to match a color was cost-justified, or even if it's that important. Turns out, not much; it's a supporting cast element. And close is absolutely adequate, for this reason: it's tough to own the color.

Orange and Blue; is it ING or AT&T/Cingular?

Now for shape and position, which I mentioned mattered more about 20 posts ago (way more, in fact):

Once-bitten apple (Mac)
Swoosh (Nike)
Text with notched "o" (Microsoft)

Color, not so important. And if you use it effectively, others follow rapidly. Orange is the color of the new millenium, in that regard, to the extreme ... a bazzillion companies got on that bandwagon. So what company is Orange? Answer: a bunch of them. But the ones that come to mind do so because they were branded in ways that matter.

Pantone's color of the century, I don't recall ... but they have a new color of the year, every decade and so on ... which a couple people who work for Pantone can name without having to look it up. They fell in love with their product, got too attached and forgot to fall in love with the market. They're now in major difficulty. If a company doesn't acquire them, they'll be gone in a year, if the last rights being said about them is to be believed.

I don't wish that. If it would save a single Pantone employee's job, I'd recant everything I've said here. But this thread isn't nearly that important. At best, maybe some who read it will be better able to deal with the lingering effects of expectations brought on from an antiquated system (Pantone).

Next question, please.

Jim

[Jim Doggett]

oops, addendum in re: "brand" (I seem to recall you thought I was speaking of a logo earlier in our kibitzing)

Not true. Brand as it realtes to me:

Trademark: Jim Doggett
Logo: maybe my picture in the top left
Brand: smart-***; know-it-all; *******

Branding is a process of creating a feeling around your product and company. Whether your logo and other trademark elements are Pantone 485, 486, 487, or whatever, it matters very little. Volvos are safe; what color makes you feel they're safe?

Cheers,

Jim

[Rooster]

How many customers, designers, corporate communication departments and agency art directors have you worked with in the real world to come this conclusion?

What volume of print media using what different types of reproduction methods have you either produced or sold to clients such as these?

What are your qualifications in the area of color measurement and reproduction to have us believe your position is valid.

How does the accepted use of ISO standard 13655 in the measurement of color tristimulus values and the use of CIE standard 1391 (2 degree field of view) relate to a medias gloss level. ie: is this standard designed to provide a measurement of color on various medias that minimizes or standardizes the effect of gloss, or is as you assert gloss level variation an insurmountable obstacle to an acceptable color match. Furthermore, how does pantone's acceptance of and adherence to this standard affect my ability to determine a color match? How much delta e variation is considered acceptable?

I'm having a lot of difficulty believing that Pantone's glory days were in the late 70's and early 80's prior to the introduction of desktop publishing. Could you please state the source of where you determined their "profits" were in the 30 million dollar range in the 1980's. I know that the last year they reported earnings as a public company in 1977 they had "revenues" of 2 million dollars. Would this not represent simply astronomical growth during that period?

I also know that they showed an ~50% increase in sales between 2006 and 2008 going from 167 million to over 240 million. While they may now be part of the X-rite product line and under their corporate umbrella (as a separate division). Can you explain how this level of growth relates to your insistence that they are in a decline and becoming increasingly irrelevant?

Do you think that X-Rite's leveraging of debt to purchase Gretag MacBeth, and more recently Pantone Corporation combined with the downturn in the economy and the increase in corporate borrowing costs might have some effect on X-rite's stock price? What exactly is the relationship between Pantone's increased revenues and these aforementioned events? Does X-rite's stock price trump the earnings from the pantone division. ie: If Pantone shows growth it's irrelevant since X-rite's stock price is in the dumper. Would this be an accurate summation of your position?

How does your position relate to the industry trends of more color management, larger gamut devices, built in spectrophotometers and increased print quality of new machines being released? Am I to understand that this is all just unnecessary overkill being produced for a market that has no underlying need for it?

[Jim Doggett]

How many customers, designers, corporate communication departments and agency art directors have you worked with in the real world to come this conclusion?

1. Far too few; ignorance abounds, as does dogmatic thinking, which has no place in marketing.

2. I'll school you, but you have to do your own research: Pantone Net Profit. (Google it; it was in a UK based lawsuit ... 20M+ Pound Sterling ... $30 million US was conservative)

3. I don't need to speculate on what brought X-Rite/Pantone to the brink of disaster. Top XRIT management will have a litany of perfectly good reasons for their problems, due to events beyond their control. Poor management probably won't be on the list.

My guess, however, is they lost sight of what they were. They fell in love with the chips (the shape is a Pantone registered trademark). It defined them as a company and their products. But Pantone was never a color guide or color chip company ... they solved color problems for the print industry. (guides and chips were incidental)

They should have been ahead of the curve when the technology -- and problems in the print industry -- changed. They didn't; they clung to products that created as many problems as they solved. They were very late to the party on process / digital solutions, when they should have been years ahead of the technology-change.

Short answer: poor management.

This is fun. Let's keep going.

Jim

[Jim Doggett]

Oops, missed one:

Am I to understand that this is all just unnecessary overkill being produced for a market that has no underlying need for it?

Yes, to overkill. Too much emphasis is placed on it -- in corporate / marketing communication. Packaging? Not overkill. Thus my belief they're still viable in manufacuring.

-J

[Rooster]

I noticed you managed to avoid my questions about how accepted measurement standards relate to determining an acceptable color match. Is there a particular reason for this? Do you still stick to the notion that people will not accept a color match to a pantone chip unless it's printed on an identical stock to the pantone guide books?

Re: Pantone v. Puttnick. How do earnings of £11,904.93 somehow become 30 Million USD. Even considering the Pound was trading at 61.1 pence to the US dollar in 1987 your assertion of a conservative estimate seems a tad off. Although on this point I shall concede since we're dealing solely with European operations and US operation numbers are impossible to come by. The profits and growth shown since 1977 seem to be very impressive.

Indeed the 80's must have been a magical boom time with the birth of desktop publishing and pantone's licensing agreements with so many different software publishers at the time. Industry consolidation and the reduction of potential licensees over the next decade or so would have reduced their bargaining power somewhat. Gone or mostly irrelevant are now letraset, multi-ad, aldus, corel, et al.

However, I was not asking you to speculate on the current fiscal health of X-rite. I was only asking you how pantone's 50% sales growth over the last two fiscal years reported could be interpreted as being part of a downward trend. Indeed I will agree that X-Rite is not exactly making money hand over fist. I still do not see how you can paint the pantone division with the same brush as the parent company when one shows growth and the other shows contraction. Although your marketing experience has provided you with a enviable skill to word your answer to wisely skirt answering the actual question posed. As you done with most of my questions. Touché! You pose a difficult moving target when you duck and dodge a direct answer.

If you can provide a reasonable explanation of your position to the above question we can lay the matter of pantone's health and relevance to rest. It seems a tad moot anyhow since it's out there and people are using it. As you're so fond of saying "what is, is". So we can then move forward on the topic of actual color matching.

[Jim Doggett]

Gross buddy, 21+ M BPS, which in 1987 was north of $33 million ... scroll back some pages. Gotta compare apples to apples.

For fuzzy math, you only need to go up a couple posts. 43% growth is not ~50%, even with the US-CDN exchange rate :^) Also, not growth so much as grafting-on. Gretag Macbeth grafted-on in Jul 06 (they were north of $500 million in 2003); then Pantone in Oct 07.

Aldus (Paul Brainerd, who coined the phrase Desktop Publishing, or DTP) launch PageMaker in 1985. But Pantone predates DTP. Paste-up, which DTP replaced, had a Pantone chip on nearly every board.

Anyway, if the crux of your challege is they were on the rise prior to the downturn in the global economy, that's wrong. RIT had a keen sense of smell for companies on the wane. And they were in freefall before the housing crash and economic crisis.

Having fun yet?

J

[Jim Doggett]

I noticed you managed to avoid my questions about how accepted measurement standards relate to determining an acceptable color match.

We avoided many a question, going both ways. But if we're keeping track, which color makes you feel Volvo cars are safe?

As far as acceptable, too subjective. I gotta go with I don't know. But it's pretty broad if the measure is effectiveness. Retail packaging competes on a shelf with myriad competing products. Tone gets real important in that environment. In marketing/ads/signs, it's pretty much what's need for recognition, if effectiveness is the measure of "acceptable" ... wiggle room is huge ... if the Coke can is red (bright; pleasing) and not magenta, bingo. Really, it's that broad.

But if your business is selling color guides or a service that touts the color guide as being important, I can understand that's not something you'd want too many folks to know. Ignorance is bliss, and many businesses thrive on it. So don't kick yourself. Keep on keepin' on. Just be careful about assuming things coming from ones rectum, when they might actually be better-informed.

Just a tip; lesson over.

Jim

[Rooster]

So let's summarize your position then.

1: You have no real experience or qualifications to comment on the actual use and sale of print media.

2: You have zero experience, qualifications or relevant skills to comment on the use of and effectiveness of color management technologies.

3: When it comes to what's considered an acceptable match you say that it's simply too subjective. A vastly different position from your "it's simply not possible", or "it's not that important" position earlier.

4: After saying that it's simply not possible to achieve a match to a pantone color to a clients satisfaction unless you run on a virtually identical stock. Your position has changed to "wiggle room is huge".

5: I'm not sure how to really qualify your position on the business end as you move the numbers around to suit your argument. If you check x-rite's financial statement for the first quarter of 2009 they show a "gross profit" of 26.8 million dollars for a single quarter. Of course I actually run a business and understand the only thing that matters at the end of the day is net profit. Thus my reasoning for focusing on that. Little things like payroll, marketing expenses, and overhead items tend to eat into the actual gross profit margin determined simply by subtracting cost of product from revenue from sale of product. It seems your understanding of color management and customer relations relating to color matching accuracy might actually be even greater than your understanding of how business works from the financial side. Of course you've probably only ever cashed a paycheck in your life. Why should the finer points of corporate finance give you any bother.

If you really want to continue this discussion I will get you a larger shovel since you seem so determined to keep digging deeper into the hole you've dug for yourself. The lesson, Mr. Doggett, is hardly over.

Oh and the color blue that makes me feel safe in a Volvo would be the same color they use for their brand identity and corporate marketing. They've spent many millions to attach that message to their identity. The two go hand in hand. When you see the name Volvo most people immediately think safe or perhaps Swedish, but safe is right up there regardless. Considering you're using that as the basis of your argument you can hardly claim that is has no effect on the consumer. They've obviously gotten into your head with it. Specifically that color would be Pantone 072c. They would specify the use of that color the same way they specify the use of their own custom fonts in their advertising. If you had any real world experience in any aspect of the print or advertising industries besides selling squeegees, racks and an antiquated old thermal ribbon print system. You might understand some of the actual things we as business owners and production professionals have to deal with in our day to day duties. When it's important to a customer. It becomes important to me. If it means getting a project or seeing it go to the competition. The experience and skills I've acquired over the years become very relevant indeed.

And yes, in case you're wondering. I can attain a color match to it that would be acceptable according to ISO standards. Not on many medias though. It takes a high cyan/magenta ink load and a media with a very high white point. You have to push things pretty hard for a "true" match.

[astro8]

Also how are the colors from pantone any different than those we come across in the wild. What makes them so much more difficult to match than the rest of the colors in world that surround us?

...That's probably the best question in this thread.

Forget PMS Numbers and just look at the colour for what it is. Then ask yourself...'How do I match that?"

Then you are on the road to successful colour management and output.

[ProWraps™]

wow.. L O N G E S T R E P L Y S EVVVVVERRRRR. hell now im confused and i started this thread. heh.

[Jim Doggett]

So let's summarize your position then.

1: You have no real experience or qualifications to comment on the actual use and sale of print media.

2: You have zero experience, qualifications or relevant skills to comment on the use of and effectiveness of color management technologies.

3: When it comes to what's considered an acceptable match you say that it's simply too subjective. A vastly different position from your "it's simply not possible", or "it's not that important" position earlier.

4: After saying that it's simply not possible to achieve a match to a pantone color to a clients satisfaction unless you run on a virtually identical stock. Your position has changed to "wiggle room is huge".

5: I'm not sure how to really qualify your position on the business end as you move the numbers around to suit your argument. If you check x-rite's financial statement for the first quarter of 2009 they show a "gross profit" of 26.8 million dollars for a single quarter. Of course I actually run a business and understand the only thing that matters at the end of the day is net profit. Thus my reasoning for focusing on that. Little things like payroll, marketing expenses, and overhead items tend to eat into the actual gross profit margin determined simply by subtracting cost of product from revenue from sale of product. It seems your understanding of color management and customer relations relating to color matching accuracy might actually be even greater than your understanding of how business works from the financial side. Of course you've probably only ever cashed a paycheck in your life. Why should the finer points of corporate finance give you any bother.

If you really want to continue this discussion I will get you a larger shovel since you seem so determined to keep digging deeper into the hole you've dug for yourself. The lesson, Mr. Doggett, is hardly over.

Oh and the color blue that makes me feel safe in a Volvo would be the same color they use for their brand identity and corporate marketing. They've spent many millions to attach that message to their identity. The two go hand in hand. When you see the name Volvo most people immediately think safe or perhaps Swedish, but safe is right up there regardless. Considering you're using that as the basis of your argument you can hardly claim that is has no effect on the consumer. They've obviously gotten into your head with it. Specifically that color would be Pantone 072c. They would specify the use of that color the same way they specify the use of their own custom fonts in their advertising. If you had any real world experience in any aspect of the print or advertising industries besides selling squeegees, racks and an antiquated old thermal ribbon print system. You might understand some of the actual things we as business owners and production professionals have to deal with in our day to day duties. When it's important to a customer. It becomes important to me. If it means getting a project or seeing it go to the competition. The experience and skills I've acquired over the years become very relevant indeed.

And yes, in case you're wondering. I can attain a color match to it that would be acceptable according to ISO standards. Not on many medias though. It takes a high cyan/magenta ink load and a media with a very high white point. You have to push things pretty hard for a "true" match.


Uncle. You win. I'm the *****, well-slapped.

Cheers,

Jim

[Jim Doggett]

...That's probably the best question in this thread.

Forget PMS Numbers and just look at the colour for what it is. Then ask yourself...'How do I match that?"

Then you are on the road to successful colour management and output.

Hi Astro,

But then, what PMS green do you need before your mind registers, "oh; it's a tree" ...?

How accurate must the green be? And when the leaves turn yellow, then orange is there any confusion as to whether it's a tree? Does if help if the yellow is Pantone XXX and the Orange is Pantone YYY? No doubt there are unnatural-looking yellows and oranges, at which point you'd question if the tree was real ... but the "wiggle room" is broad.

Point being: color plays a roll in the recognition process, but a much smaller roll than Pantone/Pantone-dweebs would have us think. Shape trumps.

Best,

Jim

[Jim Doggett]

More on shape trumps ...

OK; so now we know it's a tree, due to its shape and because it's within the bounds of a fairly broad tonal range. So we begin accruing all the brand attributes:

- Shading (keeps me cool on a hot day)
- Fun (I can climb it and swing from its branches)
- Leafy (I'll have to rake ... some brand attributes are negative ... Volvos are safe; also boxy ... Listerine is more effective at killing the stuff that makes my breath stink; but it tastes like ***)

That's the objective: regonition in pursuit of associations/emotional responses (brand attributes)


Color helps, to a degree, in the recognition process. It does squat in branding. But graphic artists, most of whom seem to think they're marketing experts, will school us in the vital importance of exacting color.

Ergo the axiom: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Jim

[Correct Color]

Actually and just for the record...

If you have really solid professionally-made printer profiles, you quickly find that PMS colors go from being your enemy to being your very best friend.

Reason is that despite the old canard about PMS books not matching, they do, and when your RIP is looking for a known quantity--the Lab value of a PMS color--it will find it in your printer space even if you've got your incoming spaces set up incorrectly, assuming that your printer profile was made by someone who knows what they're doing with software that didn't come out of a box of Cracker Jacks.

However, the farther your printer profiles are from the reality of your printer, the more likely your RIP will simply be interpreting the PMS call as the wrong color in your print space.

The idea that RGB or CMYK values will ever replace PMS colors is--sorry--not very likely to happen--and again, sorry--displays some lack of understanding of the principles of digital color.

For there to be universal CMYK or RGB values to represent certain colors, there would have to be agreement on which RGB or CMYK spaces would be used, or each color would have to have differing values depending on the RGB or CMYK spaces to be used.

And since most commercial print CMYK spaces are pretty small, then what of the colors that fall outside of them? Do they just cease to exist?

Not likely.

No. PMS colors are here to stay, and learning to put them to work for you is what a good part of what separates those who understand their business from those who pretend to.