Proof vs proof

For a museum's book with about 300 pages and the same amount of photos, a few weeks ago, the artist, graphic artist and myself (having done about the last 100 photos) corrected the first proof, aka big bubble jet proof sheets in meter size (calibrated environnement)

The corrected version went later to the print plant, and we got these days the CMYK-proofs, printed on the printing machine that will be used later for the on the book.

I noticed quite a noticable difference of colour between these types two proofs, the bubble jet proof sheets having generally less contrast and a slight blue/magenta cast.

Someone can elaborate a bit more on that difference?
I'm aware that different print system will give slightly different results, but I wonder if changes in contrast and colors shift are consistent.

In these situations, you really like your wide gamut-hardwarecalibrated display in your studio, cause you see practically everything on your screen that you see in CMYK, later..

Sidenote 1: As the book is part of a retrospective of a artist's life, through the years several photographers were involved, and showed quite a wide range of quality.

Sidenote 2: There have been less corrections required since photographers entered in digital age, compared to the analog photos as source.

Michael,

You are not the first to face this problem. Not only this, different pigments may behave in diverse ways in various light conditions. The most experienced person here on this is Nicolas Claris. I've seen him meticulously checking in a light desk and in sunlight the output from the giant CMYK printer. Although the guy running the machine is expert at color, the two had to go back and forth on each page to get a perfect match between what Nicolas had planned and the output. So your calibrated proof is just the reference from the printer. Often, especially if the price has been negotiated down a lot, the printer will do a job that's "Good enough". My motto for this is "Good enough" isn't!

If they cannot work with you on one picture to get it perfect, then you need a new printer!

Both the artist and you yourself have invested too much talent, heart and labor to let this thing be less that wonderful.

Asher

I'll may come back later on this…

Since the new generation of offset print machines but above all the new generation of screening (especially stochastic) I don't beleive anymore in proofs, whatever technology they've been done with.

Nowadays I use proofs to check the overall contrast, eventual color shifts and homogeneity of the whole, but otherwise I don't trust proofs.

Another reason is the way the rip from the proofer and the rip of the offset does handle the color separation, and on this you have no hand (I mean you cannot interfere).

Also the paper, it's color are not pure white, all are different and the quality of the coat is really important for color rendering.

When I'm proofing on the offset machine (I do for every single job!), we always do with the real paper, same quality and same wheight!
A 135g/sq.meter paper will react differently than the exact same paper but 250 g per sq/m…
Not to speak humidity and heat from different days…

Printing is not a true science, it's always a guess and try. This is why I work for years with the same offset printer and same guys (they are 2) to run it…

Ask Asher, he came with me for a proofing some years ago…

LoL!
Asher did beat me for a few minutes!

Thank you both

I might add that the 2nd proof is a real CMYK-(offsett) print on exactly the same paper, weight and same machine as the book will be printed, therefore that one should be pretty close to the final result. Same color separation and rip as the book later.

Yep, we were looking pretty precise to the 2nd proof, during these 1 1/2 days, the artist, the graphic artist and me we worked together well, in a constructive manner.
(I know the artist and his work since years - prior to deliver the files, we both softproofed it on my calibrated display - that helped a lot too, and very few minor corrections had to be done on these images. I know, you can't do it with all artists...)

Therefore, I' m pretty confident about the result, beeing aware of 2 - 3 glitches - resulting from a unskilled photographer. Even one of the graphic artist worked for 6 hours (!!) to rescue one of these bad images, it was simple impossible to make it goodlooking, they showed me the slide.... it would have taken 1 1/2 hours to take a better photo, but unfortunatly, it wasn't possible, as that art object isn't arround anymore.

The book will be printed no far away from here, the publisher knows the print house, and artist and graphic artist will go there for print.
it's out of my hands, now - I keep my finger crossed

Michael Fontana said:

Thank you both

I might add that the 2nd proof is a real CMYK-(offsett) print on exactly the same paper, weight and same machine as the book will be printed, therefore that one should be pretty close to the final result. Same color separation and rip as the book later.

Click to expand...

The only way (expensive though!) to have a trustworthy proof…
You have now to rely on the guy who run the press and the graphic artist, if he knows well his job, you're out of trouble!

BTW knowing the quality of your work and files, I hope this book will be printed with CTP (computer to plate) and stochastic screening (clever random screening)…

BTW 2 the guy who runs the offset machine is called a "conducteur" (driver) in French, I'd be glad to know what's the English name…

Conducteuer,

that's how we call here the conductor in the train ....

I will ask the graphiste later on on the CTP (computer to plate) and stochastic screening - I had that impression when looking at the offsett-proof -
but I have to leave him, as he is doing the correction untill tomorrow night right now.

And yes - I trust in the graphiste - he is a Pro.... and spend quite a bit of extratime in the book as well - we all want it to have it in a very good quality.

Let us know if, when and where we could have a chance to buy that book!

For those interested in the modern printing/screening technologies, this is interesting but… in French! the English version is much poorer…

Nicolas Claris said:

You have now to rely on the guy who run the press and the graphic artist, if he knows well his job, you're out of trouble!

Click to expand...

hmm, do you really want to hear the feedback? Will you?
I wasn't that much involved in the last parth, still:

the graphiste guided it further and spend - 2 days of 5 - at the printing house for printing the book. The remaing 3 days, when the graphiste wasn't there, another printer guy came, he didn't watched the proofs, so nearly half of the book went to blue!

The graphiste and the artist realised it 3 days ahead of retrospective opening and book vernissage, and managed to stopp the process, then they chosed the best 200 sheets and binded them for the opening only, with some blueish pages - this is version one.

The print house will now reprint half of the book.... for the correct version...

The opening of the retrospective and book vernissage was last weekend; together with the graphiste, I was invited to dinner and party, it's been fine...

Long story short essence: unless you hold the book in your hand ....

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh noooooooooooo!

Michael,
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh noooooooooooo!

I feel the deception, the hunger and all that stressing feelings you may had.

How bad!

Your graphist should have never left the "conducteur" (that's how we call the guy who runs the machine, like a train, yes!) alone, even when briefed!

I go for printing for more that 25 years now, and I know for long that even the smartest guy, will run differently if you're not there… He's got pressure from his superior to finish the job asap, he thinks to whatever else when running the sheets, unless YOU tel him that's going wrong...

I sincerly feel bad for you and send you my full solidarity.
Now let's hope that the new job will be done correctly.
BTW I would have refused to show a job not to my taste, but I guess you didn't have the choice with your client… :-(

Amicalement

Merci bien, Nicolas

I see you went through these things as well; yes, there's a deception now, as we started in april of that year on a trip, with the goal to have a good book in hands in octobre....

While the result isn't pleasant today, I still remind the interesting discussions we had, the good groove in the team - its been in a very professional and nice ambiance, nobody cared to work one or another hour extra... which has been appreciated by the artist... I don't think that spirit is gone - off course we look forward to the correct version, these days..

now it has 288 sites, 20 % more than when we started; it's been screened conventional and not stochastic....