I need a color chart

[Bly]

Slapakiss, if you're only getting one Pantone chart I'd get the Solid to Process Coated chart.

 

[SightLine]

Why would you design in CMYK??? For muddy limited color range? Sure, easier for other companies to match the dull limited gamut of CMYK I guess. We have been in wide format print for nearly 10 years. We always design in RGB (specifially Adobe RGB profile) and do call out Pantone spot colors all the time in the files as well. Works great. You do realize that most RIP's in the background convert files to RGB right? And many RIP's also use CPSI as the background RIP processor, which happens to be Adobe's native postscript RIP engine.... go figure that it really does well with Adobe RGB profile files.

Dont get me wrong. CMYK has it's uses but it's gamut is very limited when compared to RGB. You will also always have issues with rich blues turning purple and whatnot. Most offset printers know how to deal with this nowadays and happily accept files in either color mode but they also know very well that RGB files will generally have a much wider color range. RGB also makes smaller files as well. The one thing I've wondered is when LaB values will become more of a standard which is really the most accurate method of describing color.

 

[ddubia]

Now I'm confused. If RGB has a larger, broader color gamut than CMYK then how does printing an RGB file in CMYK work when CMYK is incapable of matching the (out of it's own gamut) colors that are within RGB's range?

Last I knew offset printers print in CMYK inks. How then do they prevent out of gamut RGB colors from becoming muddy and less vibrant?

I know it was a long time ago, so maybe things have changed, but I spent 3 years in prepress beginning in 1999 setting up for offset and large format screen printing. We did everything on Mac's and converted all files to CMYK. Customers had to approve the color shift that inevitably happened on out of gamut colors or pony up for a spot color.

We did work for some major corporations who would sometimes send a small team to review our procedures and approval final proofs.

I was not in charge there and certainly didn't understand everything going on with only 3 years in the trade, but from what I did learn I can't see how CMYK printing method can accurately hit out of gamut RGB colors no matter what conversion method is being used.

Now, working in signs, I make all my files in CMYK that are sent to 4-over or GotPrint or other offset printing companies and have yet to be disappointed in the results.

I'm not telling anyone what to do but as can be seen I am curious as to the discussion I've read so far.

To the OP, we have a digital printer in shop. I have printed out a large PMS color chart and laminated it. The colors do not always match up perfectly with the color swatch book but rarely does that matter with our clients, (local sign buyers). What it does do is give me the ability to allow them (or me) to pick out a color from the chart and know that that color will look exactly like the swatch that was picked. Perhaps your MM could provide you with something similar for a reasonable fee.

 

[FireSprint.com]

To the OP, we have a digital printer in shop. I have printed out a large PMS color chart and laminated it. The colors do not always match up perfectly with the color swatch book but rarely does that matter with our clients, (local sign buyers). What it does do is give me the ability to allow them (or me) to pick out a color from the chart and know that that color will look exactly like the swatch that was picked. Perhaps your MM could provide you with something similar for a reasonable fee.

Did you create this chart from scratch?

 

[genericname]

SCIENCE!

 

[jbennett]

Not wanting in a fuss, but everything that Bob has said so far is the way that I operate, and have little problems with my raster image colors and my RGB colors print much truer to the screen than my CMYK's. Not saying there isn't another road that leads to the same place though.

jbennett

 

[ddubia]

Did you create this chart from scratch?

No, it's a file we got from Mimaki.

Attached is a .jpg representation of it. Original fiile is an .eps.

Trying to attach a .PDF of it to this post keeps failing. It's 3.7MB. Not sure what I'm doing wrong. Even keeping within the 800x800 size restrictions it fails.

I'm sure it'll fly over email if you want it.

 

[fresh]

Not wanting in a fuss, but everything that Bob has said so far is the way that I operate, and have little problems with my raster image colors and my RGB colors print much truer to the screen than my CMYK's. Not saying there isn't another road that leads to the same place though.

jbennett

I'm still not understanding how everyone has these magically calibrated monitors. I don't doubt that it works for you, but what happens if you open up the file on a different monitor that is calibrated differently?

 

[ddubia]

Plus, I understand that for a digital printer. But for offset? I'm still confused.

Nothing new though.

 

[fresh]

So clearly everyone has their own way of doing things. I always design either in CMYK or specify PMS (using my Pantone guide for color choice.) I have NEVER had a problem with print colors.

I take that back.... a few years ago I sent out some business cards to be printed. Oops, I sent them an RGB file, with 100% Red as the background color. There were three sets of cards, and they all came out completely different. Pink, orange, and reddish. When I inquired about the discrepancy, it was because the file was RGB, not CMYK.

I'll repeat that I use a pantone guide to assign color on every project we do, and depending on if it actually has to hit that exact number or if it needs to be close, I convert spot colors in the export. We ALWAYS have excellent results this way, either using an outside vendor who has a flatbed printer, digital or offset press, or otherwise.

Apparently, everyone else in the world has magically calibrated monitors whose screen color exactly matches their printers (in house and out.)

 

[nashvillesigns]

digitalprinter=CMYK. i tried to order RGB inks for my mimaki. I still hear the laughter.
i have been doing graphic design since 1987. Even those AB dick 360 printers used CYMK.
Fast forward to present. CMYK is still the weapon of choice. i send, outsource, proof, print, EVERYTHING IN CMYK. RGB is for monitor viewing only. (That is of course, if you bought a calibrator for it.)
Don't get me started on that crap.
I printed my (jv33) own Pantone "process to CYMK" color chart and this is what i get my own customers to pick colors from.
Long live Big Bird.

 

[FireSprint.com]

What does Edna have to say about this? Just let our Signs101 expert tell us what to do.

 

[bob]

...Apparently, everyone else in the world has magically calibrated monitors whose screen color exactly matches their printers (in house and out.)

You're obsessed with monitors. Regardless of how carefully you've calibrated, or not, what shows up on a monitor is meaningless, it's what comes out of the printer that's the truth. The whole truth and nothing but the truth.

It just so happens that uncompressed RGB jpg, et al,is as close to a universal format as exists at this time. Not perfect but acceptable. An RGB jpg shows with reasonable accuracy on any decent monitor. Moreover, on most any properly set up system, it reproduces acceptably true.

Perhaps this is because virtually all RIPs move into and work out of LAB space. I can't say for certain since I've never taken apart a modern RIP, I can only extrapolate from previous experience.

I realize that this seems in direct contradiction to what you learned in some school somewhere. Not surprising, as the map is not the territory, theory is not reality. Except perhaps for some of the more esoteric branches of theoretical physics. Know the territory and the map becomes irrelevant.

 

[fresh]

You're obsessed with monitors. Regardless of how carefully you've calibrated, or not, what shows up on a monitor is meaningless, it's what comes out of the printer that's the truth. The whole truth and nothing but the truth.

It just so happens that uncompressed RGB jpg, et al,is as close to a universal format as exists at this time. Not perfect but acceptable. An RGB jpg shows with reasonable accuracy on any decent monitor. Moreover, on most any properly set up system, it reproduces acceptably true.

Perhaps this is because virtually all RIPs move into and work out of LAB space. I can't say for certain since I've never taken apart a modern RIP, I can only extrapolate from previous experience.

I realize that this seems in direct contradiction to what you learned in some school somewhere. Not surprising, as the map is not the territory, theory is not reality. Except perhaps for some of the more esoteric branches of theoretical physics. Know the territory and the map becomes irrelevant.

Why do you keep assuming you know anything about my background? Please, enlighten me with all you know about ME. The only thing I assume about you is that you're unable to relay any actual information.

And the reason I'm so "obsessed" with monitor calibration is because you can't get repeatable results based on what YOUR monitor looks like alone. Period. If you could, then Pantone, HEX, and any other color matching system would be obsolete. End of story. You are suggesting that everyone design and choose colors based on what it looks like on their monitors. And that is just plain bad advice.

 

[fresh]

digitalprinter=CMYK. i tried to order RGB inks for my mimaki. I still hear the laughter.
i have been doing graphic design since 1987. Even those AB dick 360 printers used CYMK.
Fast forward to present. CMYK is still the weapon of choice. i send, outsource, proof, print, EVERYTHING IN CMYK. RGB is for monitor viewing only. (That is of course, if you bought a calibrator for it.)
Don't get me started on that crap.
I printed my (jv33) own Pantone "process to CYMK" color chart and this is what i get my own customers to pick colors from.
Long live Big Bird.

Yep

 

[bob]

...

And the reason I'm so "obsessed" with monitor calibration is because you can't get repeatable results based on what YOUR monitor looks like alone. Period. If you could, then Pantone, HEX, and any other color matching system would be obsolete. End of story. You are suggesting that everyone design and choose colors based on what it looks like on their monitors. And that is just plain bad advice.

Again, your reading comprehension skills seem desperately limited. Which part of "The printer is the truth" do you not comprehend?
I do not and never have suggested that anyone rely on what shows up on a monitor. Just the opposite. The printer is the truth ergo what shows up on a monitor is the map and not the territory. What shows up on a monitor merely is suggestive, what comes out of the print is definitive.

Here in this shop the printing tackle is well understood and when designs are assembled what appears on a monitor is understood to only be true for size and shape. Color on a monitor may or may not represent the truth that will emerge from the printer.

I did remark that an RBG bitmap such as a jpg file usually appears on most media reasonably true. I have no necessary and sufficient conditions as to why this should be so, merely a great deal of empirical evidence confirming this bit of pragmatism. Since it works I've never been moved to examine why it works.

 

[fresh]

Again, your reading comprehension skills seem desperately limited. Which part of "The printer is the truth" do you not comprehend?
I do not and never have suggested that anyone rely on what shows up on a monitor. Just the opposite. The printer is the truth ergo what shows up on a monitor is the map and not the territory. What shows up on a monitor merely is suggestive, what comes out of the print is definitive.

Here in this shop the printing tackle is well understood and when designs are assembled what appears on a monitor is understood to only be true for size and shape. Color on a monitor may or may not represent the truth that will emerge from the printer.

I did remark that an RBG bitmap such as a jpg file usually appears on most media reasonably true. I have no necessary and sufficient conditions as to why this should be so, merely a great deal of empirical evidence confirming this bit of pragmatism. Since it works I've never been moved to examine why it works.

So how do you know its going to be accurate if you send it out to print? You are spending so much time being demeaning and rude, you never actually answered the question.

Lets say my printer is broken, or I'm working from home and can't proof on my own equipment before sending a job out. How can I be sure the colors I want are going to be accurate in the final print? Please enlighten me with your infinite knowledge.

ALSO- NO WAY, The PRINT IS DEFINITIVE?? What???? Who KNEW? This thread is about how to get the color to come out the way you want it. You really just negated everything you said previously. I'm done.

 

[RBDesign]

Swatch Book, Swatch Book Swatch Book, don't leave home without it.

If you are printing in Spot color --- use pantone colors (use pantone color swatch book)
if you are printing in 4 color offset --- use CMYK values (use CMYK color swatch book)
if you are not getting what you see on you monitor --- calibrate your moniter to what ever you are printing to or use the right profiles.

if you see a nice royal blue on you monitor but get a purple -- monitor is off
you should see a purple if that is what you are getting on your print.

Now if your CMYK color values dictate (from CMYK Swatch book) a royal blue and you see a royal blue on your monitor, but you are getting a purple print out --- then your printer needs to make the adjustments.

RGB does have a wider color gamut but its useless if you are printing in CMYK. If CMYK can not print it for you, nothing else will.

I only say this because i"ve been there since 1982.... Yes before the RGB color monitors when all monitors were green and graphics were done by hand on a drafting table.