Web : http://printplanet.

com/forums/color-management/19824-efi-vs-gmg-vs-cgs-there-clear-winner

Page 1 of 3123 Last
Results 1 to 10 of 27
Thread: EFI vs. GMG vs.
CGS...is there a clear
winner?
LinkBack
Thread Tools
Search Thread
Display
1. 10-27-2009, 04:58 PM#1
schenkadere
Senior Member
EFI vs. GMG vs. CGS...is there a clear winner?
Curious about everyone's preference and why.

I currently have EFI Colorproof XF v. 3.1.8...I'm on the fence and wondering if there is a
better solution for creating contract proofs on an Epson 9900 for the packaging industry.

Thanks.
Reply With Quote
2. 10-27-2009, 08:35 PM#2

TerryWyse
Senior Member
Originally Posted by schenkadere
EFI vs. GMG vs. CGS...is there a clear winner?
yes.

:-)
Terence Wyse, WyseConsul
Color Management Consulting, G7 Certified Expert
Reply With Quote
3. 10-28-2009, 06:17 AM#3

stargate
Senior Member
I am with Terry on this one. You mentioned all german rips.
Reply With Quote
4. 10-28-2009, 06:52 AM#4
schenkadere
Senior Member
Originally Posted by TerryWyse
yes.

:-)
Am I missing something? Can you elaborate?
Reply With Quote
5. 10-28-2009, 08:56 AM#5
Ian MackenzieGuest

Caveat: my company was the original GMG distributor for North America (2003-2006)and is
an EFI distributor for North America (2006-2009). I also worked for EFI.

Interesting question.
It's very similar to asking about comparing "Mercedes, BMW and Audi". There are also
several subtleties here beyond the technical features of the software. I am not smart
enough or well-versed enough about the technical merits of all 3 of these RIPs.

what I do know is that they ALL work just fine and they are ALL professional products made
by good companies. The IPA "proofing shoot-outs" of 2006,2007 and 2008 substantiated
that. Here are my random observations:

1. CGS and GMG are small, nimble compnaies that truly take excellent care of their
customers and resellers. EFI relies upon OEM partners and distributors to do their biddings.
2. CGS and GMG are much more dedicated to the proofing market. They sponsor the IPA
shows, they advertise, they are active with customers, publishers and agencies. CGS and
GMG have much more robust product portfolios for proofing. (Ink savings products, color
servers, remote proofing, etc.) EFI has a far superior offering for the wide format and grand
format spaces.
3. EFI has "OEM DNA".....heck, while you are reading this look up and look to the right. See
the Epson/EFI banner ads...? Bestcolor was purchased by EFI in 2003 and, at the time, had
THE dominant market share. That share has been eroded significantly over the past 3-4
years by CGS and GMG as EFI has lost its focus in proofing in favor of the actual growth
markets of wide and grand format inkjet. EFI once sold Bestcolor to Creo, KPG, Dupont and
Heidelberg. Today, they have OEM deals with Esko and Epson. I see this sector growing for
them.
4. I believe also that each of these 3 companies does have an are of expertise when it
comes to proofing. GMG excels at packaging. (Even though EFI has recently cut a monster
deal with one of the largest global packaging companies.) CGS dominates publishing. But
EFI is a very easy to use RIP that is an "all purpose" RIP that can be a little more flexible.
EFI has the only TRUE client/server architecture. EFI and GMG use the Adobe PDF Print
Engine in their latest versions. CGS uses a ghost script clone but they will be forced to move
to Adobe PDF very soon. That will be painful for them as it was for GMG.
5. CGS and GMG have paper strategies that they push hard. EFI licenses their name on
Tecco paper in Europe and we once had EFI's name on our Validation media but we
removed it earlier this year. But CGS and GMG are just putting their names on the mill's
paper just like Epson does and just like we do.Tecco is one of the largest converters in
Europe and they work with all of the RIP companies. German paper is "silly expensive" as
Germany is one of the lost expensive places in the world to manufacture product. CGS and
GMG import finished rolls into the US and are subject to higher import duties that make
their premium papers between $1,20 and $1.45 per sq. ft. MSRP.....that is simply ludicrous.
6. EFI software is buggier that GMG. I do not know about CGS.
7. Originally, CGS was a reverse engineered version of GMG.....I believe.

So, no, there is no clear winner. GMG and CGS are great products. But, Epson is many
things but stupid they are not. Why did they choose EFI?


What I do know is that all these RIPs work great with Chromaticity Validation Media....;-).
Reply With Quote
6. 10-28-2009, 09:05 AM#6
schenkadere
Senior Member
My main gripe with EFI is the spot color overprinting. For straight CMYK printing, I couldn't
be happier. But...I work in packaging and spot colors are nearly always incorporated. Which
software handles spot color overprints best? I've done extensive trial and error testing with
EFI and can't find an acceptable setting...the overprint controls are very limiting as well.
Reply With Quote
7. 10-28-2009, 10:12 AM#7
Mike Strickler
Member
EFI vs. GMG vs. CGS
Originally Posted by schenkadere
My main gripe with EFI is the spot color overprinting. For straight CMYK printing, I couldn't be happier.
But...I work in packaging and spot colors are nearly always incorporated. Which software handles spot
color overprints best? I've done extensive trial and error testing with EFI and can't find an acceptable
setting...the overprint controls are very limiting as well.
I was recently privileged (I guess) to be on the panel at the most IPA proofing "shootout" in
Chicago. The focus this year was on multicolor/spot color proofing for packaging. It was a
"blind tasting," so even if I knew which RIPs were used for each sample (and it was easy to
figure this out on many of them) I wouldn't say. However, as a group they weren't
spectacular, and not just on overprints; some had trouble with solids, and it wasn't a gamut
issue. If you went by price and acclaim you might be surprised--some highly touted RIPs
were poor--so try to get a free demo of every RIP you're considering, including v. 4.0 of EFI
XF, which is quite a different animal from 3.1. You might like the Dynamic Wedge, which
automatically includes spots and any predominant colors in the control wedge and
verification. It also has a pretty darn good on-the-fly Lab optimization, so when a proof fails
on one of those nasty overprints, it can instantly correct that and reprint. It's highly
effective, and so far as I know unique to this RIP. Perhaps this was one factor in Tetra Pak's
decision to go with XF. Also consider usability. Forget about all the political factors Ian is
talking about (with all respect, of course!); all that matters is what you can best use and
afford. Tech support is there in abundance for all these products (Ian's own company does a
great job in this area) so long as you pay for it.

Be clear about this: Ian, Terry, and I do sell RIPs. We are all knowledgeable but partial to
certain products. None of us will sell anything we don't believe in, but still do your own
testing--on current versions of these products, with your own files. Contact any of us and
we'll be happy to provide further information and assistance.

Best regards,

Mike Strickler
MSP Graphic Services
707.664.1628
Reply With Quote
8. 10-29-2009, 12:10 AM#8
Mike Strickler
Member
Whoops
"I was recently privileged (I guess) to be on the panel at the most IPA proofing "shootout"
in Chicago."

I meant the most RECENT IPA Proofing shootout--sorry

Another point might be made here. You say that spot overprints aren't proofing well. This is
a far trickier issue than it may appear. First, as you may know, spot color matching in
proofs is accomplished without ICC color management. CMYK matching can be so good
because the profiles are built on a large sample of actual printed and measured solids, tints,
and overprints--sometimes thousands of them--and interpolation for just about any possible
combination can be pretty accurate. Spot color proofing, on the other hand, is based mainly
on the colors' solid L*a*b* values and assumed dot gain, with further assumptions on
overprint behavior based on screen angles and a bit of mathematical modeling. Here you
just don't have the wealth of empirical data to predict overprint behavior that you have with
ICC color management of process color. I'm amazed it works at all, frankly.

Second, since there are no standard target values for spot overprints unlike either spot
solids or process colors, it's hard to say whether a proofed color is "accurate" in the same
sense. You can say the same of your press, by the way. To the extent that a proofing RIP
allows one to tweak overprints--generally just globally for each color--one might be able to
improve the match to press output. I should add that even when there is a provision to
"optimize" to a wedge that includes these overprints, as in EFI XF v. 4, the relevance of this
is contingent upon how well the RIP has modeled/predicted the overprint appearance, and
this is still a much less precise sytem than matching process color with ICC color
management; switching RIPs may not help much.
Reply With Quote
9. 10-29-2009, 06:49 AM#9
schenkadere
Senior Member

I have to say....I have posed this question many times to many people in many places. This
is the most logical, concise answer I have received. Thank you!

I'm curious though. Do you think that proofing with the screening options would create a
more accurate overprint? I recently received a proof to match that was created with Oris
and it was screened. I have not purchased that option with EFI because, quite frankly, I
don't see the point to it. I found that the overprints were better rendered, but then again,
the proof also had some other short comings. Just curious of your opinion.

Honestly...I don't want to change RIPs...I like EFI and have spent so much time with it. I'm
very comfortable. I may upgrade to 4, but have been avoiding it because I can't really take
advantage of many of the newer offerings and don't want to redo my printer profiling work.
Kind of the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" way of thinking. But, maybe there would be some
benefit.

This being said, what makes GMG supposedly superior for packaging?
Last edited by schenkadere; 10-29-2009 at 07:13 AM.
Reply With Quote
10. 10-29-2009, 08:10 AM#10

meddington
Senior Member
Perhaps one benefit of GMG is, as I stated in another thread, the tinted spots can be dialed
in and iterated in addition to the 100% solid. So if you know what Lab value a 35% spot tint
yields, you can target that, as well as the solids. This can have a benefit when matching
spots to be half-toned as there can be a hue difference when spot inks are screened. We've
also had very good results in spot color overprints with GMG as well, but again, without
actual press data, your really shooting in the dark. Very difficult to know how accurate your
simulation is without data from a specific print process. Some of our more color critical
clients have had press trials up front to alleviate the guess work. There is also the
SmartColour system from Sun Chemical that can be a real value in determining the actual
results of spot colors on a specific printing process and substrate...possibly with overprint
modeling as well.

You also might find this methodology (spectral based modeling) interesting...not necessarily
useful, but interesting.

http://cias.rit.edu/~gravure/tt/pdf/...Overprints.pdf


1. orum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last
Results 11 to 20 of 27
Thread: EFI vs. GMG vs. CGS...is there a clear winner?
LinkBack
Thread Tools
Search Thread
Display
10-29-2009, 08:50 AM#11
schenkadere
Senior Member
It doesn't seem that GMG has a demo download...only an upload for pdfs and they send you
proofs.

Spectral data, theory and science aside...bottom line is my eye and the only true result is
that press, that ink, that operator and that sheet on that given day. I'm forgiving to
proofing systems...Approval and FinalProof had their shortcomings and limitations as well. I
just dumped my Approval. I just want a reasonable job of overprints. I think the EFI spot
color renderings are great, and the 4C matches are amazing with the 9900 and Validation
media. I just want a bit more control on the spot overprints and I'll be a super happy
camper. I'll get there sooner or later. I'm a relentless experimenter.
Reply With Quote
10-31-2009, 01:32 AM#12
Mike Strickler
Member
EFI v. GMG v. CGS
Originally Posted by meddington
Perhaps one benefit of GMG is, as I stated in another thread, the tinted spots can be dialed in and
iterated in addition to the 100% solid. So if you know what Lab value a 35% spot tint yields, you can
target that, as well as the solids. This can have a benefit when matching spots to be half-toned as there
can be a hue difference when spot inks are screened. We've also had very good results in spot color
overprints with GMG as well, but again, without actual press data, your really shooting in the dark. Very
difficult to know how accurate your simulation is without data from a specific print process. Some of our
more color critical clients have had press trials up front to alleviate the guess work. There is also the
SmartColour system from Sun Chemical that can be a real value in determining the actual results of spot
colors on a specific printing process and substrate...possibly with overprint modeling as well.

You also might find this methodology (spectral based modeling) interesting...not necessarily useful, but
interesting.

http://cias.rit.edu/~gravure/tt/pdf/...Overprints.pdf
You can edit the tints in EFI's spot color editor to your heart's content--total gradation
control, with measurements taken directly from a connected spectro. But the overprint
problem is serious. Yes, screening is a huge factor, so one must pay attention to the screen
angles in the color editor. Yet it's all modeling and guesswork in the end.

Mike, thanks for mentioning Sun's Smartcolor libraries. I was thinking of this but didn't want
to get into it here. These DO have some overprint data, as well as tints--not sure to what
extent proofing RIPs can use this--any info you might share? Danny Rich, of Sun's R&D
division told us that this product hasn't gotten much traction--a shame.

Schenkadere: With regard to 1-bit TIFF dot proofing, yes, it works pretty well--far better
than we have a right to expect--but the color is slightly less accurate than the normal
stochastically screen inkjet proofs. The main reason is that the inkjet colorants are not the
same as press inks, so a pure cyan dot, for example, will not match, and the only means
available to correct the hue is to spray tiny amounts of magenta or yellow on top of and
within the boundaries of that dot "stencil." That's pretty tough; you have lost the ability to
use all that white space surrounding that "dot" to add correcting colors. It's also slow, as
you must print at high printer resolution to get an adequately sharp dot. But if customers
insist, at least you can make them happy this way.

As for v. 4.0 (now 4.01), it's a great update, with plenty you can use. As a 3.1 user you can
buy it for $599. It's essentially a brand new installation, so you'll want to budget for that,
but compared with starting all over with another RIP it's a very good value.
Reply With Quote
10-31-2009, 12:55 PM#13
schenkadere
Senior Member

Mike, I tend to agree with you. I don't really want to start all over. I'm comfortable with EFI.
I'll probably purchase the upgrade this week and give that a whirl.

Thanks for all the info guys!
Reply With Quote
11-02-2009, 05:37 AM#14
HeinerM
J unior Member
5

Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie
Caveat: my company was the original GMG distributor for North America (2003-2006)and is an EFI
distributor for North America (2006-2009). I also worked for EFI.

Interesting question.
It's very similar to asking about comparing "Mercedes, BMW and Audi". There are also several subtleties
here beyond the technical features of the software. I am not smart enough or well-versed enough about
the technical merits of all 3 of these RIPs.

what I do know is that they ALL work just fine and they are ALL professional products made by good
companies. The IPA "proofing shoot-outs" of 2006,2007 and 2008 substantiated that. Here are my
random observations:

1. CGS and GMG are small, nimble compnaies that truly take excellent care of their customers and
resellers. EFI relies upon OEM partners and distributors to do their biddings.
2. CGS and GMG are much more dedicated to the proofing market. They sponsor the IPA shows, they
advertise, they are active with customers, publishers and agencies. CGS and GMG have much more
robust product portfolios for proofing. (I nk savings products, color servers, remote proofing, etc.) EFI has
a far superior offering for the wide format and grand format spaces.
3. EFI has "OEM DNA".....heck, while you are reading this look up and look to the right. See the
Epson/EFI banner ads...? Bestcolor was purchased by EFI in 2003 and, at the time, had THE dominant
market share. That share has been eroded significantly over the past 3-4 years by CGS and GMG as EFI
has lost its focus in proofing in favor of the actual growth markets of wide and grand format inkjet. EFI
once sold Bestcolor to Creo, KPG, Dupont and Heidelberg. Today, they have OEM deals with Esko and
Epson. I see this sector growing for them.
4. I believe also that each of these 3 companies does have an are of expertise when it comes to proofing.
GMG excels at packaging. (Even though EFI has recently cut a monster deal with one of the largest
global packaging companies.) CGS dominates publishing. But EFI is a very easy to use RIP that is an "all
purpose" RIP that can be a little more flexible. EFI has the only TRUE client/server architecture. EFI and
GMG use the Adobe PDF Print Engine in their latest versions. CGS uses a ghost script clone but they will
be forced to move to Adobe PDF very soon. That will be painful for them as it was for GMG.
5. CGS and GMG have paper strategies that they push hard. EFI licenses their name on Tecco paper in
Europe and we once had EFI's name on our Validation media but we removed it earlier this year. But CGS
and GMG are just putting their names on the mill's paper just like Epson does and just like we do.Tecco is
one of the largest converters in Europe and they work with all of the RIP companies. German paper is
"silly expensive" as Germany is one of the lost expensive places in the world to manufacture product.
CGS and GMG import finished rolls into the US and are subject to higher import duties that make their
premium papers between $1,20 and $1.45 per sq. ft. MSRP.....that is simply ludicrous.
6. EFI software is buggier that GMG. I do not know about CGS.
7. Originally, CGS was a reverse engineered version of GMG.....I believe.

So, no, there is no clear winner. GMG and CGS are great products. But, Epson is many things but stupid
they are not. Why did they choose EFI?


What I do know is that all these RIPs work great with Chromaticity Validation Media....;-).
Hi Ian,

whilst a lot of the things you have mentioned are correct, some important points need to be
corrected.

2. CGS is not only concentrating on the proofing market, but very heavily on the digital
printing and wide format market as well. These applications have not been so color critical
in the past, but are increasingly getting there. The key issue is color
accurancy and consistency. The market has very much honored CGS's involvement; The
ORIS PRess Matcher was winner of the recent prestigious PIA InterTech Technology Award,
and is a global partner of many digital press manufacturers like Xerox, HP, MGI and others.
3. If you look at the distribution pyramid, having a large market share in terms of numbers,
does not necessarily mean you have the best products (pardon the pun!)
4. I can't see that GMG or CGS are particularly dominant in certain areas like packaging. It
has more to do with different geographic markets. Since someone mentioned it here, the
recent versions of the ORIS Color Tuner allows you to create your own custom spot color
database (apart from PAntone, HKS etc. which are part of the application) but not only
solids, you can dial in any percentage (or multiple values), using an iterative process. There
are also the indispensable tools for packaging available, like the possibility to accurately set
spot color overprints and transparency levels, halftone option, miss-register simulation etc.

With the ORIS Color Tuner // Web CGS has the perfect browser-based client/server
architecture, which allows access to the workflow via LAN or web, using a standard browser.
As the only Hybrid Proofing solution, it even includes soft proofing and proof certification in
one workflow. No CGS, is not using, and has never used, a ghost script clone, but is one of
the few companies which have developed their own rip. Actually, it has gone rather
unnoticed, but CGS has indeed incorporated the Adobe Print Engine, and it was not painful
at all. Still the CGS rip is part of the application, as it offers a number of advantages.
5. I can only say this for CGS, but it is certainly not the case of just putting a sticker on a
roll of paper, and there you are. The ORIS line of nanoporous (as opposed to microporous)
Pearl papers are exclusively produced with very tight specifications for CGS, and you cannot
get them anywhere else. Without going too much into detail, these substrates have various
advantages, like being completely optical brightener free, larger color space etc. etc.
7. CGS was a reverse-engineered version of GMG??? Ian, having been a GMG distributor,
you should know better. That is one of the funniest myths I heard lately.

Now is there a clear winner? Since I am also selling not rips but color management
solutions, you should run some tests and find out for yourself, but nowadays you should not
only look at lab values, but how such a solution can be at the heart of your color
requirements, color managing all devices and transformations centrally, in other words, soft
and hardcopy proofing, analog and digital printing, large format output and much more. And
you should see how such a system can be used by an average person, and not only your
color guru, if you still have one in your company.

Best, Heiner
Reply With Quote
11-02-2009, 11:23 AM#15
Ian MackenzieGuest

Heiner,

Its been awhile..since our Agfa days, right? DRUPA 1990?

You deliver an excellent commercial for CGS.
No one is doubting CGS' capabilities.
No one is questioning the quality of your paper. (Although I could have lots of fun doing it
as we know a thing or two about paper, mills, "nano" coatings, exclusive grades, OBAs and
German converters....;-) Lets be careful not to mix marketing spin and opinions with
technical facts.

The OBA debate is very amusing to watch and listen to. The best printing compnaies in the
world have relied upon their Approvals and FinalProofs for years and they have more OBAs
than anything else. Press stock alwys has OBAs. GMG, Epson, Kodak, HP and others all have
OBAs. Funny how CGS does not control the global market with your paper....;-)

We are attempting to answer a question that has been asked. As my company is no longer
focusing on RIPs since our recent merger, I can add a perspective that I hope will aid those
who seek information.

Any company who believes that their product is "the clear winner" is drinking their own
kool-aid just a little too heavily. I believe I was fairly complimentary of CGS and GMG for
my company has deep respect for CGS's products, people and approach to the marketplace.
However, it is NOT a product that is suitable for every application. We appaud CGS' recent
foray into digital printing especially into EFI's back yard at Xerox. That was beautiful.
But.....wide format and CGS.....?.....not in North America. Maybe in EMEA. Exporting color-
managed PDFs is nice, but - as you know - unless you are driving Vuteks, Rolands, Mutohs,
Mimakis, HPs directly, you are only providing a "50% solution".

I admire the way you focus your commercial on your strengths, as you should. But your
input remains solely targeted to your company's capabilities and not to the market as a
whole.
Lets move past marketing messages and talking points as there are many other factors.

No, there is not a clear winner (between German RIP makers) just as marketing,
advertising, incentives and personal consumer choices help divide Audi, BMW and MBs US
and global market share. Some like BMWs body styling, others like Audis Quattro feature
while some enjoy the cushy ride of a Mercedes.

If there were truly one compnay that had the "best product", then the other two would have
already been driven out of the marketplace.

Same holds true for inkjet RIPs.
Reply With Quote
11-03-2009, 04:25 PM#16

Werby
Member

Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie
The OBA debate is very amusing to watch and listen to. The best printing compnaies in the world have
relied upon their Approvals and FinalProofs for years and they have more OBAs than anything else. Press
stock alwys has OBAs. GMG, Epson, Kodak, HP and others all have OBAs.
Ian

I wish I found OBAs as amusing as yourself. They present a significant challenge to color
management and proofing and I have yet to see a solution from any RIP manufacturer that
truly addresses the problem. The best solution I've heard is that you should try to have the
same amount and kind of OBAs in your proofing stock that you have in your press stock.
This works if you can laminate your Approval or Finalproof onto the press stock, but is not
very useful for inkjets, so I'd rather have none.

It's odd that you would say that Approvals and FinalProofs "have more OBAs than anything
else" because it all depends on what stock you laminate onto. 5 years ago our standard
substrate was Kodak Commercial Matchprint base, and it has virtually no OBAs. There are a
number of press stocks we use today which don't have significant OBAs either, but of course
most press stocks do have quite a bit, as well as most inkjet papers.

Regarding Inkjet proofing, I"ll take OBA-free proofing paper anytime. You say that GMG has
OBAs, but their main proofing stock (semimatte 250) is OBA free and we use a lot of it. I've
used the ORIS OBA-free stock and it works well too. Do you honestly think that a hyper-
brightened "proofing stock" is going to give you a good visual match to a low-OBA press
stock like Sterling?

-Todd Shirley
Reply With Quote
11-03-2009, 04:48 PM#17

meddington
Senior Member

Originally Posted by Werby
. The best solution I've heard is that you should try to have the same amount and kind of OBAs in your
proofing stock that you have in your press stock. This works if you can laminate your Approval or
Finalproof onto the press stock, but is not very useful for inkjets, so I'd rather have none.
Its possible to use the actual press stock in the inkjet device when coated for
such. Welcome To Printing And Proofing Technologies

No real solution can come from any proofing Rip at the moment, as there's no accounting
for the amount of OBs in the press/proof stock or the amount of uv in the viewing light
source. Any one solution (OBA Module from Xrite for example) addresses only one viewing
condition, and who here can guarantee identical viewing conditions throughout the life of a
proof?

That said, I still prefer a moderate amount of OBAs in proofing stock, as OBA free press
stock is a rarity, though I would avoid "hyper-brightened" stock as well.
Reply With Quote
11-03-2009, 04:51 PM#18
Ian MackenzieGuest

Todd -

OK, poor choice of words. I find the debate amusing, not the production issues.

There is a HUGE difference between proofing stock that is "hyper brightened" and proofing
stock that has trace amounts of OBAs - just as most press stock has. This debate (on OBAs)
has yielded no winner. That is why CGS and GMG do not have a 100% market share. If you
are pleased with your GMG paper, then "good on you". It's great paper. We launched it in
the US originally.

There have been some studies about this topic. The results can be summarized and distilled
as:

Optical Brighteners do not have a significant affect (less than 1.0 De) on measurement
data when present in small amounts (less than 1.5 Db* UV to non-UV) in inkjet proofing
media.
Optical brighteners have no affect in any manner on metamerism in an inkjet proof.
Inkjet proofs are no more metameric than printed materials.
Non-optically brightened inkjet media does not appear to add any benefit over media with
appropriate amounts of Optical brighteners.
In some cases a total absence of optical brighteners may even result in proofs that do not
correlate as close visually to optically brightened press sheets.

Most of our data comes directly from the mills that make the paper for these private labels.
As you know, RIP and printer companies buy paper from converters who in turn buy it from
mills.

Cheers,
Ian
Reply With Quote
11-04-2009, 06:06 AM#19
schenkadere
Senior Member
Originally Posted by meddington
Its possible to use the actual press stock in the inkjet device when coated for such. Welcome To Printing
And Proofing Technologies

No real solution can come from any proofing Rip at the moment, as there's no accounting for the amount
of OBs in the press/proof stock or the amount of uv in the viewing light source. Any one solution (OBA
Module from Xrite for example) addresses only one viewing condition, and who here can guarantee
identical viewing conditions throughout the life of a proof?

That said, I still prefer a moderate amount of OBAs in proofing stock, as OBA free press stock is a rarity,
though I would avoid "hyper-brightened" stock as well.
I've used 2 PTP TWP, The Whole Proof) products and the results after switching to Validation
190 were night and day. Same printer, same RIP, MUCH better results...dark point, shadow
detail, no visual correction necessary. It may work for some, but I wasn't thrilled. I have a
new, unopened roll of 10pt Carolina PTP if anyone is interested.
Reply With Quote
11-04-2009, 06:46 AM#20
HeinerM
J unior Member
J

Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie
Todd -

OK, poor choice of words. I find the debate amusing, not the production issues.

There is a HUGE difference between proofing stock that is "hyper brightened" and proofing stock that has
trace amounts of OBAs - just as most press stock has. This debate (on OBAs) has yielded no winner. That
is why CGS and GMG do not have a 100% market share. If you are pleased with your GMG paper, then
"good on you". It's great paper. We launched it in the US originally.

There have been some studies about this topic. The results can be summarized and distilled as:

Optical Brighteners do not have a significant affect (less than 1.0 De) on measurement data when
present in small amounts (less than 1.5 Db* UV to non-UV) in inkjet proofing media.
Optical brighteners have no affect in any manner on metamerism in an inkjet proof.
Inkjet proofs are no more metameric than printed materials.
Non-optically brightened inkjet media does not appear to add any benefit over media with appropriate
amounts of Optical brighteners.
In some cases a total absence of optical brighteners may even result in proofs that do not correlate as
close visually to optically brightened press sheets.

Most of our data comes directly from the mills that make the paper for these private labels. As you know,
RIP and printer companies buy paper from converters who in turn buy it from mills.

Cheers,
Ian
Hi Ian,
after your reply I considered to let the matter rest, but hey, you sparked an interesting
discussion. It has spun off to OBAs and proofing papers, and I will come back to this topic in
a moment.

The initial question was ...is there a clear winner? Let me rephrase the question. Is there a
bad proofing solution on the market? The answer today clearly is no, although it would have
been quite different 5 - 8 years ago, remember all these proofing shoot outs? You
mentioned that the best printing companies have relied on Approval and FinalProof. Luckily,
Europe never went down that road. If I am not mistaken, there was only one or two
FinalProofs in Germany, and Approval is only being used in packaging for obvious reasons.
The color accuracy of an Epson with a decent Rip beats these systems by far. You said these
systems had lots of OBAs, and of course, as has been said already, it depends on the stock,
you laminate on. Now, why am I saying proofing papers should be free of OBAs, as some
people say, hey I have it in my press stock too, so it should be the same. The reason is, it
never behaves the same, and most users, at least in commercial printing, will not put their
spectrophotometer on printed stock any more. Why should they? To do what? Fingerprint a
press? We finally have printing standards in the market and people have come to grabs with
them. In Europe, the universal language is ISOcoated V2, and this is what most of the
proofs relate to. So as long as I have set up my proofing system to be able to print the
different color spaces and paper categories, and all Rip vendors supply these profiles for
their systems, there is no reason to create your own profiles, but you need to recalibrate
your system every once in a while, and there you measure on the proofing paper, and OBAs
will get in the way and throw off your measurements. The other factor is that inkjet proofs
on paper containing OBAs will rapidly degrade, and this is very well an absolute no no, for
instance in catalog production which may last a few weeks. This is also the reason Fogra will
only certify papers with no or very little OBAs, as others will fail the aging test.

"Inkjet proofs are no more metameric than printed materials"? I totally disagree with you.
Move an inkjet proof out of the light box, and you will very often see a dramatic shift, which
always amazes me. Granted, this has not only to do with the substrate olone, but also with
the inks as opposed to printing inks. If you proofs do not correlate visually, you are not
using correct lighting conditions, or your proofs are wrong. OBAs in the proofing paper will
not make it better. If you are watching proofs under room lights or so, don't bother buying
an expensive proofing solution. That is like driving a Ferrari with bicycle wheels.

One final word. Why do GMG and CGS not have 100 % of the market, in terms of software
or paper? Well, that is the nature of the market. Otherwise we would all be using Macs by
know, wouldn't we ;-) And thank goodness for competition. If you do not have any, your
likely to have done something wrong.

Cheers,

Heiner
Reply With Qu



Thread: EFI vs. GMG vs. CGS...is there a clear winner?
LinkBack
Thread Tools
Search Thread
Display
1. 11-04-2009, 09:31 AM#21

meddington
Senior Member

Originally Posted by HeinerM
Now, why am I saying proofing papers should be free of OBAs, as some people say, hey I have it in my
press stock too, so it should be the same. The reason is, it never behaves the same,
"Never" might be a bit presumptuous. Moderate amounts of brighteners between papers
*can* behave similarly, and *possibly* yield a closer visual result than having one paper
OBA free. A good argument for OBA free is that it is not excited by differing amounts of UV
in the lighting conditions. This usually doesn't hold true for the press stock though, which
almost invariably contains OBAs. Suffice to say that its possible to find a proof paper with
moderate amounts of OBAs that work well in a particular lighting condition with a particular
press stock.

Originally Posted by HeinerM
and most users, at least in commercial printing, will not put their spectrophotometer on printed stock any
more. Why should they? To do what? Fingerprint a press?
This is as much visual as measurable, but how about to more closely align the proofing
simulation to the actual press substrate?
Originally Posted by HeinerM
We finally have printing standards in the market and people have come to grabs with them. In Europe,
the universal language is ISOcoated V2, and this is what most of the proofs relate to. So as long as I
have set up my proofing system to be able to print the different color spaces and paper categories, and
all Rip vendors supply these profiles for their systems, there is no reason to create your own profiles,
I'm certainly all for standardized printing and proofing, but I do find it beneficial, and often
necessary to augment the white point of the proof to match the final press substrate.
Differences in paper shade can have a significant effect in highlight tones and affect visual
perception. For example, if I provide proofs toward SWOPcoated3, which has essentially a
white point of a*=0, b*=0, but the press stock measures a*=0, b*-5, there's likely going to
be a visual difference that can lead to issues on press.
Originally Posted by HeinerM
but you need to recalibrate your system every once in a while, and there you measure on the proofing
paper, and OBAs will get in the way and throw off your measurements. The other factor is that inkjet
proofs on paper containing OBAs will rapidly degrade, and this is very well an absolute no no, for
instance in catalog production which may last a few weeks. This is also the reason Fogra will only certify
papers with no or very little OBAs, as others will fail the aging test.
"Rapidly" can be a relative term. I've got proof samples on paper with a fair amount of
OBAs (b*=-5) from few months to several years back that measure identically (for all
practical purposes) as they did when they were first produced. Of course I agree that OBAs
can degrade, but how proofs are stored can make a difference.
Last edited by meddington; 11-04-2009 at 09:40 AM.
Reply With Quote
2. 11-04-2009, 09:51 AM#22
Ian MackenzieGuest

Heiner -

My data comes from others who are much smarter.....like paper mills. These are not
subjective opinions that I invent.
So, in the interest of staying consistent, please allow me to quote something that I received
at my office just yesterday.

(Article written by Dr. Martin Habekost - assistant professor at the School of Graphic
Communications at Ryerson University in Toronto. He received his PhD from the University
of Hanover in Germany.)

IPA Bulletin: September/October 2009

Headline:

"Optical Brighteners: Friend or Foe?
Although some of the process colors will be affected by optical brighteners, it is possible to
still get good color reproduction through color management and ICC profiling"

"The Challenge Continues"

"Optical brighteners are used in many printing and proofing stocls to achieve a more eye-
pleasing and crisp-looking white sheet. Papers containing OBAs are more and more the
norm and it is hard to find printing paper that has no OBAs in it.

Since OBAs can distort the color reproduction of some of the process colors (C and Y) it is
necessary to use the help of ICC-profiling to compensate for the effect of OBAs. Although
there has been a compensation module available in the popular ProfileMaker software, X-
Rite has come up with an empirical solution that works through a special gray balance
compensation. It needs to be seen how successful this solution is.

A definite answer to this challenge still has to be found. It was encouraging to see proofs
that provide a good visual match to a printed or proofed standard and that the visual match
was done at a customer's site using software that is avaialble in today's market."

So I guess it comes down to a simple cost benefit analysis that needs to weigh OBA-free
paper against paper with trace amounts of OBAs that may require some profiling. As far as i
know, most color management today requires profiling.

The costs are easy to calculate. Let's say a print provider or premedia compnay uses five
42" x 98' rolls of a 250 gsm satin or semi-matte paper. Their choices may be:

1. CGS pearlproof - sells for $1.19 per sq. ft. ($408 for a 98' roll. Yes, I know that CGS sells
150' rolls)
2. GMG - sells for $1.39 per sq. ft. or $479.00/roll
3. Validation Media - sells for $.72 per sq. ft. or $249.00 roll
4. Epson - sells for $.69 per sq. ft. or $239.00 roll

So, let's quantify the costs per month:

1. CGS = $2040/mo.
2. GMG = $2395/mo
3. Validation Media = $1245/mo
4. Epson = $1195/mo.

One can then easily measure the financial metrics of the OBA debate and decide what they
want to do in the context of the diverse opinions stated here. Good results will be achieved
using any of this paper driven by any RIP from CGS, GMG and EFI.

Again....."is there a clear winner?"
My opinion is no.

Best,
Ian
Reply With Quote
3. 11-04-2009, 04:21 PM#23
Mike Strickler
Member
OBAs
I'll just weigh in briefly in this. As far as I know--and perhaps a paper manufacturing expert
can speak more to this--it is impossible to produce a bright white paper, say 95 L* or
above, with consistent color, without employing at least some optical brighteners in the
coating. This is why most or all responsible paper vendors admit to at least small amounts
of OBAs in such papers. This is important because one cannot make an accurate proof
where the reference press substrate is brighter than the proofing paper. It's worse than
that: If the press stock has the same L* value as the proof paper but is, say, bluer, which is
extremely common, even the dominant reality today, the addition of cyan and magenta dot
used in the background of the proof to match the hue to the press sheet color will darken
the proof, sometimes to the point that it's completely useless. In that case one needs a
proof paper that is even brighter, in which case, again, OBAs come into play. If you are
proofing for publication, especially a #3 paper or darker, this is not a problem, and there
are many OBA-free proofing papers available for this purpose. The workaround is to use one
of the coated press papers that Mike has mentioned, but there again, this will inevitably
mean using a paper that has OBAs, and likely in far higher amounts than one will encounter
in a dedicated proofing paper.
Reply With Quote
4. 11-04-2009, 04:59 PM#24

edwinb
Member

I support Rips technically and based on the latest current versions (gmg/Efi) I pick EFi as
quick, fast, very accurate profiles, Spot colours from the full range of the printer and better
integration with x900 epson technology.

I think the comment about Epson picking EFi is spot on - I'm sure they did there own tests
first befor committing themselves to a partnership

But I am happy to support/reprofile any of them and also advise on the available 'drop
in' replacement papers for the expensive proprietry papers like gmg 250 without
reprofiling.

Edwin
technical manager
image2output
Reply With Quote
5. 11-05-2009, 08:13 AM#25
schenkadere
Senior Member

Originally Posted by edwinb
I support Rips technically and based on the latest current versions (gmg/Efi) I pick EFi as quick, fast, very
accurate profiles, Spot colours from the full range of the printer and better integration with x900 epson
technology.

I think the comment about Epson picking EFi is spot on - I'm sure they did there own tests first befor
committing themselves to a partnership

But I am happy to support/reprofile any of them and also advise on the available 'drop in'
replacement papers for the expensive proprietry papers like gmg 250 without reprofiling.

Edwin
I appreciated a committed response. Thank you.
Reply With Quote
6. 11-18-2009, 01:53 AM#26
jari716
Junior Member
EFI4.01 is better than EFI3.1.8,so you can update it,The Gray balance is ok.GMG and CGE
have the same technique a principle.
Reply With Quote
7. 11-23-2009, 10:11 AM#27
schenkadere
Senior Member
EFI 4.0.1 is much better than 3.1.8...I'm very happy now.