Card design issues: CMYK/RGB problems?

[Davo1111]

I'm trying to make a business card on Vistaprint.

The background image is this. It is a .psd file (but i've also tried .tiff .jpeg etc), and according to the menu is CMYK. Every time i upload it into vistaprint (despite the FAQ saying 'upload in CMYK' it displays all shitty like this.

Is this on my end? How will i know if it's worked? Or will i need to lay down $x to find out?

thanks in advance

[Shawry]

I would think that is just their crappy web preview compressing a finely detailed image.
I'd either call them up and request a test print, otherwise gamble on the outcome.

[Davo1111]

Originally Posted by Shawry

I would think that is just their crappy web preview compressing a finely detailed image.
I'd either call them up and request a test print, otherwise gamble on the outcome.

thanks man, i bit the bullet and ordered them. found a coupon for $40 off with no minimum spend, so thought....shit, why not.

It appears in the final version it looks less shitty, so i suspect it's just crappy compression.

Oh well, i'll find out in 2 weeks

[Davo1111]

Right, so i've got them.

First of all, they've come out surprisingly well.

Pros:

- cheap
- colour all the way to the edges, no shitty edges
- quick...

Cons:

- 87 * 50mm (smaller than standard, but not very obvious - according to wiki 90 * 55)
- Couldn't do the level of detail i requested, but they still look good.
- my screen probably isn't good, because it's slightly different colour than what is printed.

Summary

- i'd get them again, probably wouldn't choose a colour background though.

[esaitchkay]

^ + 1 with all points

I've gotten from vistaprint many times, even though the paper stock is quite meh. obviously utilising an experienced printer in person would be better, but for about $15 for 500 cards, it's not too bad (always get it on promo).
this is the level of detail I got on mine:
http://esaitchkay.net/wp-content/upl...1/P1010522.jpg
&
http://esaitchkay.net/wp-content/upl...ness-Cards.jpg

[KraSE]

Originally Posted by Davo1111

Right, so i've got them.

First of all, they've come out surprisingly well.

Pros:

- cheap
- colour all the way to the edges, no shitty edges
- quick...

Cons:

- 87 * 50mm (smaller than standard, but not very obvious - according to wiki 90 * 55)
- Couldn't do the level of detail i requested, but they still look good.
- my screen probably isn't good, because it's slightly different colour than what is printed.

Summary

- i'd get them again, probably wouldn't choose a colour background though.

Thats good, nothing I hate more than some chumps card that is too big to fit in my wallet/diary easily

[Davo1111]

Originally Posted by esaitchkay

even though the paper stock is quite meh.

ahhh i paid for the glossy 350gsm. looks great, but gets fingerprints very easily

[iamtall]

what you see on screen will never look like what comes out in print, your screen is probably RGB and they print in CMYK and also your screen wont be calibrated to their printers, if Vistaprint actually calibrate their machines.
As for the level of detail, it would be almost impossible to reproduce that detail in digital print.

But in fairness, Vistaprint are terrible, they're destroying really good print companies with the cheap, poor flimsy prints, which are usually branded with Vistaprint logo's anyway. Not a good first impression, which is kind of the idea of a business card.

[m3k]

you have to remember the type of black ink they use- you might have to lighten on the K value or even the colour channels-

also some inks of K are purple or red so you have to fight it with your CMY

that means for true grey might be 20 c 2m 15y 50k .... etc..

dont calibrate your monitor to a commercial printer- its not safe.

only do it if you have something like a r3000 epson with like 6 cartridges, edit* 8 cartridges its like official epson ink and set adobe RGB profiles.
or an expensive pantone based printer who uses quality colour accurate ink and quality paper

[iamtall]

um...what?

if you want a standard grey then 50% K is fine. Don't add any cmyk's adding other colours might make it look better on your screen but that's because your screen isn't set up right.

With blacks the designer may use Rich Black (usually 40 C 20 M 20 Y 100 K) Pure Black (100 K) or Adobe Black ( Move the cursor to the bottom left of the swatch, off the top of my head i think it's 58 C 75 M 68 Y 82 K)

Vista Print will print your cards digitally not Offset, so it will use toners.

Calibrating your monitor to a printer isn't really possible unless you're a professional designer and the printer sends you their calibration file.

Calibrating your screen is not dangerous, you're just setting the RGB's to match what you think looks best. As long as you remember that print will always look different you'll be fine.

Saying only calibrate your monitor if you have a 6 colour Epson printer is odd. I would hope that anyone that purchases a decent printer set up would pre-know about monitor calibration and would do it anyways.

And an expensive Pantone based Printer (or Offset) and you're using good inks and good quality paper. That would probably make you a professional printer as a decent setup is around the $500,000 + and again, you wouldn't have any of the above issues.

[m3k]

TLDR: IMHO c:0 m:0 y:0 k:50 is yucky grey.

Originally Posted by iamtall

um...what?

if you want a standard grey then 50% K is fine. Don't add any cmyk's adding other colours might make it look better on your screen but that's because your screen isn't set up right.

um yer...

I have a fresh pantone book sitting open here right now, an accurate mid gray is: c:30 m:23 y:17 k: 51

so why does Pantone, you know, that company. go so heavy on cyan?

2 reasons I know of, 1. Yucky commercial black is slightly purple, and 2. Magenta ink usually overpowers yellow and cyan.

c:0,m:0,y:0 k:60 will look disgusting and purpleish. unless your printer is a jedi and mixes/has amazing black inks pre-run (which is rare and expensive to see).

"Where do you get this information?"
most random heavyweight CMYK laser printers ive worked with are those scrub laser printers costing no less than 200k..which all have the common fault of poor colour reproduction, and that off black that seems to be slightly purple.

and the most accurate prints ive gotten were from high profile commercial places, where ive told them to match my colour profiles that i have my workspace setup in (un/coated japan 2001 usually) and they mix their own blacks or purchase from somebody who does a great job.

unbiasedly, though, The best colour reproduction on a print ive seen is my r2000/3000 set to ADOBE RGB, with my software workspace set to the same. while using Epson ink and aftermarket paper with good fibers, that are treated with enough phosphor and chemicals to make the whites true.

granted it isn't economical for OP's purpose, its still probably one of the cheapest ways to get the truest colours, including vivid reds, deep greens and blues..
which cmyk will never be able to do..

also IMHO, and the opinions ive gathered from some retentive monitor reviewers, calibrating your monitor is best done in factory by the people who made your monitor. You can make adjustments to your rgb signal 'gain' to offset your cathodes aging or whatever, but really calibrating to a printer is silly... maybe if you plan on printing on it for life, and you don't value seeing your srgb/argb colour-space accuratly.

iono man, this is all my opinion from my extended experience and battle of getting True colours in my work printed especially when you're making documents for important people who need accurate colours for their logos and charts. feel free to disregard it all. im just trying to help man.. your 0 0 0 k:100 IMHO wont be black. same goes for your 0 0 0 k:50 for grey.

[iamtall]

I am a commercial printer.

We have several digital presses here (Xerox 1000, Hp Indigo etc) as well as a Heidelberg press.

Vista print, which was the original posters printer use digital presses for their cards, not offset. as such designing your card using standard CMYK colours and not Pantone colours.

Vistaprint cards wont touch ink they're all Toner printed, so there'd be no issues with any "purpleish" blacks. If you are finding blacks look too purple then you should have a word with your printer because thats not right.

That being the case C0 M0 Y0 K60 would just look dull grey as there's no colour pigment being used.

C0 M0 Y0 K100 would look very dark grey as again no colour pigment. But this is the standard for CMYK black, adding any colours to the counter balance any work Vistaprint does would be the wrong way to go.

Monitor wise I don't know anywho who has a decent monitor that doesn't calibrate it. Ambient light, room temperature etc all play a part in the colours the screen produces. We calibrate all our monitors twice weekly.

and if you have an R3000 and are serious at all about colour reproduction i would hope you calibrate as well.

Originally Posted by m3k

TLDR: IMHO c:0 m:0 y:0 k:50 is yucky grey.




um yer...

I have a fresh pantone book sitting open here right now, an accurate mid gray is: c:30 m:23 y:17 k: 51

so why does Pantone, you know, that company. go so heavy on cyan?

2 reasons I know of, 1. Yucky commercial black is slightly purple, and 2. Magenta ink usually overpowers yellow and cyan.

c:0,m:0,y:0 k:60 will look disgusting and purpleish. unless your printer is a jedi and mixes/has amazing black inks pre-run (which is rare and expensive to see).

"Where do you get this information?"
most random heavyweight CMYK laser printers ive worked with are those scrub laser printers costing no less than 200k..which all have the common fault of poor colour reproduction, and that off black that seems to be slightly purple.

and the most accurate prints ive gotten were from high profile commercial places, where ive told them to match my colour profiles that i have my workspace setup in (un/coated japan 2001 usually) and they mix their own blacks or purchase from somebody who does a great job.

unbiasedly, though, The best colour reproduction on a print ive seen is my r2000/3000 set to ADOBE RGB, with my software workspace set to the same. while using Epson ink and aftermarket paper with good fibers, that are treated with enough phosphor and chemicals to make the whites true.

granted it isn't economical for OP's purpose, its still probably one of the cheapest ways to get the truest colours, including vivid reds, deep greens and blues..
which cmyk will never be able to do..

also IMHO, and the opinions ive gathered from some retentive monitor reviewers, calibrating your monitor is best done in factory by the people who made your monitor. You can make adjustments to your rgb signal 'gain' to offset your cathodes aging or whatever, but really calibrating to a printer is silly... maybe if you plan on printing on it for life, and you don't value seeing your srgb/argb colour-space accuratly.

iono man, this is all my opinion from my extended experience and battle of getting True colours in my work printed especially when you're making documents for important people who need accurate colours for their logos and charts. feel free to disregard it all. im just trying to help man.. your 0 0 0 k:100 IMHO wont be black. same goes for your 0 0 0 k:50 for grey.

[m3k]

3 things ive learned and would humbly be corrected on is:

1. pantone CMYK conversions are made meticulously to get an accurate colour representation. if they want an accurate grey why wouldn't they just go 0, 0, 0, 60?

2.so i might have had bad experiences with over 6 commercial print companies, and 3 commercial printers. but my realisation of the situation is that all Inks including black contain pigmentation, maybe not carbon based inks?, The way they make black ink is through heavily pigmented hues so less light reflects, So your black pen wont actually be black it'd be purple. try printing in black and then dunking that sheet in water. watch the colour emerge.

This occurs on commercial laser printers ive worked with directly. even when explicitly telling the printer to shit out k:1-100 etc, also most people dont work in same colour spaces, which results in the printer reading that its a different colourspace, and compensating by using CMY values anyway... this wouldent be a problem. as blacks arnt noticeable, but in grayscale it tends to be more-so.

3. monitors are mostly calibrated in factory... gain adjustment on them pretty much serves purpose for getting true white-balance because of improper back lights (age) or lighting conditions.. or yes the temperature the cathode is running at.
monitors like the Dell u3011 will be nice enough to include calibration data from factory so you can see the specific monitors weakness's in colour reproduction you can compensate for, however your simply compensating, and by doing so your essentially trading wide gamut for correct colours.

itd be nice if RGB LED back lights emerged for true whites so the whole cathode heat- shit is over and one with. ( as the white LED's used in consumer screens have a bluer tinge, due to the nature of LED's ) anyway getting OT..

my point is simply calibrating a monitor to a CMYK print seems dumb. your best calibrating you monitor to have true whites to keep your widest gamut, then finding a printer that is also calibrated correctly, that way you can enjoy your proper srgb colour space for when your not doing print work.


the reason im replying instead of agreeing about the blank ink is if i learn that black ink is 100%, black in bright lighting conditions etc, Then i must find a new way to interface with a printer to get it to produce them. because i'm yet to see it happen.

[^catalyst]

Originally Posted by m3k

3. monitors are mostly calibrated in factory... gain adjustment on them pretty much serves purpose for getting true white-balance because of improper back lights (age) or lighting conditions.. or yes the temperature the cathode is running at.

False. Monitor 'calibrations' from the factory will make you feel good but that's it. I work in a colour sensitive industry and no matter WHAT monitor you get you need a hardware calibration device. Dell monitors are not remotely 'high-end' so the "calibrations" from the factory tend to just maximise the gamut.

A colourimeter is required for accurate display of colours, this needs to be done frequently depending on how important your colour is.

Getting accurate CMYK output from an RGB is another thing altogether. In my limited experience the best way is to produce a print that you're happy with then provide it to the CMYK operators who will attempt to match it.

I'd have to agree about purply/magenta blacks in my experience but once again its limited.