Abstract

Color measurement instrument uncertainty is a primary concern for printers as information is required for adherence to standards, specifications, and process control methodologies, however frank discussions of instrument uncertainty are rare and often involve manufacturers and vendors promoting costly schemas based on renewable revenue models. This TAGA Technology in Action content suggests spectrodensitometer users adopt CCS-II tiles and develop procedures that support analytical decision-making based on self-collected empirical data, which can increase confidence in readings while simultaneously increasing agency in the process.

A new type of color measurement instrument was introduced to the printing industry in the mid-1990s: the handheld spectrodensitometer. Popular models at that time included the X-Rite 939 and Gretag SPM 100. These instruments provided users with the ability to measure widely used densitometric attributes and colorimetric values such as CIELAB with a portable, handheld bi-directional (i.e., 0°/45°; 45°/0°) device. These instruments offered more functions and enhanced functionality and greater accuracy when compared to the tristimulus colorimeters which were incumbent at that time. These handheld spectrodensitometers represented the dawn of the age of spectrally based color control for the printing industry.

In the years that followed, new models were introduced, and today spectrodensitometers are widely adopted by printers, often driven by mandates from print buyers and brand owners, and for adherence to industry specifications (e.g., ISO 12647) and calibration/process control methodologies (e.g., G7 from IDEAlliance). The accuracy of these devices, manifest in the concept of instrument uncertainty, is a concern for many adopters.