The Hidden Gap in Color Management

𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗖𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗿 𝗦𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗠𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀—𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝘂𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝗥𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁

Let’s cut to it—color management often works… until it doesn’t.
You hit your LAB targets. Profiles are dialed in. Proofs are approved.
But then you walk to the pressroom floor, pull a sheet, and something feels off.
The numbers say it’s good. Your eye says it’s not.
So, what’s really going wrong?
We’ve put too much faith in numbers.
Color management today is built around precision—and for good reason. But what it often forgets is this: 𝗰𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗿 𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. And perception can’t always be captured by a device.

𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗟𝗔𝗕 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗰𝗵 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗳𝗹𝗮𝘁.

Why? Because those numbers can’t account for surface gloss, paper texture, or subtle optical shifts under different lighting. ICC profiles assume perfect D50 light and linear ink behavior. Real presses don’t.
And ΔE?
It’s just a number.
It doesn’t care how a neutral gray looks under warm fluorescents or whether a bright red feels “right” to the brand manager.
We’re still managing color like we’re in a lab.
But we’re not. We’re in a printing plant—with humidity swings, substrate shifts, and operators making real-world decisions at speed.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺 𝗴𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗿.

Take the CIE standard observer—the foundation of modern color science. It came from a 1931 experiment. That data gave us LAB and XYZ, which we still use today.
But let’s be real: your jobs don’t live in that kind of controlled bubble.
You’ve got gloss boards, corrugated stocks, brand color demands, and visual judgments made under whatever lights happen to be overhead. So, when a brand red looks dull, or a gray shifts warm, you know it’s not your imagination—it’s the system hitting its limits.

𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲’𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗸.

Ink doesn’t behave the same from one run to the next. Tack changes with pressure, speed, and temperature. Overprints behave differently depending on sequence and laydown. A 50% cyan over magenta doesn’t act like a standalone patch.
Dot gain isn’t theoretical—it’s physical.

And when that physical behavior changes, your color shifts. But most workflows don’t measure that shift in traps or overprints. They measure solids. That’s not enough.

𝗡𝗼𝘄 𝗹𝗲𝘁’𝘀 𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗴.

Digital proofs can be incredibly helpful—but also misleading.
Most RIPs don’t factor in spot color opacity, real TVI, or actual trapping behavior. They show you what looks right on bright white inkjet paper—not what’s going to happen on SBS or film. When your spot color overprints don’t match on press, the problem isn’t your eye. It’s the assumptions baked into the software.
If your proofing system isn’t calibrated with real drawdowns and actual substrate behavior, then it’s not managing color—it’s just estimating it.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁’𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗵 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗱?

Start by accepting this: color management isn’t a checkbox. It’s a system.
And systems need real data. Not just device profiles and LAB targets—but inputs that reflect how color behaves in your shop, with your inks, on your materials.

𝙃𝙚𝙧𝙚’𝙨 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙝𝙚𝙡𝙥𝙨:

• Go beyond LAB. Use spectral data and simulate press conditions
• Profile proofers with actual ink drawdowns, not defaults
• Monitor traps and overprints—not just solids
• Simulate viewing environments in proof review
• Treat color as a human response, not just a calculated delta

𝗕𝗼𝘁𝘁𝗼𝗺 𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲?

Color science didn’t fail. It just stopped short of the pressroom.
And that’s where you pick it up—where numbers meet nuance, and real color control begins.


Author: Carmon Madison, G7 Expert. Article provided courtesy of Carmon Madison.