It is what it is

When I visited TAGA I saw lots of concern about the G7 method of calibration. I only saw some results, and one paper saying that ISO actually outperformed G7.
Still, I was frustated by the general feeling of discontent about the G7 process. Sometimes it sounded like unreasonable, and sometimes I was hearing people that I overall trust to say that it doesn't work; yet I saw no valid research.

There, I made up my mind: I would try it out for myself and see if it would work or not. And I did.

I setup my roller stripes, drained my fountain solution and cleaned up the 64" beastie and there we were: ready to run with our hybrid ink set... shooting for grey.

To make a long sorry short, the results were disappointing. As with everything in litho, there can be numerous reasons.
1) idealliance software on shadows
2) measuring devices & idealliance software
3) natural press variation
4) ink set

I'm going to proceed from bottom to top:
4) We used the hybrid process ink set and the hybrid hexachrome ink set. On the color analysis tab we were getting the LAB values for paper grade #1 stock and the respective solid CMY. However, is the hybrid ink set supposed to be matching the NPDC curve, and whatever calculation thereafter? My speculation would be that the curves and calculation thereafter were done based on press runs with conventional ink sets. I might be lacking in theoretical understanding of the G7 calibration, but how can we use one set of curves for all the processes when there is a significant difference in dot gain between hybrid process, hybrid hexachrome (just the CMYK out of it), and conventional process inks? Should I be expecting to get my gray balance? I didn't... and this might be one reason. Even still, wet trapping our inks would allow us to be close to conventional TVI, and thus the software should work.
3) You know ;-)
2) I was getting significant differences in the suggested plate curves when measuring the targets with different measuring devices. Does the idealliance software work only with DTP70 and Eye-One? What prohibits it from working with x-rite 530 or spectroscan. Why in this earth do i get a difference of 20% on the yellow midtones between different devices? Praise the Lord! I guess the problem is that x-rite bought Gretag or WHAT HAVE YOU (i admit... i'm frustrated).
1) OFF.

SO... after such knowledge what forgiveness...

There are consultants who vouche that it works. I believe them.
There are other people who vouche that it doesn't work. I believe them too.

Thing is, at about 11:00 pm yesterday (and after missing a girl's birthday due to working late), I decided to get rid off all the software, match my densities, and calculate the curves on my own. I got my gray balance nice and neat! Am I G7 certified? I am 'Dimitri' certified. Why? I didn't use the software. Is grey balance tied up to G7? We were using the Brunner system before G7 and we were grey balanced already.

There is a long way to standardization... a long damn way and billions of variables to take into account. There is no magic; there is no beauty! Even if someone comes up with the perfect solution, nothing assures that we have the variables of the process under control. We are drifting and misjudging the effect as the cause... basic human fallacious reasoning... the dream within the dream... (i used to read Nietzsche instead of doing my homework at highschool).

What is the main problem? Calibrating something for certain conditions, or fixing these conditions? And I mean ink-water balance...

Here's my frustated plan of action:
1) trust noone
2) set up ISO densities and possibly TVI
3) get grey balance
4) train our operators
5) get device link software or other software with smart color management options.
6a) and MOST IMPORTANTLY: prioritize press maintenance
6b) and optimize support systems and supplies.

-D

PS1> Good luck to all... let me know if I am easily getting frustated...
PS2> Some people don't like feta cheese even though they have never tried it.