A carefully calibrated print workflow can be used to compare a digital capture to the original physical object. This method has obvious limitations, namely the increased number of variables to control as the printing workflow itself needs to be done with high quality and meticulously calibrated hardware. This makes it less than ideal for truly critical color evaluation.
There are also significant benefits that cannot be easily achieved using a monitor-only comparison workflow. First and foremost, the print can be transported easily, allowing it to be brought to the object for comparison, if, for instance, the object has been returned to storage or is now located with the restoration team. Less obviously, a print is, like the original physical object, also a reflective object and therefore the disparity in perception between transmissive and reflective objects is not present.
It should never be assumed that because both a print and an object are physical objects that they will match in all lighting conditions. Color is a fickle perception. Changing the light source to one with a different spectral output means different objects that were the same color will appear as different colors, an effect called ‘Metameric Failure’ which limits the utility of print-to-object visual comparisons.