Alternatives to Pressign for GMI

[meesh-lars]

Company I work for prints GMI packaging, but does not want to invest in the pressign software. Is anyone familiar with an alternative or a way to use the exact to reach the standards that GMI requires for approval?

Thanks!

[Cornishpastythighs]

we had PressSign installed on 2 of our Heidelberg presses. As we are a packaging shop and have around 2000 special colours we found it was a bit too rigid and not so user friendly. We invested in this system and are very satisfied with the results. We are using Intellitrax scanners,closed loop and ink key presets. Your company is going to have to invest in something as none of these systems are free.
PressSign did not support ink key presetting
Good luck http://www.digiinfo.com/products/inkzone

[NathanD]

I am in the same boat as we work toward investing in PressSign or similar.

You can use the eXact alone to adhere to GMI standards. The easiest way is to use the job tool. Create a Job template that consists of the GMI L*a*b* targets and TVI targets. Input their respective tolerances. Use the job tool to measure on press. You have access to the entire TVI table in one view (CMYK at 25%, 50%, and 75%). You can tolerance CMYK and RGB overprints. I haven't found a way to do grey balance, as the grey balance is determined based on your K and paper values. That being said, if everything else is in line, your grey balance will pass as well.

One big struggle I am having with GMI is that they base their targets on ISO12647 (2004 amd 2007). This assumes a white point of 94, 0, -2. We are printing on recycled board, where the whitepoint sometimes doesn't even reach 90 on the L scale. When that is the case, it is impossible for us to achieve the target L value of yellow, which is 89. Technically, all the solids and overprints become more difficult to hit when you move from the standard board. GMI also doesn't care what you certify on. We can do our certification on clean virgin board and hit the targets no problem, but then running production on recycled board proves much more difficult. I've inquired about substrate relative targets, but to no avail, likely because it would complicate their end enormously.

[meesh-lars]

I am in the same boat as we work toward investing in PressSign or similar.

You can use the eXact alone to adhere to GMI standards. The easiest way is to use the job tool. Create a Job template that consists of the GMI L*a*b* targets and TVI targets. Input their respective tolerances. Use the job tool to measure on press. You have access to the entire TVI table in one view (CMYK at 25%, 50%, and 75%). You can tolerance CMYK and RGB overprints. I haven't found a way to do grey balance, as the grey balance is determined based on your K and paper values. That being said, if everything else is in line, your grey balance will pass as well.

One big struggle I am having with GMI is that they base their targets on ISO12647 (2004 amd 2007). This assumes a white point of 94, 0, -2. We are printing on recycled board, where the whitepoint sometimes doesn't even reach 90 on the L scale. When that is the case, it is impossible for us to achieve the target L value of yellow, which is 89. Technically, all the solids and overprints become more difficult to hit when you move from the standard board. GMI also doesn't care what you certify on. We can do our certification on clean virgin board and hit the targets no problem, but then running production on recycled board proves much more difficult. I've inquired about substrate relative targets, but to no avail, likely because it would complicate their end enormously.

Thanks for the response, I wonder how many else are in this boat? I'll let you know if I find any other solutions, but for now we will keep working at it.

[Paul Sherfield]

Re PressSIGN and white paperpoints that do not match an ISO 12647/2 based standards and profiles, in this case a Fogra 39 based profile. You can use PressSIGN to remap this white point to the white of the recycled board. Then you use this as the target in PressSIGN. It also allows you to export and revised icc profile which can be used for proofing and seperation if needed. Check out the PressSIGN manual for more detail.

[mikestr]

Paul is exactly right: pressSIGN does not restrict you to any particular print conditions: All targets including white point are editable. This is true whether you build the standard manually, import it as a prebuilt set, or extract it from an ICC profile--there is still that check box in the press standard editing window that says "custom," and it allows all fields to be changed, including paper Lab.

Your real issue is with the GMI standard you're required to use for that customer, who may have specified a noncompliant material, which of course does create a problem. No process control software can make a board measuring 90 L* any brighter than it is. I suggest that you discuss this matter with the customer and GMI. The latter works for the customer, after all, and their goal is to help them maintain their standards for product appearance. I've found them easy to work with.

Most ink key presetting systems, including InkZone, do indeed coexist with pressSIGN, which also supports most closed-loop systems and scanners. As Paul said, check the pressSIGN manual for details or call the consultant you're working with.

[mikestr]

Her is a screenshot of the settings window from pressSIGN.

[meesh-lars]

Both Paul/Mike,
I'm looking for alternatives to pressign for reaching the targets that GMI sends us to print Walgreens packaging. These standards are non-negotiable, and not always friendly to the board they are printing on. I'm aware of how pressign works and the screens look, the company is just not willing to invest in it.

[mikestr]

Again, if the material prevents you from reaching the target aims there is nothing to be done except get the customer to spec a different board or get them to have GMI alter the aims. Don't tell me that this is immutable: GMI works for your customer, not the other way around. Don't tell me I'm wrong: I have worked with GMI extensively. The problem is either your customer or your substitution of different material.

As for pressSIGN being too costly, this is probably the least expensive process control software you can buy, and it generally pays for itself in a few weeks, or on the first job it saves. You might look at some good QA software--SpotOn Press Verify is very good for all sports of color compliance tasks. For scanning you can use an i1--single color bar, no ink zones--or import data from your scanning system.

[mikestr]

Also SpotOn Analyze. It doesn't calculate curves like pressSIGN, but you can rough these in manually from the info supplied if you know what you're doing.

[NathanD]

Again, if the material prevents you from reaching the target aims there is nothing to be done except get the customer to spec a different board or get them to have GMI alter the aims. Don't tell me that this is immutable: GMI works for your customer, not the other way around. Don't tell me I'm wrong: I have worked with GMI extensively. The problem is either your customer or your substitution of different material.

As for pressSIGN being too costly, this is probably the least expensive process control software you can buy, and it generally pays for itself in a few weeks, or on the first job it saves. You might look at some good QA software--SpotOn Press Verify is very good for all sports of color compliance tasks. For scanning you can use an i1--single color bar, no ink zones--or import data from your scanning system.

Have you ever seen GMI stray from ISO targets and use substrate relative targets instead (for any customer)? I proposed this after presenting our "scores" when toleranced using the ISO standard vs when toleranced using substrate relative ISO targets (knowing that they could do substrate relative targets in PressSign). You're right though, this would ultimately be a discussion for GMI and their customer. Spec'ing a different board is likely out of the question for the customer due to cost.

[mikestr]

You're misinterpreting my remarks. I would not expect GMI or any brand assurance program change their methodologies because a printer or even a customer thought they knew better how that job should be done. What I said is that the targets are determined by the customer's needs and in agreement with the customer, and that the court of appeal is the customer. GMI's position on substrate color is that the tolerances are set widely enough to accommodate reasonable variation in production boards, but this isn't the real point: GMI's targets are the customer's target's. Any printer who blames GMI when they are printing on a board that is far out of see either is cutting corners against the customer's interests, or has a customer who is specifying a material that their own certification program will fail. How this is GMI's fault I fail to see.

But to take up your argument for a moment, how do you suppose that removing a specification for substrate color (which is what making the scoring substrate-relative does) serves a brand owner's interests? They are selling product, and this includes both the print and the material underneath it--everything that is visible. I've had many, many technical discussions with GMI's managers over the years, and I can assure you that they are aware of the complexity and compromises their programs entail, as they try to satisfy the needs of brand owners, and suppliers, in vastly different markets and regions while trying to maintain consistent and understandable guidelines. They have their problems, and they know it. Changes are underway to reflect newer thinking, though I am not at liberty to say more. However, I do not expect any of the changes to make it easier for printers to switch out materials in contravention of customer-driven specifications.

And yes, they have made changes and allowances for printers when the customer agreed to them.