Achieving accurate proofs question

[David Milisock]

Gordo >If the press is set up to reflect the same characterization data then, both proof and presswork will align with one another.
It is unlikely that they will match one another because of the very different mechanics of how each creates color.

This sounds like marketing crap, align, match. Facts are facts, I'll use rifle scoring terminology, you have the 10 ring and the 9 ring so on down to the 5 ring) to day in the world of ink jet proofing, the best proofs I've seen have a very few things that are the 10 ring, a few that are the 9 ring, most are in the 8 or 7 ring.

Reality is that most clients don't know quality when it hits them in the face so you'd better be able to tell which ones do and then be capable of managing their expectations or you'll be losing clients and or rerunning jobs.

 

[gordo]

Gordo >If the press is set up to reflect the same characterization data then, both proof and presswork will align with one another.
It is unlikely that they will match one another because of the very different mechanics of how each creates color.

This sounds like marketing crap, align, match. Facts are facts, I'll use rifle scoring terminology, you have the 10 ring and the 9 ring so on down to the 5 ring) to day in the world of ink jet proofing, the best proofs I've seen have a very few things that are the 10 ring, a few that are the 9 ring, most are in the 8 or 7 ring.

Reality is that most clients don't know quality when it hits them in the face so you'd better be able to tell which ones do and then be capable of managing their expectations or you'll be losing clients and or rerunning jobs.

Your thinking on this topic appears to align with mine. ;-)

The term "align" isn't "marketing crap." "Align" is a more appropriate term for setting customer expectations than "match" because align allows for some wiggle room in color between proof and presswork while "match" is absolute. Your scoring ring analogy is appropriate. The unfortunate thing is that the industry has not, AFAIK, adopted an objective way to tolerance, measure and score press to proof color alignment for the live image area - even though it's completely possible to do so. Manufacturing without the ability to communicate specifications and tolerances for the final product isn't really manufacturing - it's crafting.

Most clients do know "quality" when it hits them in the face – it's when their expectations are met by their print provider. It doesn't matter whether it meets the supplier's concept of "quality" or not. So, yes, you'd better be able to set and manage customer expectations or you'll be losing clients and/or rerunning jobs

 

[Deleted member 16349]

Your scoring ring analogy is appropriate. The unfortunate thing is that the industry has not, AFAIK, adopted an objective way to tolerance, measure and score press to proof color alignment for the live image area - even though it's completely possible to do so. Manufacturing without the ability to communicate specifications and tolerances for the final product isn't really manufacturing - it's crafting.

So true. The printing industry has no idea about how the philosophy of manufacturing has developed over the last 100 years. It can't even be discussed because the experts still think in craft terms even though they have computers and other scientific sounding ideas and technologies. They have no frame a reference to be able to rethink what needs to be done.

You are right about the need to properly communicate specifications and tolerances for the final product but that in itself is not a guarantee that you will have a consistent and predictable manufacturing process. The key to manufacturing is to have processes that have as little variation as possible hopefully without feedback systems. Processes that are inherently consistent. The causes of variation need to be designed out of the process.

It is very easy to set a specification for printing or proofing. One can say that for every point in the image, the colour must be +/- some tolerance of the target colour for that point (small area). That is all that is basically required. Any reference to meeting some standard related to the method of production is usually foolish.

So the problem is and the problem has always been, how do you get your printing device to print consistently, predictably and repeatably?
How do you define the image, point by point in terms of colour?
How do you measure that the image has met the specification point by point?

These are simple and obvious goals to someone who thinks in terms of manufacturing. The more difficult problem is how do you make that possible for the printing industry.

Well Gordon as you said, these things are possible but the industry is not capable of moving in that direction. Instead, they want to try to fool Nature and tell themselves that making Standards is a solution and applying added complications such as G7 etc, which all do not guarantee colour prediction, will somehow get them to where they need to go. Well it won't but they can't see why. How can one talk to people who can't see why some things can not work.

People are proud of their craft abilities and that is a good thing but it is not the path to advancing the industry. The industry needs a serious "rethink" and that is something that no one is willing to take any leadership on. The industry is not conservative. It is cheap. It will not spend any money in an effort think in different directions which lead to different possibilities. Most of the money is spent on high technology that is supporting old ideas. The problem is not in the technology but in the funding of old ideas. If one has the right ideas to solve these problems, the technology will follow.