Digital printer/press for book covers

[RobertK]

Our company is currently in debate investing in a digital press for book covers. All of our bussiness is books. Offset printing and digital printing.

Currently we outsource 100% of our OFFSET full color covers. A full colour offset press is just to much of an investment, and we dont have enough work for one. And we see print runs drop, for us an average print run is around 300.

So our goal is to digitally print 98% of the offset full color work we now outsource.

Currently we have a Xerox DC250 for about 3 years now. Quality is OK. But customers pay for a 'digitally printed book'.

We have been testing with a Xerox 700. Output looks great. But after i gave them some files to fool around with....it really wasnt what we expected. Sure it is better as the DC250. But not a machine managing 95% of offset quality.
Mainly there are issues with subtle shades, gradients and certain colours. Stuff that SEEMS easy.

What machines could deliver the quality we want? The really expensive ones not included...like the Indigo, iGen or Nexpress ;-)

Thanks in advance!

Robert

 

[kslight]

We manage to pull off good quality with a 2045, 2060, and 6060... Also you can actually laminate off of these machines, if you do 1 side or 2 side laminate. What stock do you usually sell your book covers on?

 

[RobertK]

We manage to pull off good quality with a 2045, 2060, and 6060... Also you can actually laminate off of these machines, if you do 1 side or 2 side laminate. What stock do you usually sell your book covers on?

Thats a good point! We laminate all our work. With the DC250 we were busy a year with testing to find a suitable laminate. But it still is very trikcy when there is a solid amount of toner on the substrate. The is alot of tension on the folds after perfect binding.

If never heard about those machines. Its the Xerox 700 and step-up the 7000 and 8000.
What is the quality compared to those models. It must be better then the 700 otherwise you wouldnt mention it?

 

[kslight]

Thats a good point! We laminate all our work. With the DC250 we were busy a year with testing to find a suitable laminate. But it still is very trikcy when there is a solid amount of toner on the substrate. The is alot of tension on the folds after perfect binding.

If never heard about those machines. Its the Xerox 700 and step-up the 7000 and 8000.
What is the quality compared to those models. It must be better then the 700 otherwise you wouldnt mention it?

From our internal tests and everything I've understood, the 250, 700, and all of those other oil-less machines are difficult to impossible to laminate off of...if laminating is crucial to your work then I would highly suggest that you get a lot of samples from Xerox and try to laminate them and see if they will work for you.

2045/2060/6060 are all previous gen machines...I think you can still get a 6060 new from Xerox, but the 2045/2060 are almost 10 years old now, but are nearly the same machine as the 6060..6060 is just an improved 2060 really. Without a 700, 7000, or 8000 at my disposal I can't give a head to head comparison, but we demo'ed a 700 when they first came out and weren't really impressed with the quality...we still think that glossy looks better than matte for our work, since the 700 is oil-less then it makes a really dull print...you either love it or you hate it. We also had issues laminating off of it. So for our purposes, the 2045/2060/6060 are still better machines than everything else Xerox has tried to sell us... Yes, they are older machines, but they still handle all the jobs we get in just fine, despite what Xerox might tell you.

 

[RobertK]

Sorry, i did not know that. I really DONT like the look of the gloss and fuser oil. But you dont notice the gloss after laminating?
But most of our work is laminted. But customer that dont have laminated work wont except the glossy output..

But being previous gen machines... i might guess the quality is inferior? And also costs of maintenance and clicks has gone down with new machines.

 

[thomasblessing]

We offer an inline UV flood coater for gloss or satin finishes which is much cheaper than laminating but protects the covers just as well.

 

[RobertK]

We offer an inline UV flood coater for gloss or satin finishes which is much cheaper than laminating but protects the covers just as well.

Laminating for us is also for look/feel and stiffness. In my view book covers dont get UV coating for these reasons and more for commercial print work?

But not getting offtopic. Any more suggestions on machines people !?

 

[kslight]

Sorry, i did not know that. I really DONT like the look of the gloss and fuser oil. But you dont notice the gloss after laminating?
But most of our work is laminted. But customer that dont have laminated work wont except the glossy output..

But being previous gen machines... i might guess the quality is inferior? And also costs of maintenance and clicks has gone down with new machines.

Its difficult to describe without a direct comparison, but as far as these Xerox machines go...IMHO the machines that use fuser oil have more depth to the tones that are printed, they look richer and catch the eye better, whereas the matte just looks dull and lifeless...I have a book printed off a 700 right in front of me as I write this and deep colors don't look very full to me compared to our machines. I don't think you notice the gloss so much after laminating probably, just that the laminate actually sticks to the print compared to the oil-less machines.

We have never had a problem selling our prints gloss versus matte...all of our customers are happy with our output. To each their own...

I don't know what the price breakdown between all the various current models vs. our machines would be for maintenance and clicks...but I know that we are able to produce very competitively because we don't have huge leases to pay... I wouldn't assume that the quality is inferior just because its older...at least the jobs that pay the bills when we did comparisons against other machines we've never had a problem with our existing quality. Maybe if we had "artistes" and people that are really crazy about color making a big deal about it we would look further...but our clientele are driven to us by our price and value-driven services and we are able to deliver that very well. As long as the customer submits high res files what we print always looks good.

 

[kslight]

And just to give you an idea where I'm at...I don't stand up for our older machines because its what we have...I do because of practical experience running 250s, 5000s, KM machines, iGen, Indigo... Even on jobs where we thought our quality would be limited or where it didn't make sense to produce it internally because of volume and deadline, when we have vended out to iGens we have been disappointed by the quality produced and ended up doing it internally anyway. I also think that in this economy a lot of people are less likely to be interested in paying for "top of the line" color versus "good" color...hence why a lot of companies are doing less offset work and more digital color work...yeah it doesn't look quite as good, but for most applications it still looks pretty good. Yeah I think the Indigo is a great digital machine if you are about quality, there is a striking difference between that and any Xerox machine I've seen for sure...but when people are thrilled to pay less for digital color work instead of paying a premium for near-offset quality...its not feasible for us to justify that kind of machine in-house. I don't personally feel that there is a striking quality difference across the line of Xerox color machines made over the last 5-10years...the quality differences exist but they are subtle except for the glossy versus matte difference...and that is more of a personal preference than a good or bad I think.

 

[RobertK]

Its difficult to describe without a direct comparison, but as far as these Xerox machines go...IMHO the machines that use fuser oil have more depth to the tones that are printed, they look richer and catch the eye better, whereas the matte just looks dull and lifeless...I have a book printed off a 700 right in front of me as I write this and deep colors don't look very full to me compared to our machines. I don't think you notice the gloss so much after laminating probably, just that the laminate actually sticks to the print compared to the oil-less machines.

We have never had a problem selling our prints gloss versus matte...all of our customers are happy with our output. To each their own...

I don't know what the price breakdown between all the various current models vs. our machines would be for maintenance and clicks...but I know that we are able to produce very competitively because we don't have huge leases to pay... I wouldn't assume that the quality is inferior just because its older...at least the jobs that pay the bills when we did comparisons against other machines we've never had a problem with our existing quality. Maybe if we had "artistes" and people that are really crazy about color making a big deal about it we would look further...but our clientele are driven to us by our price and value-driven services and we are able to deliver that very well. As long as the customer submits high res files what we print always looks good.

We are looking for offset looks and quality. So something out of the ordinary in our 'book world' just wont work. We want to give our steady customers the same quality and look as offset for at least the same price. But then we will print is ourselves instead of outsourcing it all.

Something that 'pops' isnt the main thing. It ALL stands or falls on the quality of the output.

 

[RobertK]

And just to give you an idea where I'm at...I don't stand up for our older machines because its what we have...I do because of practical experience running 250s, 5000s, KM machines, iGen, Indigo... Even on jobs where we thought our quality would be limited or where it didn't make sense to produce it internally because of volume and deadline, when we have vended out to iGens we have been disappointed by the quality produced and ended up doing it internally anyway. I also think that in this economy a lot of people are less likely to be interested in paying for "top of the line" color versus "good" color...hence why a lot of companies are doing less offset work and more digital color work...yeah it doesn't look quite as good, but for most applications it still looks pretty good. Yeah I think the Indigo is a great digital machine if you are about quality, there is a striking difference between that and any Xerox machine I've seen for sure...but when people are thrilled to pay less for digital color work instead of paying a premium for near-offset quality...its not feasible for us to justify that kind of machine in-house. I don't personally feel that there is a striking quality difference across the line of Xerox color machines made over the last 5-10years...the quality differences exist but they are subtle except for the glossy versus matte difference...and that is more of a personal preference than a good or bad I think.

I understand what you are saying. Maybe if that 95% quality isnt there we have to look at it some other way. But we are loosing margns in our bussiness. We would like to sell 'digital' as offset. Not in those crude terms but you get where im going ;-). That makes is interesting for us with the low print runs..

But alot of our steady customers are book publishers(with print runs up to 500-600). They and there customers demand a certain quality and pay the premium. I know they wont except a 25% loss in quality and price against the quality of offset. The thread bound inside of the book is the main thing that costs $$, so to put a not so good looking cover on there to save a few bucks wont work...

But for other work sure i could sell it. But that just isnt the case.

 

[kslight]

If that's the case then I don't really know that there is a good low-cost digital machine that is going to get you 95% of offset...the only digital machine that meets the upper-end of offset in the middle IMHO is the Indigo, if you have the customers that will pay for the quality then that's what I would get, but I don't know what to suggest. Unless you were really doing the volume that would pay for that machine or have loads of money, you might be better to continue to make due with a lower cost digital machine in house, and vend out when your clients require offset quality. You might also get with your Xerox rep and have them run samples of your stuff across their various machines and see if any of them match the quality that you need for in house work.

I agree that spending a lot of money to make a well bound book only to put a sub-par color cover is a bit on the cheesy side of things, I was under the impression that you were doing perfect bound or coil bound books that are low-cost to produce. You might be best to find out what a secondhand Indigo runs for (I have no idea)...for low volume runs with high quality expectations that seems like the way to go.

 

[RobertK]

If that's the case then I don't really know that there is a good low-cost digital machine that is going to get you 95% of offset...the only digital machine that meets the upper-end of offset in the middle IMHO is the Indigo, if you have the customers that will pay for the quality then that's what I would get, but I don't know what to suggest. Unless you were really doing the volume that would pay for that machine or have loads of money, you might be better to continue to make due with a lower cost digital machine in house, and vend out when your clients require offset quality. You might also get with your Xerox rep and have them run samples of your stuff across their various machines and see if any of them match the quality that you need for in house work.

I agree that spending a lot of money to make a well bound book only to put a sub-par color cover is a bit on the cheesy side of things, I was under the impression that you were doing perfect bound or coil bound books that are low-cost to produce. You might be best to find out what a secondhand Indigo runs for (I have no idea)...for low volume runs with high quality expectations that seems like the way to go.

Thats the whole problem. If we HAD the volume we would buy an Indigo or something. But that volume just isnt there.

We do perfect bound for our digital printed books. The insides on a Xerox 4110 and the covers on DC 250.

But thats not a huge portion of our work, but growing though. We see digital growing and offset shrinking, together with print runs. With that all in mind and looking at the future..we need to make steps to keep the little margins we have in-house.

But our regular customers and theses(depending on printrun) we print mostly offset, stitch bound inside with laminated softcover.

 

[lfelton]

Hi Robert,

We've also looked hard at quality issues on digital presses over the last year or so and I don't think that you are going to find a complete answer to your requirements. The areas that nearly all digital machines are weakest in are areas of solid coverage, gradient tints, the ability to print clean and consistent screens at <10% and >90% and colour accuracy. Some are much better than others, but all are weak compared to offset. The best that we found by a long way are the series 2 Indigos, where for most jobs they are nearly as good as mid quality offset as long as the machine is 100%. However, if you compare the output from an Indigo to the same output from one of our presses (for example) running 200lpi hybrid screening, the Indigo looks pretty good, but the offset is pin sharp and clearly superior.

So, did we buy Indigos? No, we've stuck with toner machines because the cost model for running an Indigo makes it challenging to make a reasonable ROI. Toner machines are compromise of good quality for most jobs at a price that customers are prepared to pay.

Sorry that's not the answer you were looking for, but we're still waiting for the "magic bullet" machine that combines offset quality, "green button" operator simplicity and low running costs!

 

[kslight]

Thats the whole problem. If we HAD the volume we would buy an Indigo or something. But that volume just isnt there.

We do perfect bound for our digital printed books. The insides on a Xerox 4110 and the covers on DC 250.

But thats not a huge portion of our work, but growing though. We see digital growing and offset shrinking, together with print runs. With that all in mind and looking at the future..we need to make steps to keep the little margins we have in-house.

But our regular customers and theses(depending on printrun) we print mostly offset, stitch bound inside with laminated softcover.

We do boatloads of perfect and coil bound books off our digital machines, and rarely we'll have customers that want embossed or foil stamped covers, so on those occasions we have to send out, but the publishers we work with are small (usually runs of 200-600) and are looking to cut the costs as much as possible, so that happens less and less. Sometimes with laminated covers, sometimes not...

 

[kslight]

Sorry that's not the answer you were looking for, but we're still waiting for the "magic bullet" machine that combines offset quality, "green button" operator simplicity and low running costs!

Ditto, when you find that machine let us know...otherwise unfortunately you have to find your compromising ground to continue printing and stay profitable.

 

[RobertK]

Hi Robert,

We've also looked hard at quality issues on digital presses over the last year or so and I don't think that you are going to find a complete answer to your requirements. The areas that nearly all digital machines are weakest in are areas of solid coverage, gradient tints, the ability to print clean and consistent screens at <10% and >90% and colour accuracy. Some are much better than others, but all are weak compared to offset. The best that we found by a long way are the series 2 Indigos, where for most jobs they are nearly as good as mid quality offset as long as the machine is 100%. However, if you compare the output from an Indigo to the same output from one of our presses (for example) running 200lpi hybrid screening, the Indigo looks pretty good, but the offset is pin sharp and clearly superior.

So, did we buy Indigos? No, we've stuck with toner machines because the cost model for running an Indigo makes it challenging to make a reasonable ROI. Toner machines are compromise of good quality for most jobs at a price that customers are prepared to pay.

Sorry that's not the answer you were looking for, but we're still waiting for the "magic bullet" machine that combines offset quality, "green button" operator simplicity and low running costs!

Thanks for your great info.. So clearly thats magic bullet toner machine isnt there..YET ;-)

All the thinks you say where digital machines are weak, are also the problems we encountered.

I think we need to make comprimises then..or rethink our whole bussiness model. Problem is...cant go making bad desicions in these times.

 

[A.B Ula]

i guess you should consider Canon imagePRESS series if you are looking for offset-like quality.

 

[RobertK]

I will surely be looking into that! I know the 7000(VP) is way out of our price range though. Is the regular 6000 not VP alot less epxensive?

 

[Mike Strickler]

Digital Press for Book Covers

Digital Press for Book Covers

Funny you should ask. I am at this very moment I'm working with a company who is digitally printing book covers--personalized/variable data. And we're laminating. The press is an Indigo, web version. In my experience the Indigo is the only digital press to date to give a real offset litho look. I know, there are many fans of the iGen, NextPress, etc., and they are great machines, but their output still looks no better than an office xerographic printer to me--not that this is a terrible thing.

Here's a possible problem, and one that I am working on: Size. These digital presses are very limited in width--this Indigo being only 12" or so, which means we can't run the covers for the larger books. This leaves inkjet as the only alternative for variable data. Not a problem on quality, but the consumables cost is high: only certain papers will meet the criteria of image quality and glue adhesion (which means uncoated back side), and they are not cheap. Neither is the ink. On the other hand, if you amortize the cost of a digital press over a few thousand covers that printing is pretty darn expensive too.

Mike Strickler
MSP Graphic Services