How to print better than a specification?

[MICHEL_GALEGO]

Good afternoon!
I read in a "Gordo" post, that we should not restrict our quality by the arbitrary specifications of the industry.
But how do we do that?
Is there any methodology or concept of printing (CMYK only) better than G7 / GRACOL or ISO12647?
Thank you very much for your attention.

 

[arossetti]

Good afternoon!
I read in a "Gordo" post, that we should not restrict our quality by the arbitrary specifications of the industry.
But how do we do that?
Is there any methodology or concept of printing (CMYK only) better than G7 / GRACOL or ISO12647?
Thank you very much for your attention.

Not knowing exactly what Gordo quote you are referencing I would think what he is talking about is doing something like the old G7 Extreme or whatever they called it. Basically it was running to the highest densities you could maintain and calibrating to a neutral gray, or to the TVI curves of your liking if you don't like the G7 methodology.

This instead of limiting yourself to the GRACoL densities.

Edit: For the record this is basically how they developed xCMYK, https://www.idealliance.org/idealliance-releases-xcmyk-expanded-gamut-dataset. They had 25 or so different printers on different presses run to their maximum capable densities and then neutralized the gray using G7 and characterized the press. They averaged all of those characterizations and came up with the xCMYK colorspace.

 

[gordo]

Good afternoon!
I read in a "Gordo" post, that we should not restrict our quality by the arbitrary specifications of the industry.
But how do we do that?
Is there any methodology or concept of printing (CMYK only) better than G7 / GRACOL or ISO12647?
Thank you very much for your attention.

This is getting harder to do since the standards folks are so busy trying to develop standards and specifications for everything in printing ( except for the terrible coffee in the client lounge ).

rossetti point to one example of that.

So, basically what you offer your clients is/should/could be driven by your competitors. If you have no competitors you can probably leave well enough alone and do what you want. But if you have competion then you either have to match their offering or do better.

Some options: printing at higher ink densities, using AM screening ( because FM should be your standard right?), using an alternate process ink or ink set, actually involving a customer to tailor your print characteristic to their specific job.

Not long ago I asked the forum for suggestions for a printshop that would be interested in doing something innovative printing-wise and got virtually no response. To me that is a sad state of affairs - that there are pretty much no printshops in doing anything different. That state of affairs should signal a business opportunity for printers willing to get creative about their offerings.

 

[Andy_warp]

The way I understand some of the standards out there is that they are limited as well...just in a measured and documented way. People want numbers and grading systems so they don't have to use their eyeballs/emotions/judgement. It seems nobody wants the heat! I run dye-sublimation and our gamut is pretty tiny. What makes things interesting is that the dye sub process performs better in certain color ranges than different processes can achieve. I only run cmyk...but when color testing I shoot for the pantone solid coated chip...not it's process equivalent.

I've found in many cases a designer uses Pantones to design with, but don't have any physical reference. They judge it on screen. I've absolutely nailed the Pantone colors, but the customer didn't know what the corrected color actually looked like together. And hated it.

Our methodology is to make the colors as good as our ink gamut will allow...and be attentive to our customer's expectations.
We give tips in creating art that will perform best for our workflow digitally, and where the ink hits the paper.

 

[MICHEL_GALEGO]

This is getting harder to do since the standards folks are so busy trying to develop standards and specifications for everything in printing ( except for the terrible coffee in the client lounge ).

rossetti point to one example of that.

So, basically what you offer your clients is/should/could be driven by your competitors. If you have no competitors you can probably leave well enough alone and do what you want. But if you have competion then you either have to match their offering or do better.

Some options: printing at higher ink densities, using AM screening ( because FM should be your standard right?), using an alternate process ink or ink set, actually involving a customer to tailor your print characteristic to their specific job.

Not long ago I asked the forum for suggestions for a printshop that would be interested in doing something innovative printing-wise and got virtually no response. To me that is a sad state of affairs - that there are pretty much no printshops in doing anything different. That state of affairs should signal a business opportunity for printers willing to get creative about their offerings.

I read long ago, before XCMYK gracol, in the "Gordo blog" about a type of print called DMAX, very interesting ...
Unfortunately I was not able to apply DMAX at the time, because my digital proofing system could not simulate this kind of printing.
Gordo, I do not own my RIP, FM.
I use, AM, 175LPI Elliptical dots.
I'm thinking of using round 175lpi dots.
90% of the packaging graphics in Brazil use elliptical dots.
No one here can explain me technically because the ellipticals are better than the round ones.
Here people only know to tell me that the elliptical is better and that the round is only for rotary printers.
I saw that "Gordo" prefers round points and I agree with his technical explanation.
Many people did not like my idea of ​​using round dots instead of ellipses.
What do you guys think of this?
I'm very keen to innovate, but it's not easy.
That's why I'm researching if there are new printing methodologies.

 

[gordo]

I read long ago, before XCMYK gracol, in the "Gordo blog" about a type of print called DMAX, very interesting ...
Unfortunately I was not able to apply DMAX at the time, because my digital proofing system could not simulate this kind of printing.
Gordo, I do not own my RIP, FM.
I use, AM, 175LPI Elliptical dots.
I'm thinking of using round 175lpi dots.
90% of the packaging graphics in Brazil use elliptical dots.
No one here can explain me technically because the ellipticals are better than the round ones.
Here people only know to tell me that the elliptical is better and that the round is only for rotary printers.
I saw that "Gordo" prefers round points and I agree with his technical explanation.
Many people did not like my idea of ​​using round dots instead of ellipses.
What do you guys think of this?
I'm very keen to innovate, but it's not easy.
That's why I'm researching if there are new printing methodologies.

This post on my blog explains the differences in AM dot shapes: http://the-print-guide.blogspot.ca/2...ot-shapes.html

You do have to be careful about the names you use for screen because there is no real standard - always clarify by describing the dot shapes through the tone scale.

I your people can explain technically why they think that elliptical is the best compared with other dot shapes for offset then you should consider their conclusion seriously. However if they can’t do that then they’re just expressing their unsubstantiated opinion and I would ignore them.

Yes, it’s not easy to innovate - that’s why it’s valued.

 

[MICHEL_GALEGO]

Gordo! Imagine! You're the CEO of the company where I work.

His company owns a KBA105 Universal year 2006 and a CTP Screen Plate Rite 8100 - Year 2002 - 2400DPI.

90% of the packaging you sell is produced with paperboard, 250g / m².

Here are some examples of our packaging:

https://www.fator2.com.br/products?lightbox=image_k4h

https://modeloseprototipos.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/6.jpg

How would you print these materials?

In your opinion, what is the best type of Dots and the best line (LPI) for this type of material?

OBS: I have read your blog several times, I would like to "hear" your opinion.

I respect your technical opinions very much.

thank you!!!

 

[gordo]

Gordo! Imagine! You're the CEO of the company where I work.

His company owns a KBA105 Universal year 2006 and a CTP Screen Plate Rite 8100 - Year 2002 - 2400DPI.

90% of the packaging you sell is produced with paperboard, 250g / m².

Here are some examples of our packaging:

https://www.fator2.com.br/products?lightbox=image_k4h

https://modeloseprototipos.files.wor.../2011/08/6.jpg

How would you print these materials?

In your opinion, what is the best type of Dots and the best line (LPI) for this type of material?

OBS: I have read your blog several times, I would like to "hear" your opinion.

I respect your technical opinions very much.

thank you!!!

You are asking the wrong questions. You are asking technical questions. You (or your CEO) should be asking marketing questions. That's what will inform your choices in technology. Talk to your customers. What are their pain points. What services do they wish you offered? What factors are important to them when choosing a print supplier. Are there jobs that they don’t even get you to quite on. What do your competitors offer that you don’t. What services could you provide that they don’t. What markets exist that you could but aren’t currently servicing? Are there unique markets that you can create? Etc., etc., etc.

Once you have answers to these and other marketing questions you can then you can look at technologies that could allow you to meet those opportunities.

For your kind of work, one obvious technology to investigate is fixed palette printing.

 

[Correct Color]

Interesting, and I'd say pertinent question.

I actually grew up in litho before the days of standards and specifications, and we used to work very hard to be the best printer in not just Dallas, or Texas, or the US, but the world. And to this day I look back and think that maybe for a period of about six months around 1982-3, we might very well have made it.

That was long before digital and somewhat before the march towards conformity, but there were rumblings back then about standard this and standard that, and I hated and rebelled against them all. The whole idea of an industry dead set on making each and every one of its members exactly the same seemed not something of which I wanted to be a part.

And now, all these many years later, that goal having been achieved at least to a degree, I do have to look on in bemusement at printers who have traveled this path and who suddenly look up in shock and horror to find that having made their product into a commodity, their clients now want commodity pricing.

For the record this is basically how they developed xCMYK, https://www.idealliance.org/ideallia...-gamut-dataset. They had 25 or so different printers on different presses run to their maximum capable densities and then neutralized the gray using G7 and characterized the press. They averaged all of those characterizations and came up with the xCMYK colorspace.

As far as I'm concerned, honestly, Idealliance and their slavish devotion to "TVI" and "neutralized gray" are one of the key reasons the industry has decided to climb into a box and decided never again to think outside of it.

"Neutralized grey" is really pretty meaningless, unless you're going to use a standardized printing profile, and if you're out to beat the standards, well, that's a self-defeating course of action.

Thinking in terms of getting all a printing device has got to give on every media and in every situation is a different way of looking at things, but it is possible. And it can/does work.



Mike Adams
Correct Color

 

[arossetti]

Unfortunately Idealliance has done a great job of marketing to print buyers. If we were not a G7 master plant we wouldn't have the opportunity to bid on half of our jobs. The other day we were asked to become Pantone Certified....

 

[gordo]

Interesting, and I'd say pertinent question.

I actually grew up in litho before the days of standards and specifications, and we used to work very hard to be the best printer in not just Dallas, or Texas, or the US, but the world. And to this day I look back and think that maybe for a period of about six months around 1982-3, we might very well have made it.

That was long before digital and somewhat before the march towards conformity, but there were rumblings back then about standard this and standard that, and I hated and rebelled against them all. The whole idea of an industry dead set on making each and every one of its members exactly the same seemed not something of which I wanted to be a part.

And now, all these many years later, that goal having been achieved at least to a degree, I do have to look on in bemusement at printers who have traveled this path and who suddenly look up in shock and horror to find that having made their product into a commodity, their clients now want commodity pricing.

As far as I'm concerned, honestly, Idealliance and their slavish devotion to "TVI" and "neutralized gray" are one of the key reasons the industry has decided to climb into a box and decided never again to think outside of it.

"Neutralized grey" is really pretty meaningless, unless you're going to use a standardized printing profile, and if you're out to beat the standards, well, that's a self-defeating course of action.

Thinking in terms of getting all a printing device has got to give on every media and in every situation is a different way of looking at things, but it is possible. And it can/does work.

Mike Adams
Correct Color

Awesome.

Back in the day print standards and specifications were developed to benefit print buyers (e.g. SWOP, SNAP, etc.).The printer, by adopting them, benefitted as a side effect.

Today, it seems that the ones who primarily benefit are the standards and specifications organizations and the consultants who helped develop them and are usually hired to implement them. More standards and specifications equals more revenue for those groups.

When CtP first became a practical means to imaging a plate and digital proofs were adopted I thought, finally, printers could custom tailor their print characteristic to any standard or specification that was appropriate to benefit their manufacturing efficiency and/or their customer needs. They would have the ability and flexibility to offer multiple standards. Boy was I wrong. They took the opposite path. It's as if they were clothing retailers and some remote anonymous group decided that Medium long sleeve red shirts were the standard - so that, and that only became what they offered in store.

They gave up on being quality printers.

 

[Alois Senefelder]

Gentlemen,

I think we should have an end to this argument ...... just run to "Gordo's GeC standard"


Regards Alois !

 

[Correct Color]

Unfortunately Idealliance has done a great job of marketing to print buyers. If we were not a G7 master plant we wouldn't have the opportunity to bid on half of our jobs.

Yeah, understood.

And believe me, over the years, I've wrestled back and forth many times with the idea of just paying them their blood money, and becoming a three-day "G7 Expert."

I'd probably in fact have made a lot more money over the years if I had.

And I've done some pretty exhaustive testing as well to try and find something -- anything -- that G7 does to improve the color management process in large-format inkjet -- and I have just not been able to do it.

So in the end I just have not been willing to go down the road of selling something that does nothing as if it was the Emperor's very own shiny new suit.

I'll make you the same offer I always make when I hear this: You've got a client that tells you that, take me along when you talk to them. Since G7 itself in large format honestly does nothing, there's no valid reason for them requesting you have it, so they can never back up the request with a reason. It's not all that hard to prove that G7 solves nothing, and if you can show them something better, usually they will listen.



Mike

 

[Deleted member 16349]

Gordon and Correct Color, discuss the influence and limitations of G7, which is a problem the industry will have a hard time to correct. G7 and the Idealliance efforts has been wrong in so many ways. It has taken on a life of its own and with claims that can not be justified. Possibly with good intentions but also possibly just to develop an opportunity to grow income and influence.

It has been wrong, because it has wasted much time and resources going after a wrong approach. This fact is not totally unknown to Idealliance.

In an article on their web site below,

http://connect.idealliance.org/High...f95-4a35-221b-2517-909aac28e4c3&forceDialog=0

They say

"By controlling grays, color images also look as “pleasing” as possible without ICC profiles. For even more accuracy, and color-critical work, G7 should be combined with ICC color management."

They admit that G7 can NOT provide accurate colour. They suggest that it should be combined with ICC colour management. I would say why not just drop G7 and use a custom ICC approach and develop the technologies to make it simple to do. G7 does nothing to the effort since, a specific combination of actual CMYK screen values on linear plates will result in basically the same colour values in the print. This would be independent of how many times one would rename a set of screen values in the data. It is the actual screen value on the plate that determines how it will print.

So here they have a G7 method that is not accurate but they tell buyers of print, that they should demand that their printers use this less accurate method. Pushing buyers, who understand the issues even less than Idealliance, to demand the use of the G7 approach, seems self serving.

Pushing buyers to demand action from their suppliers is a method that has been used in other industries. Iso quality specifications did not guarantee improved quality but just documentation of the steps that resulted in the same quality. OK, some companies did improve their operations but very many just used the ISO quality certification as a marketing tool to please their customers that demanded it.

Sustainability and environmental demands by customers, driven by advocacy groups on the general population and government policy is doing the same thing. Could be from good intentions but maybe also from self interests.

So what I think is the fundamental problem behind much of these kinds of effort. I think it is a lack of knowledge and a lack of the ability to understand problems and how to solve them.

With offset printing, the output of the print with respect to the CMYK inputs is non linear and not independent. This means that no method that uses curves, such as the TVI curves and G7 curves, can not solve the problem. To finally get to some solution in the future, one should be able to understand and accept that an existing approach is a dead end method. Time has been wasted in not looking for the improvements required in the process and the more effective approaches required to be developed in prepress.

Unfortunately, the industry is not capable of thinking this through and therefore there will be a lot of frustration for both printers and buyers. Not for consultants because this confusion supports their interests.

 

[Correct Color]

Not for consultants because this confusion supports their interests.

Well, I'm a consultant and it doesn't much suit my interests. I think Idealliance would be pretty damned happy in fact if I'd just shut up and go away.

But then my approach to consultancy has always been to provide real value and actually solve problems.



Mike

 

[Deleted member 16349]

Well, I'm a consultant and it doesn't much suit my interests. I think Idealliance would be pretty damned happy in fact if I'd just shut up and go away.

But then my approach to consultancy has always been to provide real value and actually solve problems.



Mike

I am sure you try to solve real problems. I should not imply all consultants. Actually I did not say all consultants.

But I would also say that if there was a real and deep interest to solve problems, there would be an effort to put oneself out of business by solving the problems at fundamental levels. That is the way I see it. If I could get some of the issues solved that I am interested in, I would not have to think about them again.

It seems Idealliance is dedicated to training vast numbers of consultants which I think shows that it provides a problematic approach for the industry.

 

[MICHEL_GALEGO]

I am sure you try to solve real problems. I should not imply all consultants. Actually I did not say all consultants.

But I would also say that if there was a real and deep interest to solve problems, there would be an effort to put oneself out of business by solving the problems at fundamental levels. That is the way I see it. If I could get some of the issues solved that I am interested in, I would not have to think about them again.

It seems Idealliance is dedicated to training vast numbers of consultants which I think shows that it provides a problematic approach for the industry.

Speak some fundamental problems that are never discussed?

 

[Deleted member 16349]

Speak some fundamental problems that are never discussed?

Sorry, but I have been doing that for years on this forum. They have been discussed. I won't go over them again today.

Try to think for yourself and come up with your list of problems. If you can't think of any fundamental problems, then that is a problem. There are a lot of them. Anyhow, it is a good exercise to do even if at this time, you don't see how they can be corrected.

 

[gordo]

Speak some fundamental problems that are never discussed?

Here’s a fun thought starter for you. Do you use a color bar? Does it have 3/C grey patches? If the 3/C patch in the color bar deviates by 2 deltaE, does an equivalent neutral patch in the live image area deviate by the same deltaE? Or is it greater or less? If you have an answer, explain how you came up with it.

 

[gordo]

You presume too much! Having those patches in your color bar does not necessarily equate to someone constantly monitoring the deltaE for variance. And, even if they did, what job is someone going to be printing where they happen to 'notice' an equivalent patch in the middle of the sheet that they can scan for reference? Lol.

I see where you're going with this though, and I will say that the color bar patches will not always match the equivalent one(s) in the image area of the sheet. Truth be told, they may never match exactly. And not only that, the patch in the image area's deltaE may either measure greater OR less than the color bar patches, depending on some of the other variables (oscillation, ink charging, etc. etc.) that are all part of the process...

How quick you are to answer MICHEL_GALEGO.