Many thanks for the replies and will hopefully give the answers or questions where needed but first some background i think.
Not had to much do with this job except to try and plate for proofing, this is a very rare job that is being WET proofed first instead of digi proofed. After first outputting the job the first time and it was printed, we noticed that the drop shadows appearing had a band to them. To try and describe this 'banding' is that it looks fine until it get the edges at around the 10-8% point. Then for some reason you could see a 'banding' or 'stepping' effect which made it look like it was going down in steps and had a hard edge to it instead of a nice smooth decrement to 0%.
After checking the pdf that was made from Prinergy Evo, everything looks ok on screen except for the fact it is a 4 colour drop shadow instead of a single colour drop shadow. This is something that we decided was not the problem due to us printing just the black plate to find it was happening in that as well as all the other colours separately. I then decided to output the black only plate and check the tints under a glass, interesting thing is that it looked nice on the plate, no visible signs of banding or stepping. A nice decrement of dots and even holding a very small dot of around 2-1%. I even tried to set the job to Trap as it was a 5 colour job, Solid background of yellow, hoping that the dots would do something but no, worth a shot i thought. We then tried the job on separate paper, the job was originally on a Cartridge paper so decided to try it on a Matte paper, same effect was happening.
We then thought that the only thing to try was the curves but unfortunately we did not know where to start as they have been pretty good recently. We have been having issues with print balance but this is something we are getting to.
All i want to do is try and get our print works running with the least amount of fuss, i know it sounds like a dream but i want to make things less complicate for all departments by getting things in sync. We recently went ISO 12647 and installed a proofing system to try and get things in sync that way. I have never been happy with how this has gone, no fault of many but i believe it is something that is still very much a sore subject as the lack of information concerning ink levels and the way it was implemented, is something that has made me try and understand further. Too many people are trying to introduce it without actually understanding it fully.
A concern that a printer had today was when we tried to calibrate our CTP system recently, he did not know what ink levels to go to as he tries to go to ISO but all he has is press sign and an xrite i1 which does not seem to do what it is meant to. Why this i do not know, to me its about reading tint from printed work from unlinearized plates and creating a curve with these as CURRENT and setting the ISO dot gain settings as TARGET.
Where i am coming from is that i do not know if over time and quite a few plate changes over the last 2 years, our curves maybe incorrect and maybe causing this problem but as stated earlier, under a glass, the dots look fine.
Right then, hopefully that has given you a better understanding of the background of our actions etc.
To answer some of your quotes, here goes-
Bloodsaler
'Why are you all considering is the Curve?Curve can`t change everything,you`d better check your printing condition first~'
This is something i suggest at times and can get different responses, how do you get your printers to do this knowing what they say is right? That is no offence to the printer but he only knows what he knows etc and as other people use the same equipment, people know their jobs and work in different ways. Totally understanding where you are coming from as we are very critical of what can go wrong on our side, prepress, and have tried to come up with as many problems and ways to make sure we over come them by knowledge but we can only know what we can study or understand.
Michaelejahn
'Seek ye a G7 expert. Ours is Alvaro'
Got no idea of what your going on about there? Lol.
Have heard people go on about something to do with this G7, i may look into it.
Even if they provided you color separations where you have shadow areas with 400% - there are many ink optimization tools that convert the separation to something you can work with.
Without understanding what you workflow and settings are, anyone would have a hard time suggesting what to do - this is where the G7 method helps you understand where you are and get you where you want to be
We are using Prinergy Evo, the settings have been checked by Kodak via site visits and remotely every so often during the last 4 years. We recently upgraded, well start of this year, to the most recent version of Prinergy Evo, version 5. As for the G7 thing, same as above question.
Gordo
You pop up everywhere, hope your well, many thanks again for your input. Your input concerning linaerizing our CTP was very informative and interesting, i have used it to show around the work place to hopefully get people to understand what i am trying to do.
'What halftone screening and lpi are you using? (You may have exceeded the plate capability)'
We use 175 lpi and 2540 dpi, dot shape of Euclidean but it could be one that sounds familiar, i am at home at the moment and do not have access to the RIP.
Does the problem only occur with this one job or does it occur with all jobs?
Overall most jobs are fine but as stated above, i want to recalibrate the press now i have a better understand of what these engineers have attempted to do but seem to have caused problems in some ways. We have had problem with drop shadows or vignettes but after going to a different curve, they have not been to bad. I still think with the technology and equipment we have, we should be getting better, a lot better. It is just getting the time, resources and people to understand what and where i am coming from and trying to do.
Have you checked the customer file to determine if the problem is built in? (You indicate that you haven't checked this)
I have only checked the pdf that prinergy created due to time, i had to change shifts etc so i am trying to get a better understanding for everyone involved in this. What i have seen seems ok but what you get on screen and digi proof does not always reflect in what comes off the press, for what every reason.
Does your proofing typically reflect your presswork?
Usually it is pretty accurate but the paper we use on the proofing machine does not reflect the paper we use on press. I find that even though the profiles of different paper have been inputted into proof sign, Cartridge paper is dull and our proofing paper is semi glossy which looks odd. Passes the proof sign, well used to but recently been having a problem with that, maybe a dodgy roll of paper. This is an area that is a bit open to idea, so to speak. What i understand is that the press use press sign to read the setting etc to balance and achieve ISO readings but i do not know if this has been either working right, followed right, understood right or even implemented right as it is a totally separate department to ours.
Does the job proof correctly?
Yes off digi but obviously not WETS.
Danremaley
I live in England dude and i do not think work would appreciate the long distance phone call but thankyou very much for the offer.
Again, many thanks guys, sorry to have gone on but i hope you all understand a bit more and if you can help further, wow, thankyou.
Phil.
I must stop the pop! Too much time on my hands.
