Preflight is a NEED for large-scale print businesses.

[DhavalPX]

I think even small errors can cost print businesses big bucks if they are not caught in prepress. And if it's a large-scale business like commercial printing houses, managing thousands of custom orders/day, automation is not just a want but a need that saves time, guarantees quality & of course saves resources & $$. Hence, preflight software for printing is not optional.

Would like to hear opinions of other people!

 

[gordo]

If the original authoring applications were properly designed there would be no need for preflight software for printing. But, since there is more profit in finding and fixing file problems than in preventing them - we have to have it.
The authoring applications software is operating like dentistry used to be - more profit in filling a cavity than preventing it from occurring in the first place.

 

[chriscozi]

I think even small errors can cost print businesses big bucks if they are not caught in prepress. And if it's a large-scale business like commercial printing houses, managing thousands of custom orders/day, automation is not just a want but a need that saves time, guarantees quality & of course saves resources & $$. Hence, preflight software for printing is not optional.

Would like to hear opinions of other people!

1. Customers are mostly uneducated about printing requirements/specifications. The expense of educating our customers is a cost of doing business. Preflight software does not typically address customer education and would become moot if it succeeded at the task.
2. Automation is wonderful for some aspects of prepress file preparation. Unfortunately very few designers are prepared to allow an automated workflow to decide what their designs should look like. When you create an idiot-proof automated workflow and then rely on it to drive down cost there will magically appear a more sophisticated/better idiot. (Lather, rinse, repeat.)
3. An expert system MIGHT be able to determine when a job falls out of alignment with the specifications and MIGHT be able to realign the art or the specifications with the budget.
4. How will this and the next generation of worker learn the tasks which are beyond the scope of the automation(s)? I have seen first hand how current businesses process-automate themselves right out of their market by dumbing down the operator skill set.
5. There will probably always be processes that can't be automated really well and there will always be work requiring skilled operator intervention. Good preflight automation software should aim to save intervention hours.

I am reminded of the ballad of John Henry.
We are watching in real time as AI (Expert Systems) are beginning to replace skilled technicians in MANY fields.
YMMV.

 

[tngcas]

there will magically appear a more sophisticated/better idiot. (Lather, rinse, repeat.)

I call this trying to out-stupid the customer... it's a losing position but still a worthy goal.

3. An expert system MIGHT be able to determine when a job falls out of alignment with the specifications and MIGHT be able to realign the art or the specifications with the budget.

This, the automation software MIGHT work but 90% of the time each job has too many points of failure. We still need a human to put eyes on each piece to spot those or reprints can cost too much. We will always need skilled operators to check the final output.

Automation is good but I think you have to be careful to not lean too heavily too fast on it or your long term stability will suffer:

1. Making sure that your skilled operators don't lose the "practice" of knowing how to fix things with multiple different tool options available to them.
   • Example: Having multiple options to fix bleeds vs. just one system that does it for you.
2. Redundancy in critical software just like you have redundancy in equipment in your shop (a backup option in case of one piece failing).

As a print shop get busier they can automate more but the end goal should ALWAYS be to make sure you're not becoming reliant on a specific set of tools that doesn't exist in more than one software. Becoming too reliant on "specialized" software/systems is similar to having a supply chain problem. If too much of your supply chain is out of your control and/or not quickly shiftable to a similar supply chain then your business could become reliant on a piece of software outside of your control to repair/fix if it breaks.

What happens when the software co/developer:

1. Goes out of business.
2. Gets bored and switches to something new (common with startups).
3. Changes their business/software model to focus on an aspect of their software you don't use or need.
4. Makes their tools overly complex as they constant pursue feature creep.
5. Suddenly prices themselves out of your reach.

 

[DhavalPX]

I get what y'all saying: preflight software should be used like any other AI or automation technology that is with caution and under a human expert's purview. This can mean it can help with certain mundane tasks like spotting color issues or maybe wrong format of the file or color (CMYK or RGB). But with more complex issues or checks, a human expert is required because currently these technologies can not be 100% relied on.

By the way, has anyone used a preflight software personally or know someone who has? What was the experience like? What issues did it solve for you? Or what was your learnings from it?

 

[Stanislav Rakov]

everyone is trying to automate validation and avoid errors to some degree.
Some are willing to invest in verification and some are not.
If a company keeps track of errors and their cost, it is easier for them to make that decision.

 

[loicaigon]

I get what y'all saying: preflight software should be used like any other AI or automation technology that is with caution and under a human expert's purview. This can mean it can help with certain mundane tasks like spotting color issues or maybe wrong format of the file or color (CMYK or RGB). But with more complex issues or checks, a human expert is required because currently these technologies can not be 100% relied on.

By the way, has anyone used a preflight software personally or know someone who has? What was the experience like? What issues did it solve for you? Or what was your learnings from it?

Hi
When it comes to Preflighting, a few applications come to mind. I will unsurprisingly promote Enfocus PitStop Pro as one of the leading solution on the market used daily but several thousands of users worldwide: PitStop Pro | Enfocus

 

[loicaigon]

If the original authoring applications were properly designed there would be no need for preflight software for printing.

Theoritically, even questionable. I do agree PDF producers should do Print-ready PDFs but even for the most conscious of them, the PDF 1.7 specification leaves room to interpretation. And on top of that, while a PDF may be correct on a technical plan, there might still be some requirements missing. For example, preparing a cut file or an embellishment file.
So Preflighting is here to stay no matter how good a PDF would be.

 

[gordo]

Theoritically, even questionable. I do agree PDF producers should do Print-ready PDFs but even for the most conscious of them, the PDF 1.7 specification leaves room to interpretation. And on top of that, while a PDF may be correct on a technical plan, there might still be some requirements missing. For example, preparing a cut file or an embellishment file.
So Preflighting is here to stay no matter how good a PDF would be.

Truly an unbiased vendor's thoughts.

 

[loicaigon]

Truly an unbiased vendor's thoughts.

I respect that opinion. Allow me to keep thinking about use cases that would still require prepress work. Ensuring a file is ready to be sent to cut, or adding late minute varnish being one of them.

 

[Stanislav Rakov]

Automation systems like Switch, Automation Engine, CloudFlow are very helpful in reducing file checking and preparing files for print, but will not replace humans 100%.
But in modern production, you can't do without them.
Those who do not automatize will not survive.

 

[gordo]

Automation systems like Switch, Automation Engine, CloudFlow are very helpful in reducing file checking and preparing files for print, but will not replace humans 100%.
But in modern production, you can't do without them.
Those who do not automatize will not survive.

Again, that approach is based on fixing problems rather than preventing the problems from occurring in the first place. The issue is not about automation. Again my dentist analogy... automating the detection of, and the filling, of tooth cavities is not the optimal way of dealing with the problem of tooth cavities - unless of course you sell the tools needed to fill those cavities.

 

[loicaigon]

Again, that approach is based on fixing problems rather than preventing the problems from occurring in the first place. The issue is not about automation. Again my dentist analogy... automating the detection of, and the filling, of tooth cavities is not the optimal way of dealing with the problem of tooth cavities - unless of course you sell the tools needed to fill those cavities.

I really don't think we disagree on the statement that as much as possible should be done upfront at the design stage. I just want to make a difference between a PDF technically well built vs a PDF that matches the specific printing requirements.
Another example is number of pages. That a PDF has 3 or 4 pages is not an issue by essence, it's only an issue if you need that number of pages is a multiple of 4. In that case, you expect the designer to care about this. Again my own experience is that most of the printers I talked to make their printing requirements very clear, even offering downloadable templates, only to see people disregard those instructions.
And also many of them take ownership of fixing the file rather than spending time explaining the problem to the buyers.
This is where I think a preflight application is nothing more than a safety belt. And once automated, it really eases the pain.
Our internal figures show that only 9% of incoming files are Print-Ready in average.

 

[MacTwidget]

If the original authoring applications were properly designed there would be no need for preflight software for printing. But, since there is more profit in finding and fixing file problems than in preventing them - we have to have it.
The authoring applications software is operating like dentistry used to be - more profit in filling a cavity than preventing it from occurring in the first place.

I would place more of the ownership on the user of the application rather than the application itself.
Harbor Freight does not make the best tools available but I would not blame them rather than the mechanic that botched the valve job.

 

[tngcas]

Again my own experience is that most of the printers I talked to make their printing requirements very clear, even offering downloadable templates, only to see people disregard those instructions.

That's because they would have to actually READ the instructions. They would also have to have good enough reading comprehension.
Nobody reads anything <insert wailing and gnashing of teeth>

 

[loicaigon]

That's because they would have to actually READ the instructions. They would also have to have good enough reading comprehension.
Nobody reads anything <insert wailing and gnashing of teeth>

I guess same applies in many domains, I call it human nature

 

[Stanislav Rakov]

I get what y'all saying: preflight software should be used like any other AI or automation technology that is with caution and under a human expert's purview. This can mean it can help with certain mundane tasks like spotting color issues or maybe wrong format of the file or color (CMYK or RGB). But with more complex issues or checks, a human expert is required because currently these technologies can not be 100% relied on.

By the way, has anyone used a preflight software personally or know someone who has? What was the experience like? What issues did it solve for you? Or what was your learnings from it?

I've tried:
1) Switch + PitStop Server, but it is not self-sufficient.
It can check layouts, tweak them and upload them somewhere, but there is no Step and Repeat or Nesting.
2) Esko Automation Engine, it has a built-in PitStop Server.
I also use Art Ppo Plus as a PDF editor.
It has
- all automation features and integration with MIS, xml, json, api, jdf
- Has its own Nesting for large formatting
- Advanced Step and Repeat for Labels
Has Esko Rip, very advanced with good Rasters
I like this Set quite well, completely self-sufficient for full automation.

 

[loicaigon]

I've tried:
1) Switch + PitStop Server, but it is not self-sufficient.
It can check layouts, tweak them and upload them somewhere, but there is no Step and Repeat or Nesting.

You are right for Nesting but you can achieve Step and Repeat in some form.
But it is true that PitStop is not an imposition specific software.