Pressroom Headaches

[G7prIHMPS]

Hello All, I work for a large UV packaging printing company in the midwest. We have four large format offset presses that are UV only and we are currently running all four off of the same output curves from prepress. We also have two 40" presses that each have there own curves. Our large format machines have repeatability issues as well as difficulty matching one another. We also unfortunately accept third party proofs as color contract proofs. This is something that I am not used to and it is creating an excessive amount of down time as well as additional "workflow curves". This is a managing nightmare in pre-press. The downtime is typically due to the need for an adjusted curve to match on press. It is my past experience to have press curves set to each individual press. Our presses print between four to five percent different in the 25%, 50%, and 75% areas. The need for scheduling flexibility is the reasoning behind this theory that we can produce componet or companioning peices on any press. We have established standards to run to but rarely if at all are we able to do so. The "run to the numbers" theory works, I have implemented it before after G7 certification in a previous position, but you have to be consistant and dialed in to do so. Getting upper level management to understand, this is the battle. Any suggestions?

 

[meddington]

The need for scheduling flexibility is the reasoning behind this theory that we can produce componet or companioning peices on any press.

This isn't uncommon, and its a bit of a catch 22. Each press might have individual characteristics, but is using a common curve to allow for "scheduling flexibility", that right? With this though, there could be a compromise in quality/accuracy between presses than if they each were adjusted to the same target, and perhaps press operators spend more time in make ready than they otherwise would. My opinion is that CTP can usually allow for JIT production of plates, so why not customize the curves for the press?

As far as third party contract proofs, you could require that proofs meet a certain criteria (with reasonably defined tolerances) before agreeing to honor them.

 

[jnate]

Multiple Problems - Multiple Solutions

Multiple Problems - Multiple Solutions

Well, you have multiple problems here. The problem with the presses not matching could be resolved by implementing the G7 process at your facility to bring the output from each press into a common specification. This also demands effective pressroom controls and well maintained presses. How well do you feel your presses are run and maintained?

As to the proofs, I agree that one solution is to demand that a proof meet certain requirements although demanding that the proofs are certified to a standard such as GRACoL could be a bit problematic. Many of your suppliers eyes may glaze over when you discuss the details. Another option may be to implement a "normalization" procedure in your prepress department where all incoming files are processed to convert them from the customers proof space to your standard space, e.g. GRACoL. This would also take a bit of training for your clients to ensure they consistently do whatever they do. They will, of course, claim that they do but this is rarely the case as they seldom understand all the items and tasks that they perform that will impact your color matching ability.

As to convincing management to adopt any change themselves, you stated that you have experience in implementing G7 in your former company. Detail your experience there especially as it relates to cost and time savings and see what kind of push-back you get. If no one wants to make any changes or rock the boat you may be forced to buy the company force the changes yourself.

John Nate
Chromaticity, Inc.

 

[meddington]

Another option may be to implement a "normalization" procedure in your prepress department where all incoming files are processed to convert them from the customers proof space to your standard space, e.g. GRACoL..

The ability to normalize files that differ from your color space is beneficial, but unfortunately it might be presumptive to assume that the proof is accurate to the customers proof space. I think you still would want verification that the proof is accurate to whatever space its supposed to be emulating.

If no one wants to make any changes or rock the boat you may be forced to buy the company force the changes yourself

Quote of the day.

 

[jnate]

The ability to normalize files that differ from your color space is beneficial, but unfortunately it might be presumptive to assume that the proof is accurate to the customers proof space. I think you still would want verification that the proof is accurate to whatever space its supposed to be emulating.

I agree, but the problem is that while the proof may not match any standard, the proof now represents what the client desires the final product to look like. As long as their proofing space is within the gamut of your press, as long as their proofing system is consistent from proof to proof, day to day, as long as you can profile their proofing system, as long as their applications are configured appropriately, and as long as their workflow is consistent, normaliztion should work. Now, if only a client like that actually existed...

John Nate

 

[meddington]

I agree, but the problem is that while the proof may not match any standard, the proof now represents what the client desires the final product to look like. As long as their proofing space is within the gamut of your press, as long as their proofing system is consistent from proof to proof, day to day, as long as you can profile their proofing system, as long as their applications are configured appropriately, and as long as their workflow is consistent, normaliztion should work. Now, if only a client like that actually existed...

...or you could ask them to print an entire it8/7.4 target on each proof.