Prinergy or XMF

[Chip]

We looking to purchase our first workflow. We have a HB SM 74, 2-color press and a HB SM 74 6-color is on the way. We have proposals in hand for both Kodak Achieve 400 with Prinergy and Fuji Dart 4600S with XMF workflow. Both seem like they will work for us, but I am not sure which is the best fit. We are a low volume shop. What questions should I ask and what are the best way to compare the proposals? Any comments are appreciated.

 

[DCurry]

Both are great setups. I think the Dart is really a rebadged Screen machine, and if so they are excellent CTPs and there are lots of techs out there who can service them without having to go through Fuji. Also easier (maybe cheaper?) to get parts when necessary, whereas with the Kodak it's a bit more proprietary. I'm currently running an Achieve 800 with autoloader using Sonora plates and we're happy with it.

I also use Prinergy and it really is the best workflow I've ever used, but in fairness I have not used XMF (though it has a good reputation among its users.) If you spring for Rules-Based Automation (RBA) with Prinergy, it really opens doors with letting you automate all kinds of things, but it is very expensive and it can be complicated to learn in order to get the most value out of it. XMF is probably less expensive up front as well as over the long term based on what I've heard.

See if you can visit a shop that uses Prinergy and one that uses XMF and spend a couple hours with the folks who use it all day. They will tell you what they like and dislike about it. I did that once years ago when shopping workflows and if you can get the salesman out of the room you'll get the straight story from people in the trenches.

 

[Chip]

DCurry, Thanks, good advice. We did visit two shops and have done an online demo of each workflow. But its kind of like going on a test "ride" not "drive" in a car. They both looked good and since I am a rookie with workflows, neither one stands out as being superior. I guess the good news is the hopefully either will work for us.

 

[Joe]

Agree with DCurry on everything. I have used both. XMF works fine but is not as user friendly as Prinergy. The price for XMF upfront and for support contracts are a lot cheaper.

 

[akalaray]

Ask FUJI to Trap an 8.5"x11" Ai. file Turns it in to a Hugh bitmap. The trapping solution is terrible.

 

[iancoulton1974]

Ask FUJI to Trap an 8.5"x11" Ai. file Turns it in to a Hugh bitmap. The trapping solution is terrible.

XMF applies traps when rendering so the only way to get a "trapped PDF" is if you rasterise it.

You CAN control the resolution and antialiasing of the rasterisation, however. The latest version has some new optimisation built in to reduce file size.

I'd hardly call the trapping solution "terrible", I've installed plenty of RealPro workflows (similar to XMF) and I don't hear any complaints about trapping - and I'm the person that would hear the complaints!

Good luck finding your ideal workflow!

Ian

 

[Chip]

Thank you all for the input, I have been reading posts on other boards also. It is not an easy decision. Looks like the accounting people will make the final call, since the software pros and cons seem to level out. Whichever one we get, I am sure that I will be posting usage questions.