Printing "Cleaner"

[vaugh6288]

We recently produced a repeat job for a customer that had originally been produced by a competitor. We were in the middle of a press heck when the customer pulled out the previous printed sample. We were pretty close but the competitor's print was simply cleaner. We were printing the same artwork etc on a very comparable sheet. Our press was calibrated to G7 tolerances and fresh water/ blankets were on the press. What would cause a "cleaner" print from one printer to the next? Screen rule? Dot gain?

Thanks!

 

[gordo]

We recently produced a repeat job for a customer that had originally been produced by a competitor. We were in the middle of a press heck when the customer pulled out the previous printed sample. We were pretty close but the competitor's print was simply cleaner. We were printing the same artwork etc on a very comparable sheet. Our press was calibrated to G7 tolerances and fresh water/ blankets were on the press. What would cause a "cleaner" print from one printer to the next? Screen rule? Dot gain?

Thanks!

Printing "cleaner" is a meaningless term. Anyone who uses it should be forced to take a shower to learn what "cleaner" actually means.

You need to determine what is the actual difference between the original presswork and what you've done. It would help if your client could supply you with an untrimmed press sheet so that you could measure and compare things like SIDs, dot gains, and dot integrity between the original and what you've done. In hindsight it probably would have been good to have requested the original untrimmed press sheet when the job was first quoted.
BTW, didn't you make a proof? How does your presswork compare to your proof? If your presswork aligns to your proof then your customer has nothing to complain about. If he can't supply you with an untrimmed press sheet it would be nearly impossible to figure out the differences.
G7 has nothing to do with the issue.

Gordo

 

[kansasquaker]

Gordo, you give the customer way too much credit. Anybody who pulls out a previously printed sample for the first time during a press check probably doesn't understand printing at all. We see it regularly. So we try to educate. But I'd say 75% of them are unwilling to learn and can easily be offended. Why do they approve proofs that don't match their previous sample? I have no idea, but it happens all the time. You hear phrases like "yeah, I didn't like that color on the proof, but I figured we'd fix it on press."

It's sad, but usually we're stuck looking at whatever we can find on that one sample and altering SIDs or creating new plates to match as best as possible.

 

[gordo]

Gordo, you give the customer way too much credit. Anybody who pulls out a previously printed sample for the first time during a press check probably doesn't understand printing at all. We see it regularly. So we try to educate. But I'd say 75% of them are unwilling to learn and can easily be offended. Why do they approve proofs that don't match their previous sample? I have no idea, but it happens all the time. You hear phrases like "yeah, I didn't like that color on the proof, but I figured we'd fix it on press."

It's sad, but usually we're stuck looking at whatever we can find on that one sample and altering SIDs or creating new plates to match as best as possible.

I wasn't intending to give the customer any credit at all. I was trying to instil some professional backbone into the printshop. You can't educate someone who doesn't want to learn - but you can be professional about your relationship with the customer and their projects rather than acquiescing to their every whim. In this case there appears to be a failure at the sales level, and/or the estimating level, and/or the CSR level, and/or the production planner level, and/or the prepress level. There likely wasn't a failure at the press level.

best, gordo

 

[Fatboysmart]

Don't forget your print was still wet, and the customers sample bone dry... might make a difference. Also i have found printing alcohol free sometimes gives a crisper result.

 

[dabob]

I would think it could have something to with the screening technology -
I know this goes back a ways but when we moved from agfa balanced screening to a Heidelberg Hercules imagesetter with Linotype/Hell irrational screening there was a visual improvement printing the same job and then when we went CTP again with Heidelberg we noticed another level of improvement, each step could have been described as a cleaner or crisper print. . .

 

[gordo]

I would think it could have something to with the screening technology -
I know this goes back a ways but when we moved from agfa balanced screening to a Heidelberg Hercules imagesetter with Linotype/Hell irrational screening there was a visual improvement printing the same job and then when we went CTP again with Heidelberg we noticed another level of improvement, each step could have been described as a cleaner or crisper print. . .

There was a (very) slight difference between Heidelberg's hardware-based Irrational Screening (IS) and the software-based IS screening. The difference was that the hardware-based screening had slightly greater angular accuracy for non-rational screen angles e.g. 15° and 75°. But I believe that hardware screening technology ended in the late 80s/early 90s. HD's software screening is supercell screening - virtually indistinguishable from any other vendor's supercell screening e.g. Agfa Balanced Screening.

Sorry but it is highly unlikely that whatever it is that you describe as "cleaner" or "crisper" print is in any way related to the halftone screening or to the CtP device plates are imaged on.

gordo

 

[Alois Senefelder]

Image Sharpness

Image Sharpness

Gentlemen,


A PDF, which I hope will be of interest and value.


Regards, Alois

 

[TigerPress]

With all due respect to gordo, I would say that most people see less dot gain as printing cleaner. Assuming your press is in reasonable condition, the paper is similar to the last print and you are printing the same linescreen, the difference is probably in the gain curve. You could experiment with a negative gain curve (say 2-5% for coated, 5-10% for uncoated) on an upcoming job that is not color critical. You might find that it fits your printing conditions better than linear. If you are currently using a positive gain curve, then reduce or eliminate it. Having less dot will also allow you to print with a higher ink density which some customers like. (That would be the laymen term "more pop")

 

[gordo]

With all due respect to gordo, I would say that most people see less dot gain as printing cleaner.

"Cleaner" is a meaningless term. Dot gain is not relevant. What is important is tone reproduction. What tones are requested vs what tones are delivered.

Assuming your press is in reasonable condition, the paper is similar to the last print and you are printing the same linescreen, the difference is probably in the gain curve. You could experiment with a negative gain curve (say 2-5% for coated, 5-10% for uncoated) on an upcoming job that is not color critical.

Tone reproduction/ dot gain is not a subject of experimentation. It's measurable, and deterministic. All you need is a current tone reproduction curve, a target, and it's quite simple to create a compensation curve.

You might find that it fits your printing conditions better than linear. If you are currently using a positive gain curve, then reduce or eliminate it. Having less dot will also allow you to print with a higher ink density which some customers like. (That would be the laymen term "more pop")

Ridiculous.