proofers

[rbailleu]

what do most people do for proofing. since heidelberg doesn't support the latest proofers, do most people use a third party rip solution. if so whats the most popular. or just live with the old proofers.

 

[Slammer]

Hard or soft proof, for me personaly if I do not have to send a hardcopy I use FirstProof from Hamillroad it is pretty acurate.

 

[toronar]

We use an Epson 9600 for our proofs.
But a lot of newer models are supported, too - not the latest and greatest, but this is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Vee]

But a lot of newer models are supported, too - not the latest and greatest, but this is not necessarily a bad thing.

Bingo. Latest and greatest aren't always the best idea for consistent production.
If memory serves me correct, the latest Epsons will be supported as of Feb-March'ish 2009. So expect to see an update soon.

 

[Niels]

Hi,
Running 10 Epson 4800 today (internal and remote proofing) and waiting for the 7900 models to drop in. We're using GMG Flexoproof for color management but the ouput module only supports 8 CMYK's today. The Green and Orange, which we NEED in a hexachrome printing environment, will only be supported in a couple of months. I don't expect anything usefull before summer. I ran some tests on the 7900 last week with the build in Spectrophotometer, a blessing for managing the remote proofing setups.

niels

 

[meddington]

] I ran some tests on the 7900 last week with the build in Spectrophotometer, a blessing for managing the remote proofing setups.

Not to hijack the thread, but...are you doing remote (over internet) proofing driving the spectro, or remote (LAN) proofing? If the former, do you have an application on the client side, or are you communicating with the spectro via internet? Just curious as too the feasability of driving the spectro from the host site over WAN.

 

[Niels]

We do remote proofing over internet, the calibartion is done on a central location, we just have the calibration sheets send to us, we recalibrate and use the calibration profile again for proofing --a work around but pretty tight. Driving the spectrophotometer over internet is indeed the challenge...we never succeeded in making that work properly. As we try to base our solutions on standard modules and products we haven't done any programming ourselves..but, Epson to the rescue, can't wait for this solution.

 

[meddington]

We do remote proofing over internet, the calibartion is done on a central location, we just have the calibration sheets send to us, we recalibrate and use the calibration profile again for proofing --a work around but pretty tight. Driving the spectrophotometer over internet is indeed the challenge...we never succeeded in making that work properly. As we try to base our solutions on standard modules and products we haven't done any programming ourselves..but, Epson to the rescue, can't wait for this solution.

That's been our experience as well...snail-mail cal targets back to host. Inelegant, but effective. There are other options, but for completely client hands-off, this is still the best. That is unless driving the spectro over WAN can be achieved. Out IT guy says he can do it...but we don't have a printer with an on-board spectro at a remote location...yet.

 

[Niels]

That is the good thing about the GMG FlexoProof software (Home of Color : GMGColor). Their new version 5 makes it possible to do just that. It can keep track of the calibration status of the Epson 7900, local and off-site. The machine itself can be setup to run active calibrations at specific time and date but it can also check per proof it is out of range, it even has a 'holiday' schedule when it's not going to be used for some time it will self maintain through that period. Again something that is usefull as not all of our customers have a high through put on the machines.
Our experience is that the Epson proofers are so stable that we only calibrate every 4-6 weeks. The average DeltaE gap is between 1-3, which is acceptable for our customers. Of course we aim for maximum control and the Epson-GMG solution seems to be spot on again.

 

[janezl]

Rob, which printers exactly, are "latest" one?

Janez

 

[rbailleu]

well the epsons I was considering the 7880 and the 7900

I currently run an hp 130nr I bought from heidelberg

 

[mannyx]

We just bought 7900 2 weeks ago because we really appreciate the CMYKOG ink... but our EFI rip supplier still developing the patch for the 2 special color which is orange and green... so its not yet good to use it for proofing specially in CMYK because the color output is different to 7880... my advice is please check to your RIP supplier if the patch is already ok for 7900 or else you will encounter problem in light color specially in cmyk because the gamut is big and cannot controlled because of the rip.

 

[marktonk]

The Epson x880 series are supported with Meta 7.0 and in addition, the x900 series are supported with Meta 7.5.

Regards,

 

[rbailleu]

thanks mark.
I think I will be getting ppm4.5 installed next monday. I hope it has the appe2.0 as well.

Do you have an opinion on the new proofers? Which brand do you consider to be the best?

 

[PrintMediaGuy]

I've yet to see an inkjet proof that holds a candle to a genuine dot proof such as a Fuji. I think the inkjets have lowered proofing standards and created more problems than they have solved. We do all of our color critical work on dot proofers.

 

[Ritter]

If you are going Inkjet Epson is by far the leader. Last time I went proofer shopping Agfa and Fuji were both rebadging Epson 7xxx and 9xxx models and reselling them along with the proofers they had developed on their own [i.e. sherpa, or the dot proofers printmediaguy is speaking of]. I actually bought a 9800 a few years ago through a vendor who primarily sells Fuji plates, chemicals and it came with a kit instructing me how to remove the epson labels on the machine and to replace them with fuji ones. I got quite a chuckle out of that.

 

[marktonk]

We have the drivers for allot of different printers. Currently, we offer both HP and Epson series printers. They both have their own attributes so I would recommend you talk to your HD Sale Rep on that.

As for dot proofs, you can change dot gain to be heavier or lighter but you can not really color manage them. For commercial printing, my experience is a properly color managed proof will be closer to the press sheet then a dot proof. The cost of the ink jet proof is also lower and the output engine is generally faster. I guess you can have inks formulated to be closer to the dot proof colors and that would help the dot proof. The IPA had several proofing comparison over the years at their seminars in Chicago and this did show how good the color managed ink jet proofs are.



Regards,

Mark

 

[rbailleu]

thanks mark, its too bad more heidelberg employee's dont visit this site.

 

[marktonk]

Hey Rob,

I missed one of your questions. When you upgrade to Prepress Manager 4.5, you will also be upgrading Signa Station to version 4.5 and MetaDimension. Meta will be 7.5 and yes it has the lastest Adobe PDF Print Engine available and also the lastest CPSI.

Regards,

Mark

 

[meddington]

I've yet to see an inkjet proof that holds a candle to a genuine dot proof such as a Fuji. I think the inkjets have lowered proofing standards and created more problems than they have solved. We do all of our color critical work on dot proofers.

Under what criteria are you judging inkjet proofs? Ability to render accurate color, or render dots? With the right set up and target data, inkjets are certainly competitive, if not surpassing accuracy of halftone proofers. Our inkjet proofs are visually and numerically more accurate press side than a Kodak Approval.