Proofing for Flexo

[slehning]

Just curious as to what others are using for proofing for a proof to press match in the Flexo world out there.

I have been in the Commercial Offset World my whole carrier and now I am in Flexo. I have always in the past used Epson printers with a good CM software to drive the color, Profiling to GRACoL.
I am at a company which uses their Indigo Web to proof with, however I am certain that the current profile is not valid.

I see plus and minus in using an Indigo. The Plus side, A.) It is a Dot Proof B.) Able to run proof on actual stock C.) Able to calibrate to stock on press. The Minus side of this is A.) I question the over all consistency of the Indigo from day to day B.) Scheduling proofs around actual production jobs can be a pain. C.) Not able to validate individual proofs as you can with an Epson with an inline spectro.

I have my opinion of what direction I would like to go with, but looking for input on what others are doing for Flexo.


Thanks in Advance.

 

[FlexoGrunt]

In short we use ColorEngine (ESKO Kaleidoscope) and an Epson printer. We also use an EyeOne for measuring the proofs day to day.




the biggest problem I see with Flexo is the press conditions make a HUGE difference on whether or not you hit the proof. Lots and lots of variables.

 

[slehning]

I am beginning to see what you are saying about the variables. I had my 1st awkward conversation with the Flexo press guys when I inquired about CIP 3 and ink key settings. Yeah.

The above mentioned is the direction I am looking towards as well. We have ColorEngine (ESKO Kaleidoscope) to run color strategy on our Indigo. I am looking at getting an Epson with an inline spectro to verify proofs. Before I used Oris color Tuner and Certified Proof. Certified proof verified we were staying within tolerance and auto certified each proof. Do you happen to know if ColorEngine has this capability?

Thanks for the response by the way. It helps.

 

[Slammer]

The color space between a digital press and Flexo is not a million miles apart. Even if you get blank looks from a potato printer when you mention CIP3 etc.
Due to the (ahem) "flexible" nature of Flexo I get the best results with a more generic profile.
Try a device link profile, maybe that could help.

 

[Stephen Marsh]

All of our flexo packaging customers still use the Kodak Approval, as well as inkjet solutions (Epson and Roland).


Stephen Marsh

 

[FlexoGrunt]

The color space between a digital press and Flexo is not a million miles apart. Even if you get blank looks from a potato printer when you mention CIP3 etc.
Due to the (ahem) "flexible" nature of Flexo I get the best results with a more generic profile.
Try a device link profile, maybe that could help.

Using the Indigo is not a bad idea as it's just an output device. Sounds like you just need to profile the presses. Biggest thing is you need your press room on board with your process.


What is the press room currently doing to ensure repeatability? (density readings? LAB readings? Etc.).

 

[Doctor_Blade]

I definitely agree that your A.) Reason on the minus side of the Indigo, it has been their long time problem. Thereby it will be much painful to you to make your proofs on the Indigo, you better find a better output device for your proofs.
If you can get a very consistent process control from plate to press, then Epson will be your best choice.
If you experience too much variation in your variables, take a look at Colorflow from Kodak.