What's happening with G7 Master printers
- Thread starter gordo
- Start date
Bret Hesler
Well-known member
My guess is a combination of economic factors and a lack of customers requiring printers to be certified. My current employer sees value in the G7 process, but not as much in the certification. Faced with losing a customer that decides certification is mandatory, I'm sure the equation would change.
Bret
Bret
gordo
Well-known member
Yes that's what it says in the description, however, from the bottom of the listings on that page it (today) says: "Now displaying records 1 to 15 of 485. **Next 15 >>>"
Either way it's still close to 50% that have let their certification expire. Which gives you a total of about 220 currently certified G7 printers worldwide.
My question is more around printers letting their certification expire.
Do they see marketing value in being currently certified?
Is it a case of once certified there is no ROI for doing it on an annual basis. I.e. the cost of recertification is not worth the prospective value?
Do they stop using G7 methodology after awhile - i.e. go back to what they were doing before.
ETC.
best, gordon p
Last edited:
Gordo,
This is the story of just one prepress technician and printer.
Our place never got certified. It took my boss a long long time (years) before he decided to go to GRACoL2006_Coated1v2 using G7 method - years after I recommended it.
Did I recommend getting IDEAlink Curve 2? Yes. Did I recommend getting a G7 Expert in here? Yes. They did neither, but we still got to where I/we were aiming for, so I see it as a win even if we don't get to advertise that we are G7 Master Printers. We are ISO-compliant per being in tolerances.
I built my own calculator from the freely available math, so I didn't need IDEAlink Curve. They never did get a G7 Expert in here. So we never even got certified.
Having said that, we are now proofing and printing to both GRACoL2006_Coated1v2, and also to the beta uncoated profile.
Finances were the reason we didn't go the certification route. I figure many printers are having a hard time with finances.
Having said that, I think the G7 method is excellent. You combine control of density, tone curve (NPDC), and gray balance all in one patch. Two patches for process control. Nice.
Would you think that printers that have already set the press up and been certified, just quit using the process control? It's just that they're already set up. Why do they need to be told they are doing what they can now check themselves and know that they're doing right? Lab in tolerances for solids and overprints. NPDC in tolerances at 25,50, and 75. Gray balance - I don't even know if it has a tolerance, but if they've been trained or read documentation, they know what they're aiming for at least.
The pressman here still doesn't completely get why we're doing this, because TVI curves I came up with using Bruce Lindbloom's freely available LabDotGainCalculator have had the pressman matching the coated and uncoated proofs for the last 3 months before I got the spectro needed to do Lab part of G7 method to set up press using G7 (and before uncoated beta came out, ran to GRACoL2006_Coated1v2 proof for years before that, when requested by one customer). But for process control, I like G7. He will use G7, because the boss will make it happen, because I have trained the boss on the essentials.
But if someone is just wanting to match a proof, and they don't care as much about gray balance (because they don't print a lot of 3/C grays), then you may be out of tolerance on solids, NPDC, and gray balance, and can still get a press sheet to proof match without G7. If I hadn't seen it consistently done, I couldn't make that assertion. But like I said, I've seen it done consistently over a long period of time.
But since I've set up using G7 now (automated the manual FanGraph method), do you think I'm going back to the other way? Why would I? I've got numbers for process control with two readings, and can easily tell the pressman the black is too low, for example. He sees it and has to agree and make the change. He knows what the targets are. He knows I can check it at any point even after he prints it. He know my boss can too. He knows the customer could. This gives incentive to do the right things if we know what the right things are, and if we know that these same parameters can be checked later on for compliance.
Regards,
Don
This is the story of just one prepress technician and printer.
Our place never got certified. It took my boss a long long time (years) before he decided to go to GRACoL2006_Coated1v2 using G7 method - years after I recommended it.
Did I recommend getting IDEAlink Curve 2? Yes. Did I recommend getting a G7 Expert in here? Yes. They did neither, but we still got to where I/we were aiming for, so I see it as a win even if we don't get to advertise that we are G7 Master Printers. We are ISO-compliant per being in tolerances.
I built my own calculator from the freely available math, so I didn't need IDEAlink Curve. They never did get a G7 Expert in here. So we never even got certified.
Having said that, we are now proofing and printing to both GRACoL2006_Coated1v2, and also to the beta uncoated profile.
Finances were the reason we didn't go the certification route. I figure many printers are having a hard time with finances.
Having said that, I think the G7 method is excellent. You combine control of density, tone curve (NPDC), and gray balance all in one patch. Two patches for process control. Nice.
Would you think that printers that have already set the press up and been certified, just quit using the process control? It's just that they're already set up. Why do they need to be told they are doing what they can now check themselves and know that they're doing right? Lab in tolerances for solids and overprints. NPDC in tolerances at 25,50, and 75. Gray balance - I don't even know if it has a tolerance, but if they've been trained or read documentation, they know what they're aiming for at least.
The pressman here still doesn't completely get why we're doing this, because TVI curves I came up with using Bruce Lindbloom's freely available LabDotGainCalculator have had the pressman matching the coated and uncoated proofs for the last 3 months before I got the spectro needed to do Lab part of G7 method to set up press using G7 (and before uncoated beta came out, ran to GRACoL2006_Coated1v2 proof for years before that, when requested by one customer). But for process control, I like G7. He will use G7, because the boss will make it happen, because I have trained the boss on the essentials.
But if someone is just wanting to match a proof, and they don't care as much about gray balance (because they don't print a lot of 3/C grays), then you may be out of tolerance on solids, NPDC, and gray balance, and can still get a press sheet to proof match without G7. If I hadn't seen it consistently done, I couldn't make that assertion. But like I said, I've seen it done consistently over a long period of time.
But since I've set up using G7 now (automated the manual FanGraph method), do you think I'm going back to the other way? Why would I? I've got numbers for process control with two readings, and can easily tell the pressman the black is too low, for example. He sees it and has to agree and make the change. He knows what the targets are. He knows I can check it at any point even after he prints it. He know my boss can too. He knows the customer could. This gives incentive to do the right things if we know what the right things are, and if we know that these same parameters can be checked later on for compliance.
Regards,
Don
Curtis Johnson
New member
Don,
Inspiring story; keep up the great work.
Inspiring story; keep up the great work.
Curtis,
Thanks man. I try. Having said what I said, if I could have gotten them to buy IDEAlink Curve 2 (which they looked like they might until I contacted to ask questions about IDEAlink Curve and was told I needed an expert, which the boss didn't want to pay for one to come out, and so talk of IDEAlink Curve also went by the wayside unfortunately).
If I could have been left out of it and let IDEAlink Curve 2 and a G7 Expert deal with my boss and pressman, I would have. But now that it's done, I'm just glad it's done.
Regards,
Don
Thanks man. I try. Having said what I said, if I could have gotten them to buy IDEAlink Curve 2 (which they looked like they might until I contacted to ask questions about IDEAlink Curve and was told I needed an expert, which the boss didn't want to pay for one to come out, and so talk of IDEAlink Curve also went by the wayside unfortunately).
If I could have been left out of it and let IDEAlink Curve 2 and a G7 Expert deal with my boss and pressman, I would have. But now that it's done, I'm just glad it's done.
Regards,
Don
We originally did it because very few people were on the list but mainly to establish some kind of proofing that we could hit. We kept trying to match stuff we did in the past either with film or our old GTO till it got to the point we had no clue as to what to expect from our machine. We had idealiance come in and do the whole thing mainly to train us on how to do it. When our certification expired we could not get it to work again due to aging rollers on our SM52 and we could not afford to replace them due to the economy. We now have the rollers and we are once again compliant now it is to pay the next year of certification.
A few points I would make. First of all, a printer gets "qualified" as a G7 Master Printer NOT "certified". G7 Experts get certified - G7 Master Printers get qualified. Secondly, the Curve2 software used to have the name IDEALink in it but is now just called Curve2.
As a G7 Expert who has done many Master Printer qualifications I think there are several factors in why printers are not re-qualifying. The first, and I think biggest, contributing factor is they are not notified that their status is about to (or already has) expire. I have spoken with the IDEAlliance about this and they have indicated to me that they are going to put a better plan in place to notify G7 Master Printers in advance of their expiration date. So who's responsibility is it to remember to re-submit every year? The printer, who was undoubtedly told when they were originally qualified? The IDEAlliance, who handles the program? Or the G7 Expert who did the submission? For me, I've made a point to continually refer to the Master Printer database to check my clients status and contact them when it is getting close to expiration. I would say that ultimately it's the printers responsibility.
The cost to re-qualify is only $95 if you are still current - and I believe (Don't hold it against me if I'm wrong!) is $95 even up to 90 days past the expiration date. After that it is treated like a brand new qualification NOT a re-qualification and all fee's apply. Now, the G7 Master Printer still CANNOT do the submission themselves - they need a G7 Expert to submit data and press sheets/proofs on their behalf. I personally do this for my clients remotely for a nominal fee - if they can provide me with everything I need to submit without any additional on-site training and/or service. My point is that it costs far less to re-qualify than to go through the entire process again.
And lastly, I think that many printers got qualified as G7 Master Printers for the wrong reasons. In my opinion, the benefit is in buying into the process and embracing it - NOT to do it one time so you can use the logo for sales and marketing purposes but never really adopt GRACoL/G7 and faithfully adhere to it. So, I think, a lot of the companies who are not re-qualifying never bought into it fully anyway and we're all probably better off if they don't re-qualify. This way the true G7 Master Printers will reap the rewards once the "wannabe's" have dropped out.
As a G7 Expert who has done many Master Printer qualifications I think there are several factors in why printers are not re-qualifying. The first, and I think biggest, contributing factor is they are not notified that their status is about to (or already has) expire. I have spoken with the IDEAlliance about this and they have indicated to me that they are going to put a better plan in place to notify G7 Master Printers in advance of their expiration date. So who's responsibility is it to remember to re-submit every year? The printer, who was undoubtedly told when they were originally qualified? The IDEAlliance, who handles the program? Or the G7 Expert who did the submission? For me, I've made a point to continually refer to the Master Printer database to check my clients status and contact them when it is getting close to expiration. I would say that ultimately it's the printers responsibility.
The cost to re-qualify is only $95 if you are still current - and I believe (Don't hold it against me if I'm wrong!) is $95 even up to 90 days past the expiration date. After that it is treated like a brand new qualification NOT a re-qualification and all fee's apply. Now, the G7 Master Printer still CANNOT do the submission themselves - they need a G7 Expert to submit data and press sheets/proofs on their behalf. I personally do this for my clients remotely for a nominal fee - if they can provide me with everything I need to submit without any additional on-site training and/or service. My point is that it costs far less to re-qualify than to go through the entire process again.
And lastly, I think that many printers got qualified as G7 Master Printers for the wrong reasons. In my opinion, the benefit is in buying into the process and embracing it - NOT to do it one time so you can use the logo for sales and marketing purposes but never really adopt GRACoL/G7 and faithfully adhere to it. So, I think, a lot of the companies who are not re-qualifying never bought into it fully anyway and we're all probably better off if they don't re-qualify. This way the true G7 Master Printers will reap the rewards once the "wannabe's" have dropped out.
Last edited:
TerryWyse
Well-known member
Finances CAN'T be the reason for the lack of re-QUALIFICACTION (there are 0% of printers G7 CERTIFIED since it doesn't exist...pet peeve of mine that so many refer to it as a certification). Re-qualification is only about $100. I can see there being some resistance for first-time G7 qualifications as the initial fee is around $1,000 but to re-qualify is a mere pittance in my opinion.
I suspect it's because most printers don't KNOW that their G7 qualification has expired, either because they haven't been notified or the notice (if any) isn't going to the right person.
When I became aware of this a few months ago, I started making a point of letting my G7 customers know that either their qualication has expired or they're within a couple of months of that happening.
Regards,
Terry
I suspect it's because most printers don't KNOW that their G7 qualification has expired, either because they haven't been notified or the notice (if any) isn't going to the right person.
When I became aware of this a few months ago, I started making a point of letting my G7 customers know that either their qualication has expired or they're within a couple of months of that happening.
Regards,
Terry
Last edited:
Bret Hesler
Well-known member
Well, you have certified proofing systems and certified experts, ...
As far as costs, you also have too look at membership dues, ($690 for network membership, more for full membership, certification fees for your in-house G7 professional, or fees for an expert to submit the renewal.)
Bottom line is that even $100 is a waste if your customers are not requiring you to be qualified as a G7 Master printer. I am not against the G7 methodology, qualification, or standards in general, but my employer simply sees no return on the cost of being Qualified.
Bret
tmiller_iluvprinting
Well-known member
Not true. A printer can submit press sheets and proofs as long as their original submission was handled by a G7 Expert, they are a member of the G7 Network, and they have a qualified G7 Professional on staff.
Regards,
Todd
Dan DeSimoni
New member
They will wait until their customers demand that they be listed as a current G7 Master before they receive the next print job
gordo
Well-known member
In my experience many printers when asked by their customer whether they are G7/GRACoL qualified/certified are quite comfortable answering that they print to the GRACoL 7 specification (whether or not they are qualified G7 Masters). And most of the print customers who ask seem happy to accept that answer.
IDEAlliance says that the G7 Masters qualification program identifies those printing companies, prepress service providers and agencies who have been trained to use the G7 Proof-to-Print Process and can produce proofs or can print to G7.
(Interesting that they use the term "G7" as if it was a target rather than a method to achieve a target.)
It appears they are qualifying a printer on the method they use rather than their ability to hit a target (e.g. GRACoL7). So, if I used my own methods to calibrate my printing to align to GRACoL, I couldn't be listed as a Master Printer because I didn't use G7.
Hope I'm not too confused. gordon p
dimitri
Well-known member
I can confirm that: Lack of notification was the reason we did not re-qualify in time. After we missed the first re-qualification deadline it became complicated to figure out what happened 6 months ago when the re-qualification expired. It becomes even more complicated because there is a network membership fee that needs to be paid in addition to the re-qualification... so first we had to figure out that there was a difference, then what exactly did we owe, and then track down POs and sales receipts at Idealliance, our accounting department, and that of the "expert" that mailed the press sheets to idealliance for his fee. Complete mess! I think Idealliance lately hired someone to help them out however!
This thread tells me that at least it is not only me that cannot keep track of bureaucracy!
This thread tells me that at least it is not only me that cannot keep track of bureaucracy!
TerryWyse
Well-known member
No Gordo, there's MASS confusion out there as to what is G7, GRACoL, etc......as I'm sure you're aware.
I'm frankly tired of constantly correcting folks as to nuances of certification vs. qualification, G7 vs. GRACoL, etc....but for the record:
G7 is not GRACoL and GRACoL doesn't necessarily require G7. G7 is a *method* of near neutral and tone curve calibration and that's about it. It can also be described as a *target* but the target is only A) colorimetric gray balance relative to substrate and B) a tonal curve described by either visual density or L* (but NOT dot gain/TVI). In my view, colorimetric specifications for solid ink colorimetry and overprints is inappropriate for G7 UNLESS it's discussed in the context of a "standard" such as ISO 12647-2. G7 as a calibration method does not...or should not...dictate ink colorimetry unless you're combining the G7 method with some other set of target conditions. In other words, you can be printing to "G7 specifications" but this doesn't mean you're printing to GRACoL, SWOP or any other characterization data set/colorimetry. On the other hand, if you're printing to the GRACoL Coated1, SWOP Coated 3/5 data sets/specification, you're by definition printing to G7 specs...but you don't necessarily have to use the G7 *method* to do that. For example, use of device links is a viable method to to print to the GRACoL Coated1 or SWOP Coated3/5 specification. It's possibly *desirable* to first calibrate the press using the G7 method prior to profiling the press for use with a device link profile.....but it's not a *requirement*. I've profiled/device linked presses using both methods ("raw" or linear profile vs. "calibrated" or G7-curved profile) and the results are about the same.
To complicate things further, the term "G7" originally referred to "G=Gray" plus the colorimetry for the 7 primary/secondary inks (CMYK+RGB). This is slightly misleading in my opinion as there isn't a *single* definition for ink colorimetry. There's at least 3 currently (GRACoL1, SWOP3, SWOP5) and likely a 4th will be added soon for uncoated stocks. And if you're printing "extended gamut" G7, there really is no specific ink colorimetry target at all that I'm aware of. If you want to print extended gamut G7, you're free to set your own ink specifications as long as you're using the G7 method for gray/tone calibration (NPDC).
...did I just add to the confusion??
Regards,
Terry
tmiller_iluvprinting
Well-known member
Well done Terry! As the whole G7 qualification program evolves, I think we all hope that this will become less complicated and easier to comprehend. In the meantime, Gordon, participate in a G7 Training session and spend a couple days with Don Hutcheson to clear up any remaining confusion(seriously, the training is well worth it!)
Best regards,
Todd
Best regards,
Todd
gordo
Well-known member
Todd, I attended 5 of the GRACoL7 characterization press runs that Don (and group) conducted, and have sat through several of Don's seminars on G7. While I think that the goal was good - I was not impressed by the methodology being employed - either the process itself, the principles on which it is based, or the way in which it was managed and conducted by a small group within the committee. Thankfully I wasn't the only one who felt that way. What I saw being done caused me great concern and since I could not change it, or even influence the direction the group within the group was taking, I rescinded my membership in the idealliance committee.
Anyway, that's all ink under the press now. I ask these questions to make sure that my understanding is correct because it's not clear in the idealliance materials and many folks who post here make statements that are confusing because they don't always use the terminology correctly or consistently.
best, gordon p
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 16349
Guest
Gordon, you made the right decision to leave.
Such complication. I am a bit too simple for such complication.
For a given press, ink, paper and screen set combination, the press prints the same way no matter what different curves are applied to the data in the files. If it didn't one would not be able to have a reasonably predictable process.
Why is there this great need to make things much more complicated than they need to be and provide solutions that are not always effective?
As an engineer, it tend to look for general solutions that are workable for any situation instead of solutions that only work if every factor in the process is the same.
Similar threads
InSoft Automation
|
InSoft Automation Unveils Imp Version 14
Revolutionizing Layout Planning and Automation InSoft Automation announces the launch of Imp Version 14, the latest iteration of its industry-leading cost-based layout planning software. Packed with cutting-edge features, this release redefines efficiency, automation, and workflow optimization for printing and finishing processes. Learn more……. |
