Proof or Consequences
2018-06-27 22:01:16
In the printing industry, there are always problems that cannot be solved perfectly. The problem with fonts is a typical example. It manifests itself from the early days of the application of desktop publishing systems and still hinders the progress of many jobs today.
Similarly, digital proofing faces many challenges. Any kind of product is not applicable to all users. The focus of all the debate now is on digital color proofing. What is the best or even acceptable method? Different opinions often come from the needs of different printers/prepress operators/customers.
After all, this is a subjective process. A certain level of proof may only be accepted by a particular user group or special application, but it cannot meet the needs of Other users. Regardless of their application is the same.
There are several main factors in whether a proof is accepted, but the main thing is whether the proof can completely represent the final print. To do this, take certain risks. In general, the closer a sample is to features on the print (such as colors, dots, substrates, spot colors, etc.), the higher the cost will be. On the contrary, the less investment in proofing, the more likely it is that printed matter and proofs will differ greatly. This also inevitably causes waste.
The most attractive places for digital proofing are: speed, convenience, and controllability. Although most people have to admit that the benefits obtained in the digital process are often based on some manual operations, such as entry, typesetting, scanning, digital photography. But when it comes to digital proofing, any compromise in quality is extremely difficult.
Networking is the first issue that needs to be reconciled. Until today, there are still disputes about whether to use outlets or not to use outlets in digital proofing. Obviously, if there are outlets, moire may appear on the proofs. However, even if the moire is not present, some printers do not accept sample proofs without dot.
Research Digital Proofing
The recent “Digital Proofing Research Report 5†published by the GATF describes the variability of digital proofing within the industry. The report surveyed 13 different manufacturers. Their feedback on proofing equipment was that they often used digital proofing machines that could produce proofs of quality. Kodak’s products ranked first with 22.9%, followed by Imation's products (11.9%), Dupont's products (10.1%) and Polaroid (10.1%). The popularity of the two companies is the same. . In addition, Seitex's products (9.2%) and Iris's products (7.3%) are also on the list. There are both halftone (net point) devices and continuous tone (no dot) devices.
According to the survey, disputes between Canada and the United States will not be resolved within a short period of time. Even the proofing system specified in the SWOP (Offset Offset Publication Regulation) includes two types of proofing machines.
Whether or not a proof is accepted depends primarily on the suitability of the technology (processes chosen by the supplier and the customer) and the degree of financial risk involved. Although the sample proofs are the basis for confirmation in the pages of commercial advertisements, some publishers have reached a consensus that they do not need proofs with outlets for the pages they edit. This has led to the issue of liability. Once there are no sample proofs in the network, problems have arisen in the printing process. Who will bear the responsibility?
The problem of outlets and outlets has been extended to the printing process, not just the problem of color proofing. Other examples include trapping and imposition. These arguments may be crucial to the success of printing, but they ignore the attention to color.
Problems with printing proofing
In the past, the beautiful pictures obtained in the proofing system and the prepress process did not represent the actual printing results. The combination of the proofing system and the prepress processing system is expected to fill this gap. However, the integration of the two processes raises new issues. That is to match the proofing system with the printed product? Still match the printed output with proofs.
If a factory standardizes a proofing operation based on a digital system, or if a proofing program has been approved by a customer or a third party's prepress provider, matching prints to proofs seems to be a logical solution. method. The disadvantage of this method is that the digital proofing technology is still in the process of development. Therefore, a specific product or model may be the best standard for the time being, and how long can it rely on it?
Trying to match the proofer with some type of printer is also a concern. But perhaps only when a printer is the sole supplier of a customer, this highly intensive production process is practical, and as a result, a dedicated printing process is created.
A matching analog proofing system may be an alternative target for the digital proofing system. Although CTP technology has developed rapidly, most commercial printers still use film-based processes. As a result, analog proofers have become the de facto standard, and users of digital proofers are often still simulating their performance. Some manufacturers have tried to use the same dyes in their digital products and analog products in order to improve their compatibility.
Although printing associations have a high degree of identity and applicability to analog proofing, participation in various simulation systems varies in their presentation color. This is why the best solution is to form a formal standard, such as SWOP. If all the steps in the printing process are toward a goal—the best match to an independent standard—then the results will be predictable, and it is possible to obtain high-quality, consistent colors.
SWOP has made considerable efforts to achieve color consistency and predictability on less-than-ideal printing processes, but these efforts are far from enough. The ideal method is to use the color management system to transform the work in device-independent color space. While calibration is a must and color management has its purpose, there have been warnings about using the ICC profile/color management system to match between the halftone proofer and the press product. As a result, in some cases, the use of color management tools may alter the halftone proof grids so that the proofs do not exactly match the prints.
Some experts have suggested that adding color scales to digital proofs should be a more realistic activity, and even a color standard can be used as a standard part of each document.
The newest and best
The introduction of thermal half-tone proofing equipment and materials represents the emergence of the most important technology in the digital proofing market, but technological progress has not stopped.
One trend is to have the ability to simulate the printing of spot colors in actual printing, including printing metal colors with a digital proofing system. Similar to halftone dots, this ability is only applicable to some users. The ideal solution is to proof all product elements.
Another major trend in product development is that manufacturers and suppliers of traditional proofing systems recommend generic software and materials to general printers. These companies use their color knowledge to turn desktop publishing systems and large format printers into digital proofers.
Most of these machines are ink-jet devices. The use of multi-density, multi-color ink settings not only has potential value for use, but also relates to the application of proofing. The standard of ink jet printers has rapidly developed into a six-color system, and light green and light magenta colors have been added to the CMYK. You can also choose some other colors, such as orange and green. In either case, the scope of color reproduction has been expanded. At this time, RIP and materials for proofing play an important role.
In addition, some noteworthy points have been made. According to the survey report, 43% of customers have unrealistic expectations regarding the profitability of digital proofs. Among them, 83% had unrealistic expectations of the price of proofing for digital proofing, and 42% had an illusion of reducing the operating cycle.
Although digital color proofing is a rapidly maturing technology, it still has a variety of problems that cannot be solved. In any case, it has become a crucial tool in modern prepress/printing.
Similarly, digital proofing faces many challenges. Any kind of product is not applicable to all users. The focus of all the debate now is on digital color proofing. What is the best or even acceptable method? Different opinions often come from the needs of different printers/prepress operators/customers.
After all, this is a subjective process. A certain level of proof may only be accepted by a particular user group or special application, but it cannot meet the needs of Other users. Regardless of their application is the same.
There are several main factors in whether a proof is accepted, but the main thing is whether the proof can completely represent the final print. To do this, take certain risks. In general, the closer a sample is to features on the print (such as colors, dots, substrates, spot colors, etc.), the higher the cost will be. On the contrary, the less investment in proofing, the more likely it is that printed matter and proofs will differ greatly. This also inevitably causes waste.
The most attractive places for digital proofing are: speed, convenience, and controllability. Although most people have to admit that the benefits obtained in the digital process are often based on some manual operations, such as entry, typesetting, scanning, digital photography. But when it comes to digital proofing, any compromise in quality is extremely difficult.
Networking is the first issue that needs to be reconciled. Until today, there are still disputes about whether to use outlets or not to use outlets in digital proofing. Obviously, if there are outlets, moire may appear on the proofs. However, even if the moire is not present, some printers do not accept sample proofs without dot.
Research Digital Proofing
The recent “Digital Proofing Research Report 5†published by the GATF describes the variability of digital proofing within the industry. The report surveyed 13 different manufacturers. Their feedback on proofing equipment was that they often used digital proofing machines that could produce proofs of quality. Kodak’s products ranked first with 22.9%, followed by Imation's products (11.9%), Dupont's products (10.1%) and Polaroid (10.1%). The popularity of the two companies is the same. . In addition, Seitex's products (9.2%) and Iris's products (7.3%) are also on the list. There are both halftone (net point) devices and continuous tone (no dot) devices.
According to the survey, disputes between Canada and the United States will not be resolved within a short period of time. Even the proofing system specified in the SWOP (Offset Offset Publication Regulation) includes two types of proofing machines.
Whether or not a proof is accepted depends primarily on the suitability of the technology (processes chosen by the supplier and the customer) and the degree of financial risk involved. Although the sample proofs are the basis for confirmation in the pages of commercial advertisements, some publishers have reached a consensus that they do not need proofs with outlets for the pages they edit. This has led to the issue of liability. Once there are no sample proofs in the network, problems have arisen in the printing process. Who will bear the responsibility?
The problem of outlets and outlets has been extended to the printing process, not just the problem of color proofing. Other examples include trapping and imposition. These arguments may be crucial to the success of printing, but they ignore the attention to color.
Problems with printing proofing
In the past, the beautiful pictures obtained in the proofing system and the prepress process did not represent the actual printing results. The combination of the proofing system and the prepress processing system is expected to fill this gap. However, the integration of the two processes raises new issues. That is to match the proofing system with the printed product? Still match the printed output with proofs.
If a factory standardizes a proofing operation based on a digital system, or if a proofing program has been approved by a customer or a third party's prepress provider, matching prints to proofs seems to be a logical solution. method. The disadvantage of this method is that the digital proofing technology is still in the process of development. Therefore, a specific product or model may be the best standard for the time being, and how long can it rely on it?
Trying to match the proofer with some type of printer is also a concern. But perhaps only when a printer is the sole supplier of a customer, this highly intensive production process is practical, and as a result, a dedicated printing process is created.
A matching analog proofing system may be an alternative target for the digital proofing system. Although CTP technology has developed rapidly, most commercial printers still use film-based processes. As a result, analog proofers have become the de facto standard, and users of digital proofers are often still simulating their performance. Some manufacturers have tried to use the same dyes in their digital products and analog products in order to improve their compatibility.
Although printing associations have a high degree of identity and applicability to analog proofing, participation in various simulation systems varies in their presentation color. This is why the best solution is to form a formal standard, such as SWOP. If all the steps in the printing process are toward a goal—the best match to an independent standard—then the results will be predictable, and it is possible to obtain high-quality, consistent colors.
SWOP has made considerable efforts to achieve color consistency and predictability on less-than-ideal printing processes, but these efforts are far from enough. The ideal method is to use the color management system to transform the work in device-independent color space. While calibration is a must and color management has its purpose, there have been warnings about using the ICC profile/color management system to match between the halftone proofer and the press product. As a result, in some cases, the use of color management tools may alter the halftone proof grids so that the proofs do not exactly match the prints.
Some experts have suggested that adding color scales to digital proofs should be a more realistic activity, and even a color standard can be used as a standard part of each document.
The newest and best
The introduction of thermal half-tone proofing equipment and materials represents the emergence of the most important technology in the digital proofing market, but technological progress has not stopped.
One trend is to have the ability to simulate the printing of spot colors in actual printing, including printing metal colors with a digital proofing system. Similar to halftone dots, this ability is only applicable to some users. The ideal solution is to proof all product elements.
Another major trend in product development is that manufacturers and suppliers of traditional proofing systems recommend generic software and materials to general printers. These companies use their color knowledge to turn desktop publishing systems and large format printers into digital proofers.
Most of these machines are ink-jet devices. The use of multi-density, multi-color ink settings not only has potential value for use, but also relates to the application of proofing. The standard of ink jet printers has rapidly developed into a six-color system, and light green and light magenta colors have been added to the CMYK. You can also choose some other colors, such as orange and green. In either case, the scope of color reproduction has been expanded. At this time, RIP and materials for proofing play an important role.
In addition, some noteworthy points have been made. According to the survey report, 43% of customers have unrealistic expectations regarding the profitability of digital proofs. Among them, 83% had unrealistic expectations of the price of proofing for digital proofing, and 42% had an illusion of reducing the operating cycle.
Although digital color proofing is a rapidly maturing technology, it still has a variety of problems that cannot be solved. In any case, it has become a crucial tool in modern prepress/printing.
Air Column Bag,Air Column Milk Packaging Co., Ltd. , http://www.air-columnbag.com