John Nate

As a color management specialist, much of my time is devoted to implementing and training clients on proofing systems. Often this is one of the new inkjet proofing systems and it is being installed to replace an existing proofing system that is proving to be too expensive to operate or no longer functions.

Prior to implementation, a number of questions should be answered, covering such topics as hardware requirements, media requirements, connectivity and training expectations. It is a common occurrence at this time for the implementer to ask a very important question: “What are we going to match?” All too often, the response to this question is a confident “Ummm...”  

Recommendations

Often, the next stage in this discussion is for the client to ask something like, “Well, what do you recommend?” or, “What do other people do?”

We will often recommend to the client that we match their existing proofing system or - and this is potentially a dangerous answer - their printing press. The reason that matching their printing press is problematic is that so many things can go wrong on the press and during a press run. Were inks brought up to proper densities? Is the ink even across the cylinder? Were plate curves optimized to account for correct dot gain, print contrast and all the other variables? Was the proper stock used? How new is the plate chemistry? What is the ph of the fountain solution? How old are the blankets? As these variables change, so does the effective accuracy of the proof.

Once the client is convinced of the dangers of using its press as the target for its spiffy new proofing system, the question of standards will often be broached. The client will ask why we can’t simply bring in a standard to use on the new system. And herein lies the problem: which standard and is the selected standard really a standard or merely a set of suggestions, much like the yellow light on a traffic signal that appears to mean everything from “stop” to “slow down” to “go as fast as you can.”

We have many standards in the printing industry. In the United States, SWOP and GRACoL are probably the two most cited standards. Most important for the readers of this publication is SNAP, the Specifications for Newsprint Advertising Production. Internationally, we have Ugra/Fogra, 3DAP, ISO and others.

Stricter standards outside of U.S.

Historically, standards have appeared to be more precise and more strictly adhered to outside of the United States.

I’ve been told that in most of Europe, inkjet proofing systems take one day to implement rather than two. The reason for this is that in Europe, you would find yourself printing on a standard proofing medium, simulating a specific ISO standard.

Try this in the United States. Send a job to two or three or more separators for a proof to be made to a specific standard such as SWOP. Take note of how often the proofs do not match each other. If your standard cannot produce consistent results, exactly what kind of a standard is it?

Being able to print to a specific, narrowly defined standard would provide a key benefit for much of the printing industry: namely consistency. I’m sure that you have all seen printed material vary widely in color, contrast and density when the job was divided up and printed on presses across the country, across town, or at times, unfortunately, across the pressroom.

Printing to a standard promises to eliminate this. The demand for this is being driven by the advertising industry that pays for a particular look and wants the same look no matter where the job is printed.

So where do we stand in the newspaper industry? What is the current status of the SNAP standard? How widely is it being adopted? Should you adopt it in your shop? The answers to these and other questions will be in my next article. Stay tuned...

John Nate is a senior color specialist for Chromaticity Inc. Chromaticity is an integrator of color technologies for the newspaper and other industries. He can be reached at 616.361.7773 or via e-mail at jnate@chromaticity.com.