In the September issue of Newspapers & Technology, David Lightfoot penned a thought-provoking article under the headline “How to plot workflow in newspaper CTP systems.” I’ve known David for years and it’s good to see he’s still actively educating our industry as it makes the transition to computer-to-plate technology.

A key point of the article is the recommendation for newspaper printers to thoroughly investigate the workflow options alongside the more compelling “shiny big box with lots of flashing lights and laser beams” CTP device, which tends to attract most discussion and consideration.

Open interfaces

It’s worth expanding further on one of David’s points regarding “open interfaces” to CTP systems. Buyers need to realize that some open interfaces are more open than others. The article rightly points out that most, if not all, CTP vendors provide a mechanism to allow any workflow to generate screened “plate-ready” TIFF images offline. Those images are then delivered to drop folders in what David calls a “TIFF catcher” associated with the CTP system. The files are then processed and sent to the CTP device using the proper electronic method for that device. But this may result in a potential problem because the communications between the workflow and the CTP device are one-way. The workflow that delivered the file cannot tell if the file ultimately resulted in a usable plate. In pressrooms, they may call this the drop-and-pray method.

More intimate connection

In order for newspaper printers to reach the next level of productivity and quality control, they need a more intimate connection between the workflow and the CTP system’s associated file consumer. Two-way communications regarding file status are critical in the high-volume newspaper environment. Why? Consider the increasingly common case of the workflow offering a remote user interface, with the operator stationed away from the CTP device. Without some feedback mechanism, all the operator knows is that the workflow has successfully delivered the files to the TIFF catcher. What about a plant with multiple CTP devices that are fed by the workflow to provide load balancing or failover redundancy? Fifty percent of the files could be delivered to a TIFF catcher connected to a “dead” CTP.

Kodak has moved aggressively in this area to implement a public domain “third-party interface” that allows workflow to obtain the status of the data transfer and the CTP device itself. The workflow vendor can use this to help operators detect potential problems before they cause a production backup.

One other point about the article that I would like to address: The table that accompanies the article incorrectly indicates that Kodak NewsManager Workflow Software is only capable of driving Kodak Trendsetter News platesetters. In fact, NewsManager software is capable of driving any CTP (or CTF) device with a TIFF interface, as are any of the TIFF enabled workflows listed. However, I am not aware of any workflow vendor yet implementing Kodak’s public domain third party interface, despite the list implying such connectivity. It would be interesting to republish the table without the TIFF-only connections so buyers could more accurately compare the direct-connect capabilities of the various workflows. Also, NewsManager software and Agfa’s Arkitex software are browser capable, which is not reflected in the table.

European newspapers have blazed a successful CTP path and many North American newspapers are converting to this effective technology. Newspapers & Technology and David Lightfoot are to be commended for helping readers make an informed decision as they contemplate the transition to CTP.

Kevin Ward is global product manager of newspaper workflow for Kodak’s Graphic Communications Group. He can be reached at 604.451.2700, ext. 6688, or via e-mail at kward@kodak.com.