Do Away With Proofs

Not everyone uses proofs. According to some, the best way to print a job is by removing proofs from the pressroom and being objective.

By Rich Bruce

"Add snap"

"I want the reds to jump off the page"

"Give it more shape"

These are proofing buzz words from a list provided by the Research and Engineering Council Roundtable. One word missing from the list is "objectivity." By this I mean looking at the press sheet for what it is by using numbers and not by comparing it to a color proof.

Many printers and customers will use proofs as a crutch. Both use them as the bible for color, and in the time of Gutenberg that was the way to go. With that said, it is my experience that the best color reproduction and best press production overall is done when a proof is not at press side.

You may be asking, "Why would a publisher and/or printer want to run a job without a proof?" Well, for one thing, there are at least 19 different types of SWOP-certified proofs; that is a wide range of proofing systems. Which one do they choose? What happens if their edit pages are proofed using an ink-jet proofing system but their advertiser is using a continuous-tone proof? This will lead to confusion in the pressroom. Why would they want to do this to themselves?

Second is the matter of cost. Proofing is not cheap.

Third: removing proofing from the printing equation allows for an objective press approval.

Multiple Proofs

There are many different proofing systems in the printing industry. One press check I completed involved a 16-page signature where a page had an ink-jet proof and the page inline with it had a Kodak Approval for a proof. (Inline is when two pages line up together on press on top of each other.)

Even though the ink-jet proof may have a simulated paper background, the color of the image on the proof is still brighter than the ink on a printed page. How does a person expect an ink-jet proof to match a printed page when printing with dots? The continuous tone proof is the better option. You can make the proof on the same paper that is being printed on, but it is still impossible for the pressroom to match the proof.

Now we have the question of which proof should the pressroom use. Do they split the difference and not match either proof, but make each page commercially acceptable? Do they try to match one proof and let the other fall where it may?

Split the Difference

I have had to make that decision on many press approvals. I chose to split the difference, leaning more toward the continuous-tone proof. I have also done press approvals where there are internal conflicts in which the proof was no help at all. By internal conflict I am referring to a situation where you may have greens and reds on a page, and if you make a move to help the greens you may be sacrificing the reds. Again we split the difference using numbers and objectivity.

I was a production supervisor in the field office of a weekly news magazine, and the editorial department used to send Matchprint scatter proofs of photos running on some of the pages. Later we pulled Kodak Approvals then DuPont Waterproofs at the plant. We found that it did not matter in regards to print quality because we went for the ads first then the edit proofs. Afterwards, the art department would not ask for proofs but ask the printers to give special attention to specific pages.

Bad Proofs

Another problem we had on many occasions was receiving bad proofs from agencies that were not in SWOP specifications. We tried to match the proofs as closely as possible. Then came the question of which advertiser to try to match, the one with the proof in spec or the other that may not be within SWOP tolerances.

This can raise many questions in the pressroom. The printers were advised to split the difference. This is tough to do, considering different types of proofing materials being used. Unfortunately, not everyone uses the same type of proofing system. Printing to the numbers would have taken care of this problem.

Money Wasted

High-end proofs cost a lot of money—from $50 to $75. I currently have a customer who usually has 12 to 16 pages per issue. There are times when the proof comes with fourth or fifth version written on it. This could be costing more than $3,000, assuming it is a $50 proof with a fifth version. This customer does between 13 and 17 titles a month. That is a lot of unnecessary spending, especially considering the customer will sometimes order a high-end proof to show a change, such as the removal of an extra period. A note on the fourth proof would have worked just as well and would have saved $50.

What is the best way to assure a quality printed product? Take the proofs out of the pressroom. A publisher or in-plant can use soft proofing and PDFs for its internal proofing. If a page is complete, they can use a black-and-white laser proof for viewing.

I spoke on this subject at a meeting of Wisconsin printers and publishers and I saw that the printers agreed more than the designers, publishers or catalogers. At the magazine where I worked, the printers were given targets that had to be hit for density and dot gain. Forget print contrast; you really do not need to worry about these numbers. It is dot gain that determines your contrast.

It was found the product was just as good with less guessing, and any questions that came up were much easier to answer by printing to numbers. If the printers hit their target numbers as expected, then there would be no questions asked of them about the reproduction of the issue. We would go back to the editorial department and look at the total area coverage of the images on the page. There would be times that the continuous tone would be heavy but generally it was fine.

The point is, if you measure density and dot gain during the press run, the problems of inline and internal conflict go away, which means the confusion in the pressroom goes away—assuming the densitometer is calibrated and that press sheets are read on a consistent basis. Taking the proofs away from the pressroom and being objective is the best way to print a job.

.

Richard Bruce has 14 years of experience in printing and publishing. Currently he is an account manager at Quebecor World in Mt. Morris, Ill., and teaches graphic design at Moraine Park Technical College in Fond du Lac, Wis. You can contact Rich Bruce at: rbruce2@wi.rr.com