In this short-run era, where a third of all jobs have run lengths of just 250 sheets, how are sheetfed offset presses faring? Industry observer Frank Romano offers his view.

By Frank Romano

THE WORLD of the printing press has changed. Color printing once mandated longer runs because the setup time (makeready) was an hour or two. When the first direct imaging (DI) press was introduced in 1991, its makeready was at 20 minutes, and over time it came down to less than 10 minutes. Today older presses are at about 60 minutes for makeready.

On newer presses, Komori has a user who was quoted with six-minute makereadies. Heidelberg introduced a press with a seven-minute makeready—and heading to five minutes. MAN Roland customer VistaPrint boasts three-minute setups. KBA claims to be in the same league.

A run of 250 copies is the new break point between short run and not short run; the offset litho press manufacturers have moved the bar. It is now said that 35 percent of jobs are in the range of 250 sheets—and in this area digital printing has had the advantage, but new offset lithographic presses are changing the rules.

Run Lengths Dropping Fast

Printers tell us that the days of 10,000 to 50,000 runs on their sheetfed presses are pretty much gone. There are still some jobs in that run length range but they are harder to find. All run lengths are shifting downward as print buyers specify shorter runs, and often reprint the job, perhaps multiple times—in place of one longer run.

When you consider that POD is still the primary application for digital printing, it now gives press makers with new highly automated presses a renewed shot at a market that is moving to shorter and shorter runs. Newer DI presses are excellent choices for short-run color printing, but the overlap between digital color printers, DI color presses and larger offset litho color presses has confounded printing press users.

• Under 250 is the realm of the digital color printer (toner and ink-jet printing).

• 250 to 500 is up for grabs by all three types of reproduction system—digital, DI and larger sheetfed offset.

• 500 to 10,000 is within the scope of the DI press and newer sheetfed offset litho presses.

• More than 10,000 belongs to the larger sheetfed offset litho press.

• More than 50,000 belongs to web-fed offset litho presses, though XL sheetfed presses are challenging the low end of these runs.

Overlaps exist because:

1. 40˝ (eight-up) presses compete with 26˝ presses (four-up) and now six-up presses.

2. So-called XL presses (60˝ to 80˝) compete with narrow web presses and some wide web presses.

3. Narrow web and wide web presses compete in some cases.

4. Newer and more automated presses compete with older but less automated presses.

Graph Expo 06 saw a high level of sales for all kinds of reproduction systems. Printers were acquiring automated 40˝ presses or automated larger-format presses to replace two or even three older presses. Thus, a smaller staff can turn out as much or more work. At the same time, digital color printers were selling like hotcakes. (The food court told me that hotcakes were selling like digital color presses.)

Sheetfed Benchmarking Study

The PIA/GATF 2006 sheetfed benchmarking study showed a significant improvement over a similar comparison in 1998, but the variation across participants was unexpected. Each of the 40 participants had the option of receiving a CD of the test image either as a PDF or as Adobe InDesign file, and a press sheet to match. Eight out of 10 chose PDF, with the remaining two taking the native files.

The plants could use any paper they wanted and their own inks. I would have predicted that printers who use essentially the same kind of press equipment operated by experienced press operators would take about the same time to produce an identical printed piece. Yet, there was a variation of about three times from the most efficient to the least efficient—and a five times difference in waste.

The participants took an average of 110 minutes in prepress time to process the 4C-over-4C 19x25˝ poster. The best of them took about 70 minutes and the worst took three hours. The 2006 prep throughput was much better than the 138-minute average in 1998, when most participants were still handling film rather than CTP. Thus, CTP and CTP workflows were the reason for much of the improvement.

Four different press manufacturer models were used. Almost all were 40˝ and ranged in age from new to 10 years old—all with different levels of automation. Makeready averaged 60 minutes, which was twice as good as in 1998. The best of the best took 35 minutes, while the worst (two) were at 90 minutes (and still in business?).

Press spoilage averaged 850 sheets for the 1,000-poster press run, which was a one-third improvement over the 1998 waste factor (about 1,250 sheets). The best performers had low times as well as low waste.

Total manufacturing time ranged from 120 to 300 minutes, with an average of 180 minutes—a range of 25 to 40 percent improvements over 1998. Printers using perfector presses performed the best, and stochastic screening users also had a slight edge. A third of the printers had waste issues while another third had prepress issues.

Other findings:

• Press crews for a six-color 40˝ press were at two people, often with a floater who went from press to press to assist with makeready.

• Most of the printers had or were replacing two older presses with one new, more automated press.

• Saving 10 minutes per makeready can result in more than $100,000 in savings per year for the average plant.

• 60 percent of the printers at the conference did coating.

• The average invoice has dropped from an average of $14,000 to $3,500. This says that runs are definitely getting shorter.

Direct Imaging on Press

Producing the image carrier on a printing press has advantages. The plates are immediately in register and ink settings can be automatic. The downside is that the press is tied up during the imaging process, much as it is during makeready for offset lithographic presses. On-press platemaking/makeready still is less than the time for traditional off-press platemaking/makeready—but that gap has narrowed.

At PRINT 1991, the direct imaging press was introduced to wide acclaim. Heidelberg captured the imagination of the industry with the world’s first automated press—the GTO-DI, codeveloped with Presstek. By 1995 the GTO had metamorphosed into the Quickmaster-DI, a re-designed and innovative four-color press that cut the time from submitted file to first sellable sheet to less than 15 minutes, with only a few sheets of waste. Within the same time frame, Komori and other press makers introduced automatic plate loading, followed within a few years by more and more press automation. By 2000, led by Heidelberg and others, CIP3 used the information that produced the plate to set up the press and the cutter.

Over the next decade, suppliers entered and exited the direct imaging press business: Adast, Heidelberg (QuickMaster-DI and Speedmaster74-DI), Scitex (now the KBA Karat), Screen (TruePress), Ryobi, Komori (Project D), MAN Roland (DICOWeb)—all sold via many distribution channels with a worldwide base of 5,000 direct imaging presses sold.

Heidelberg’s recent decision to quit the DI business sent shock waves through the industry. That left KBA, Ryobi (through Presstek and others), and Screen as the last active direct imaging press suppliers.

As the combination of CTP and multi-color presses has become more productive, the digital color printer has also matured for on-demand, short-run color printing. This has squeezed direct imaging presses into a more limited market segment.

Back in 1998 we thought that direct imaging presses would someday dominate all reproduction, but all the above factors changed the equation. If direct imaging presses had been available then for prices in the $250,000 range, the base of installed systems would certainly be higher today. If the larger-format versions (29˝ or so) had continued in development, with more than four colors, the market might look differently today. If the “spray on” plate material had been commercialized, or if re-imageable plates had come into being, perhaps the market might be different at this point. In other words, direct imaging missed a few critical opportunities to expand its presence in the printing industry.

The time from submitted file to first sellable sheet is now 10 minutes. As with all offset lithographic presses, the range of stocks will be wider and heavier than digital color printers now handle. Crew sizes will be one person, unlike larger multi-color presses.

DI Not Digital Printing

Some observers place direct imaging in the same category as digital printing. They are very different, however.

• Direct imaging is still offset lithography, and the image carrier is static—unchanging; every page is the same.

• Digital printing uses an image carrier that is dynamic—every page can be different.

Both approaches use digital files, but that is where any similarity ends. Direct imaging presses can handle runs as short as 500 or even less. But digital color can handle runs of one. Digital color printers can also collate sheets to create finished books and publications.

All offset presses are advancing. Anilox inking is now available on Heidelberg models and KBA’s Karat DI press. Automatic plate loading, on-press control systems, and links via JDF to the job information, are all making today’s offset lithographic presses the best they have ever been.IPG

Frank Romano’s career has spanned over 40 years in the printing and publishing industries. He is the editor of the “International Paper Pocket Pal” and has written hundreds of articles for publications in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Asia and Australia. He is the author of over 44 books and has founded eight publications. He lectures extensively and has consulted for major corporations, publishers and government agencies. He wrote the first report on on-demand digital printing in 1980 and ran the first conference on the subject in 1985. He was the principal researcher on the landmark EDSF study “Printing in the Age of the Web and Beyond.” He has been quoted in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Business Week, Forbes and many other publications. Romano continues to teach courses at RIT and other universities. You can e-mail him at: fxrppr@rit.edu