DIGITAL ART PROBLEMS W/O ACCOMPANYING HIGH RES PROOFS
kare...@my-deja.com
providing final digital art (disk or CD), along with a low resolution
color layout, to a client WITHOUT a high resolution proof to accompany?
If digital art only is specifically requested from the ad agency without
a high resolution proof from film, who is responsible for making sure
the art on the disk will run out on film without any problems?
(Problems such as traps, fills, creep, overprint or knockouts, font
substitution, cross platform translation, low density for photos run a
different line screen than scans are prepared for.) The client passes
the disk to a printer for high res proofing from film output, and
printing. Would the printer be responsible? the client? or the ad
agency?
Business practices endorsed by the National Association of Printers and
Lithographers (NAPL) state "Prepress Proofs- The provider will submit
prepress proofs. The provider will not be responsible for undetected
production errors if proofs are not required by the customer".
Please respond. I'm in a fix because the printer ran the file to film
and made a proof. The proof showed a problem with one letter of a logo
that proofed out as an outline font. After checking the file that went
to the client, the letter was found clicked to overprint as a white
letter on a dark background. The rest of the letters were not clicked to
overprint. This was a mistake, but not one that we could have found
without running film ourselves. This outlined letter did not print out
on a low resolution color printer with a problem. A correct color copy
was provided with the file to the client and passed to the printer along
with the disk.
As a result of the bad file and film, the client had to pay the printer
to re-run the film and a new proof. They in turn want us to re-imburse
them for the problem. As an agency, what are we responsible for? Correct
the disk? Paying for all new film and proofs?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
William Campbell
>
> ..... After checking the file that went
> to the client, the letter was found clicked to overprint as a white
> letter on a dark background. The rest of the letters were not clicked to
> overprint. This was a mistake, but not one that we could have found
> without running film ourselves.
That is not true... if you print separated laser prints, you
would see this just as well as it can be seen on film. The
only difference occurring at the output provider is that
they are printing separations... and you are only doing a
composite. As output providers, we do not employ some
mysterious or special techniques, we are simply sending your
files to a very expensive laser printer that images on film
or plate instead of bond paper. Composite is not enough if
you want to ensure a job is free from these kinds of
"mistakes". All designers should print separations and study
them well before a job goes out the door.
> As a result of the bad file and film, the client had to pay the printer
> to re-run the film and a new proof. They in turn want us to re-imburse
> them for the problem. As an agency, what are we responsible for? Correct
> the disk? Paying for all new film and proofs?
The person that "clicked" the overprint option is
responsible. White + overprint = nothing. This is a known
fact and the creator of this circumstance is responsible.
Whether or not the creator of the mistake realized there is
a method to check these potential problems does not relieve
them of the responsibility to create documents that will
image correctly.
I'm sorry, that was probably not the answer you want to
hear, but there is more to providing design services than
making something that looks good... it has to work also.
That's at least half of what the customer is paying you for.
At our shop we have obtained methods to intercept separated
content on it's way to film, and redirect it to an ink jet
proofing device, where the content is recomposited from the
separations. In this case these kinds of problems (along
with many others) are detected, and it occurs before any
film is imaged. In that case the "wasted" expense is much
lower, only an inexpensive ink jet proof. We now use this
with nearly all the jobs we process. I would suggest that
you ask for such a service from your output provider, since
many are obtaining this capability now.
--
William Campbell
Revere Graphics Portland Oregon USA
voice (503) 239-6098
wil...@rgraphics.com
http://www.rgraphics.com
Marc McNaughton
thumb": Barring specific agreements to the contrary, he who creates the art
is responsible for it. Unless you or the client specifically requested that
the printer or client handle final preparation, trapping and the like, you
are responsible for the files you create.
The fact that this was a digital transfer has no bearing on it, nor does the
fact that the client is acting as a middleman. This is no different that if
you were sending files directly to an output vendor via a courier service.
An explicit understanding must exist between all parties with regards to who
is responsible for trapping, creep, etc. Trapping and density problems will
not show on a composite print. So the inkjet print you sent is not an
adequate "proof" for these items. As William has indicated, you could have
checked for gross separation errors like this one by sending separations to
your laser printer.
On the other hand, things like font substitution, type wrap, etc. would be
accurately shown to be correct by your laser and would then generally fall
under the purview of the party doing the separations. This assumes, of
course, that the laser was generated FROM THE ACTUAL FILE SENT TO THE VENDOR
and not some secondary file. If you sent TIFF-IT, you need to print the
proof from that file, not the layout file it was created from. A proof
printed from a secondary file means exactly nothing.
In this case, it sounds like the problems would fall into the area of
trapping. Unless you made specific other arrangements, it would be valid for
the client and printer to expect you to be responsible for this function. If
your file didn't work, you either need to fix it or pay to have it fixed.
We consider TIFF-IT and PDF files to be "electronic film" and treat them
accordingly whenever we handle this aspect for a client. That includes
passing it through our regular QC process. Since there is yet to be a real
solution in regards to high-end digital proofs (including correct screening,
etc), that means we still plot film seps and produce a traditional laminated
proof to check and send with the file. We always send a traditional proof
unless requested not to do so. In that latter case, we have the client sign
off that the proof is adequate to their needs and correctly reflects what
they wish to print.
Is that inefficient and wasteful of time and money? Yes. But you have to
realize that digital transfers (especially TIFF-IT and PDF) are for the
benefit of the printer, not for yours or the client. Unless you agreed
otherwise, pretend you're sending film and act accordingly.
--
Marc McNaughton
Primary Color
Irvine, California
Please remove the "X" at the beginning of my e-mail address if you wish to
send to me directly. I hate spam!
<kare...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7osn5t$pus$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> What are the common business practices endorsed by the AAF or NAPL for
> providing final digital art (disk or CD), along with a low resolution
> color layout, to a client WITHOUT a high resolution proof to accompany?
> If digital art only is specifically requested from the ad agency without
> a high resolution proof from film, who is responsible for making sure
> the art on the disk will run out on film without any problems?
> (Problems such as traps, fills, creep, overprint or knockouts, font
> substitution, cross platform translation, low density for photos run a
> different line screen than scans are prepared for.) The client passes
> the disk to a printer for high res proofing from film output, and
> printing. Would the printer be responsible? the client? or the ad
> agency?
>
> Business practices endorsed by the National Association of Printers and
> Lithographers (NAPL) state "Prepress Proofs- The provider will submit
> prepress proofs. The provider will not be responsible for undetected
> production errors if proofs are not required by the customer".
>
> Please respond. I'm in a fix because the printer ran the file to film
> and made a proof. The proof showed a problem with one letter of a logo
> that proofed out as an outline font. After checking the file that went
> to the client, the letter was found clicked to overprint as a white
> letter on a dark background. The rest of the letters were not clicked to
> overprint. This was a mistake, but not one that we could have found
> without running film ourselves. This outlined letter did not print out
> on a low resolution color printer with a problem. A correct color copy
> was provided with the file to the client and passed to the printer along
> with the disk.
>
> As a result of the bad file and film, the client had to pay the printer
> to re-run the film and a new proof. They in turn want us to re-imburse
> them for the problem. As an agency, what are we responsible for? Correct
> the disk? Paying for all new film and proofs?
>
>