Over-proof

[Jack Mlynek]

So, I received a PDF proof from my client's printer. While most of it was fine, the bitmaps were all lo-rez. I rejected it. The printer came back with this: "This is a PROOF; the file size was reduced for e-mail-ability. The photos are fine."

Seriously? How do I know that the bitmaps WON'T print as lo-rez? Did the meaning of PROOF change sometime and nobody told me? 

I'd be interested in your comments.

Take care,

Jack Mlynek MFA
ja...@avalanchecom.com

A

valanche Communications

T: 647.206.3434

This message is private and confidential. If you have received this message in error, please notify us and remove it from your system.

[Michael Brady]

Jack

> So, I received a PDF proof from my client's printer. While most of it was fine, the bitmaps were all lo-rez. I rejected it. The printer came back with this: "This is a PROOF; the file size was reduced for e-mail-ability. The photos are fine."
>
> Seriously? How do I know that the bitmaps WON'T print as lo-rez? Did the meaning of PROOF change sometime and nobody told me?

Ultimately, you never do until you see the printed piece. This is not an uncommon practice (as a matter of fact, it just happened to me on a book about a month ago). The printer could send you a high-res proof PDF and then, when the plates are imaged, there could be an output error and the printed version winds up lo-res. The printer guarantees correct output to the press, so if the delivered product is wrong, the printer will (should) reprint it at no expense to you.


| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
www.michaelbradydesign.com/Blog/ | mic...@michaelbradydesign.com
www.twitter.com/typehuile | www.linkedin.com/in/typehuile | www.facebook.com/typehuile

"Thinking Like a Designer" at https://www.createspace.com/3462255 or http://snipurl.com/z43se

[Michel Raj]

The PROOF is ok if the printer says it is, he'll print at his own risk... be sure to keep his reply in your records.

In my opinion, he should not reduce the proof. He should put it on a server, cloud, dropbox... if too big for mail.

Michel

Le 24 mai 2012 à 05:37, Jack Mlynek a écrit :

So, I received a PDF proof from my client's printer. While most of it was fine, the bitmaps were all lo-rez. I rejected it. The printer came back with this: "This is a PROOF; the file size was reduced for e-mail-ability. The photos are fine."

Seriously? How do I know that the bitmaps WON'T print as lo-rez? Did the meaning of PROOF change sometime and nobody told me? 

I'd be interested in your comments.

Take care,

Jack Mlynek MFA
ja...@avalanchecom.com

<AvalancheLogo_100x100.jpg> A

valanche Communications

T: 647.206.3434

This message is private and confidential. If you have received this message in error, please notify us and remove it from your system.

--
you are subscribed to "InDesign talk" on Google Groups, to post: send email to indesi...@googlegroups.com, to unsubscribe: send email to indesign-tal...@googlegroups.com, for more options visit http://groups.google.com/group/indesign-talk

[Tom Reid]

IMHO the printer should always offer you a HiRes Proof...A reprint is helpful but not on a job that you need quickly....

[William Adams]

On May 23, 2012, at 11:37 PM, Jack Mlynek wrote:

> So, I received a PDF proof from my client's printer. While most of it was fine, the bitmaps were all lo-rez. I rejected it. The printer came back with this: "This is a PROOF; the file size was reduced for e-mail-ability. The photos are fine."
>
> Seriously? How do I know that the bitmaps WON'T print as lo-rez? Did the meaning of PROOF change sometime and nobody told me?

If the original graphics were provided at full resolution, placed w/o un-toward scaling, then it's a matter of whether or no one trusts the printer when they say the original differs from the low-resolution proof.

If the job is too big for a full-resolution proof via e-mail though, one has to wonder why it isn't in some sort of interactive proofing system which allows verification of such.

William

--
William Adams
senior graphic designer
Fry Communications
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.

[Jack Mlynek]

My position has always been the same as our former Prime Minister's, Jean Chretien, when he said, 

"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It’s a proof. A proof is a proof, and when you have a good proof, it’s because it’s proven."

If the file is to go through yet another process, then how do I know something else won't happen to it. Perhaps the industry needs to formalize the definition of a proof.

Take care,

Jack Mlynek MFA
ja...@avalanchecom.com

A

valanche Communications

T: 647.206.3434

This message is private and confidential. If you have received this message in error, please notify us and remove it from your system.

[Michael Brady]

Jack wrote:

> If the file is to go through yet another process, then how do I know something else won't happen to it. Perhaps the industry needs to formalize the definition of a proof.

A proof is a test, not a verification.

The hi-res PDF is NOT verification that the plates were imaged correctly, that the inks were mixed or laid down correctly, that the proper paper was used, that it was bound correctly, etc.

There are many different steps and individual components between the "soft proof" and the printed piece, and thus many places for error. At some point, you have no more chance to control the outcome. That is left completely in the hands of the printer.

[Dick Margulis]

On 5/24/2012 10:34 AM, Michael Brady wrote:
> At some point, you have no more chance to control the outcome. That is left completely in the hands of the printer.

Amen to that. And this is the reason (I realize that in this group I'm
preaching to the choir, but this is a hard lesson for people on
publishing lists) that you can't bid out a print job and award it on the
basis of price alone to an outfit you've never done business with. This
is a business based on relationships, not small price differences.

[Jack Mlynek]

Amen to that. And this is the reason (I realize that in this group I'm preaching to the choir, but this is a hard lesson for people on publishing lists) that you can't bid out a print job and award it on the basis of price alone to an outfit you've never done business with. This is a business based on relationships, not small price differences.

The core of the matter. As I mentioned in my original post, this was the client's printer, who has a relationship with them, not with me. Had this been a printer of my choice, we would have had a discussion.

Take care,

Jack Mlynek MFA
ja...@avalanchecom.com

Avalanche Communications

T: 647.206.3434

This message is private and confidential. If you have received this message in error, please notify us and remove it from your system.

[Evans, Rebecca]

I will give a shout-out to Thomson-Shore . . . they have an on-line proofing system that lets you view your cover/interior high-res, zoom in as much as you wish, and view separations (among other things). 

______________________________________

Rebecca Evans

Senior Designer/Compositor

The University of North Carolina Press

116 S. Boundary Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27514-3808

t 919-962-0575  f 919-966-3829

email: Rebecc...@unc.edu

 

web: http://www.uncpress.unc.edu and http://southerngateways.com

blog: http://uncpressblog.com/ and http://uncpresscivilwar150.com/

facebook: http://www.facebook.com/UNCPress

twitter: https://twitter.com/uncpressblog

[Michael Brady]

Dick wrote:

> you can't bid out a print job and award it on the basis of price alone to an outfit you've never done business with. This is a business based on relationships, not small price differences.

This is a two-way street, too. The new printer doesn't know you and your files, either. When you develop a relationship with a printer, they build up their confidence in working with you as you build up your confidence in them. That is worth a whole lot. BTW, Rebecca, the higher expense of T-S (in my experience) can be made up or offset by the faster schedule or better quality. (Remember: good-fast-cheap.) I bid jobs to Braun-Brumfield, T-S, and M&G (and some oathers, too). BB and M&G usually beat T-S on all three, but T-S was and is a good printer. FYI, I worked with Joyce Kachergis back in the late 80s. She used all three of them, plus a few other printers. I took her selection of them as a high endorsement of their quality.

[Bret Perry]

On 5/23/12 8:37 PM, "Jack Mlynek" <ja...@avalanchecom.com> wrote:

So, I received a PDF proof from my client's printer. While most of it was fine, the bitmaps were all lo-rez. I rejected it. The printer came back with this: "This is a PROOF; the file size was reduced for e-mail-ability. The photos are fine."

Seriously? How do I know that the bitmaps WON'T print as lo-rez? Did the meaning of PROOF change sometime and nobody told me? 

Back in the day, a proof WAS from a press, maybe a proof press rather than the one running the real job, but the plates were the same and the ink was real.

Then it degenerated into a Colorkey or a Matchprint made from the same negatives as the plate, which at least still showed screening (and moire).

With the dawn of digital plates and printing, proofs are becoming increasingly useless.

But in general, better prepress procedures and more automated presses means less goes wrong.

Quite a few of our vendors have been e-mailing PDFs or sending low-quality inkjet as "proofs" -- this for 4-color work on quality stock.

When color is critical, we do the conversion to 4C and send a calibrated Epson to the printer so they will have something to match to.

On the horrid PDF "proofs", I always comment "Match color to supplied Epson" and "Type breaking up-check original file" to cover my behind as the only thing you can tell from these useless proofs is that they are running your job and not someone else's and that they didn't loose parts of it in ripping the PDF.

I swear sometimes all they do is open my file and make a new lo-res PDF of it.

If the PDF didn't come from the same RIP they will use on the job, the proof is pretty silly.

Some of the higher-end vendors supply their own loose-color Epsons for the images along with PDF or low-quality inkjet for layout.

On big catalogs, from premium vendors, we get composed Epsons to use on-press as "matchprints".

Those are made from the same PDF that will generate the plates and on the same RIP. So they mean a little more.

Bret Perry
Studio IT Manager/Production Artist
ph 626-463-9365
fax 626-449-2201
bpe...@russreid.com

The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by calling the Help Desk at 866-682-8852.

[Jack Mlynek]

As a consensus, I take it that modern-day proofs mean very little in terms of image quality and colour, and are more useful for checking text and graphic placement.

Thank you all. It's been very helpful.

Take care,

Jack Mlynek MFA
ja...@avalanchecom.com

A

valanche Communications

T: 647.206.3434

This message is private and confidential. If you have received this message in error, please notify us and remove it from your system.

[William Adams]

On May 25, 2012, at 2:08 PM, Jack Mlynek wrote:

> As a consensus, I take it that modern-day proofs mean very little in terms of image quality and colour, and are more useful for checking text and graphic placement.

An emailed, low-res proof, yes.

A proof in a proofing system (we use Kodak's InSite), viewed on a colour-calibrated system should allow one to check image quality and colour.

If a customer wishes, we will still provide inkjet contract proofs and I've been arguing that we should provide customers w/ the option of a Dupont Waterproof which allows checking actual half-toning / dot formations (or at least the old ones did --- I believe the new ones are still able to afford that).

[Robert Severn]

The printer which I use for color work (Growll) will provide match prints, pdfs checked by them, or raw pdfs direct from the files I send. The first time that I run a job I request and pay for, a match print (which is Fedexed), if I'm reprinting a job, unless there are "issues", I get a raw pdf, just to be sure I haven't screwed up.  In the rare instance that I'm doing a truly critical job, I would do it locally where I can be there for the press run - but this is very, very rare.

--
you are subscribed to "InDesign talk" on Google Groups, to post: send email to indesi...@googlegroups.com, to unsubscribe: send email to indesign-tal...@googlegroups.com, for more options visit http://groups.google.com/group/indesign-talk

Bob

Robert K Severn

Severn Associates

Marketing Services

rse...@severnet.com

There is nothing more dangerous than the illusion of knowledge.

-- Jeremy Clarkson

[Jack Mlynek]

I've now seen the printed product of this job and I can tell you that the printer's attitude was commensurate with the quality of their work. The piece looks like it was trimmed by a blind operator, with some covers crooked and other pages cut off at the bottom. Of course this was a time-sensitive job and couldn't be re-printed.

The upshot is that this bindery failure could not have been foreseen from the proof supplied. 

Take care,

Jack Mlynek MFA
ja...@avalanchecom.com

Avalanche Communications

T: 647.206.3434

This message is private and confidential. If you have received this message in error, please notify us and remove it from your system.

[Robert Severn]

No substitute for a reliable printer.

Sent from my iPhone

On May 29, 2012, at 11:43 AM, Jack Mlynek <ja...@avalanchecom.com> wrote:

I've now seen the printed product of this job and I can tell you that the printer's attitude was commensurate with the quality of their work. The piece looks like it was trimmed by a blind operator, with some covers crooked and other pages cut off at the bottom. Of course this was a time-sensitive job and couldn't be re-printed.

The upshot is that this bindery failure could not have been foreseen from the proof supplied. 

Take care,

Jack Mlynek MFA
ja...@avalanchecom.com

<AvalancheLogo_100x100.jpg> Avalanche Communications

T: 647.206.3434

This message is private and confidential. If you have received this message in error, please notify us and remove it from your system.

On 2012-05-29, at 7:32 AM, William Adams wrote:

On May 25, 2012, at 2:08 PM, Jack Mlynek wrote:

As a consensus, I take it that modern-day proofs mean very little in terms of image quality and colour, and are more useful for checking text and graphic placement.

An emailed, low-res proof, yes.

A proof in a proofing system (we use Kodak's InSite), viewed on a colour-calibrated system should allow one to check image quality and colour.

If a customer wishes, we will still provide inkjet contract proofs and I've been arguing that we should provide customers w/ the option of a Dupont Waterproof which allows checking actual half-toning / dot formations (or at least the old ones did --- I believe the new ones are still able to afford that).

William

--
William Adams
senior graphic designer
Fry Communications
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.

--
you are subscribed to "InDesign talk" on Google Groups, to post: send email to indesi...@googlegroups.com, to unsubscribe: send email to indesign-tal...@googlegroups.com, for more options visit http://groups.google.com/group/indesign-talk

[Jack Mlynek]

Always.

Take care,

Jack Mlynek MFA
ja...@avalanchecom.com

A

valanche Communications

T: 647.206.3434

This message is private and confidential. If you have received this message in error, please notify us and remove it from your system.

[Patrice Olivier-Wilson]

I am coming in late to this thread, but Bob, I too use Growll. Great folks! I am only 60 miles from their plant and visited a few years ago. Rich and all others are really nice folks. Growll is a sister business to a traditional plant, and only work with trades on a gang press.

This week, I had a cymk project that I couldn't get a particular color to convert from PMS to CYMK close enough. I have an in-house color printer, albeit a new one (my high end died) that my tests just didn't come close. My Pantone conversion charts were not showing a close enough match, so I contacted Growll to ask to purchase a match print before placing an order but they said they can't accommodate it.

So thanks for the confidence for Growll. I think I will just do a short run of biz cards to check the output before placing the $3K order for all products. Thanks again.

~~~~~~~

The printer which I use for color work (Growll) will provide match prints, pdfs checked by them, or raw pdfs direct from the files I send. The first time that I run a job I request and pay for, a match print (which is Fedexed), if I'm reprinting a job, unless there are "issues", I get a raw pdf, just to be sure I haven't screwed up. In the rare instance that I'm doing a truly critical job, I would do it locally where I can be there for the press run - but this is very, very rare.

>

[Robert Severn]

"Match Print" was the wrong description - it's a brand name. Growll does provide very accurate hard copy prints, for a price. I have found these to be very reliable.

You're right, they are great people and have done dozens of my jobs with no problems.

On May 30, 2012, at 5:33 PM, Jack Mlynek wrote:

Always.

Take care,

Jack Mlynek MFA
ja...@avalanchecom.com

<AvalancheLogo_100x100.jpg> A

Bob

Robert K Severn

Severn Associates

Marketing Services

rse...@severnet.com