Remote Proofing is Outtasight

Industry experts lend their advice on the best ways to approach remote proofing for packaging.

IT HAS BEEN observed that Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did, except that she did it backwards and in high heels. It's the same with proofing (Fred) and remote proofing (Ginger).

Throw in the complex proofing requirements of packaging printers and a straightforward series of dance steps becomes an intricate high-wire act, in which the accurate long-distance reproduction of graphics, text, placement, and structure—as well as the matching of special brand or logo colors—can make or break an important job. Like commercial printers, packaging printers can save time and money through remote proofing, provided the image that is sent is consistent with the proof made on the other end and the proofer that will be used to print it.

To gain a better understanding of the benefits and pitfalls of remote proofing for packaging, packagePRINTING spoke with Jim Summers, president, GMG Americas; Deborah Hutcheson, senior marketing manager, Digital Solutions, North America, Agfa; John Sweeney, vice president sales and marketing ICS, Inc.; Brian Ashe, eastern regional applications manager, GretagMacBeth; and Pat Lord, product manager, remote proofing, Kodak Graphic Communications Group. Each of these companies has a stake in the development and adoption of remote proofing technology. We began with a definition of some frequently slippery terms:

pP: What is remote proofing, and how does it differ from soft proofing, online collaborative proofing, and monitor contract proofing?

Ashe—Remote proofing, monitor contract proofing, and soft proofing are essentially the same thing. Remote proofing, however, is aimed at getting rid of the contract proof, replacing the FedEx packages back and forth with approval in a few minutes over the phone. People who sell remote proofing systems use our instruments to create the monitor profiles for the press they're trying to simulate.

Hutcheson—A remote proofing solution that links brand owner, designer, trade shop, and printing/converting players together is the ideal solution to cut cost and save time in any packaging project. In remote proofing, digital files are sent from a printer to a customer or a designer who views them locally. A remote proof can either be a hard copy proof or a soft copy proof. Soft proofs are also referred to as display or monitor proofs. Hard copy remote proofs are traditionally inkjet proofs. Soft proofing limits the viewing of the file to the monitor—no hard copy is required. Some customers combine the two processes. They use soft proofs for their content proofs or to reduce the number of hard copy proofs produced during the proofing cycle and only output a hard copy proof as the final proof. This can be done at the host site (the print shop) or at the remote site. The remote customer can view the soft proof, sign off on it, and then output a hard copy proof of that file. Online collaborative proofing is usually done in a Web-based environment in which participants can view the same image at the same time and make comments live.

Lord—There isn't really any standard definition or usage of those terms. As a result, they tend to overlap, which can create some confusion. Remote proofing refers to any scenario where the proof is delivered at some distance away from where it was created, either in hard copy form or on a monitor. Soft proofing, virtual proofing, and monitor proofing are equivalent; we've tried to standardize "monitor proofing" as the term to denote proofs delivered on-screen. Contract proofs are used to set expectations between provider and customer on the hard-to-specify attributes of color and print quality. Depending on the nature of the job, a variety of proof types potentially can be used as the "contract proof" for a given job, so this term doesn't really denote any specific attributes or quality standard. Collaborative online proofing refers to the ability for multiple people involved in the review and approval process to effectively communicate and process jobs through the creative and production process, either at the same time or individually.

Summers—Remote proofing refers to the output or delivery of a proof in any form to any location other than where it was originally produced. Instead of a delivery van, a digital carrier is used. With remote proofing, the prepress group is in one spot, and another prepress group, or design department or print production, is at another spot. Soft proofing, which is always conducted on a calibrated or uncalibrated monitor, is done for many reasons, including position, content, design, or color. Online collaborative proofing is a form of soft proofing where people discuss content from two locations, sending proofs back and forth. It replaces the activity of receiving a proof from shipping, taking a pen, marking up the proof, talking on the phone about the same proof with someone else, and shipping back the proof. Monitor contract proofing requires a proofing system where there is some form of calibration and closed loop validation of the state of the monitor calibration, so it can be repeated and verified. That's key.

Sweeney—Remote proofing could be either hard or soft proof, where the output, or display, is at a remote location. Online collaborative proofing refers to any system where mark-up, or annotation or sign-off is done remotely. Typically soft-proofing based, there are remote collaboration systems where a hard proof is printed, marked-up in traditional manner (Sharpie pen), scanned, and a PDF of the mark-up transmitted—typically via email. Monitor contract proofing is color accurate. The system includes color management software, as well as a colorimeter or spectrophotometer for monitor profiling and calibration.

pP: What are the technical requirements for the application of remote proofing?

Ashe—At a minimum, you need a high-speed Internet connection and a high-end monitor (LCD). The better the monitor, the more accurate the reproduction. It's also best to have a light box and a controlled viewing environment. Finally, you need process controls to guarantee repeatable output profiles for the proofer or the press.

Hutcheson—Whether you are doing hard or soft copy remote proofing, calibration and process control is critical in making sure that the remote and the host sites see the same information. In the world of hard copy remote proofing, you need to make sure that the remote and the host sites both have the inkjet devices with the same inkjet head technology, that they run the same inks and media, and that they apply the same profiles.

Lord—Hard or soft remote proofing involves much more than placing a standard proofer at a remote site and downloading files and color profiles to it. Because proofs set key customer expectations for color and print quality, they must accurately emulate the printed piece. The key challenge with remote proofing is to provide absolute assurance that the proof viewed was generated on calibrated equipment without operator errors or date mixups. Surveys show that the most common cause of bad proofs are operator errors, such as using the wrong profile or loading the wrong type of media.

Summers—For a hard copy inkjet contract proofing system, you need a low-end PC to run the application, a high-speed connection for an incoming data file, an inkjet printer such as an Epson 4800, good proofing media, and a spectrophotometer to calibrate the output device. With a thermal system, you need a room with sufficient cooling to put the system in, and an operator to tend it. The annual maintenance contract alone for a system of this type often exceeds the entire system purchase price for a hard copy inkjet-based system. Materials are at least 10 times more expensive than those of an inkjet system. You could operate 10 remote inkjet systems for the price of one "high-end" proofing system. With a soft proofing system, you need a lightweight PC, a good Internet line, software, and a good, neutral viewing environment.

Sweeney—Hardware requirements for hard and soft remote proofing are the same as for local proofing: high-speed connectivity (Internet), and an integrated quality monitoring system to validate the color accuracy of the remote device, which could be an inkjet or monitor-based proofing system.

pP: Are there practical, cost-

effective remote proofing applications for both inkjet and thermal equipment?

Ashe—The output device doesn't matter as long as you have a profile for it. That being said, inkjet is a lot cheaper, and there are those who say that thermal proofs are more accurate representations of what you'll get on press because it's more of a dot-for-dot reproduction.

Hutcheson—As a provider of inkjet proofing systems, Agfa believes inkjet provides the most reliable and cost-effective means for remote proofing at the remote site.

Lord—Remote proofing is often done at multiple sites with low proof throughput per site, so proofer cost is particularly important. Because of this, and the fact that skilled operators are required, thermal halftone proofing is seldom used for remote proofing.

Summers—With high-resolution thermal transfer, is it reasonable for each location to have $250,000 in capital equipment? It becomes a cost/performance decision. Does it make sense to make proofs in one location and ship to others? Inkjet systems will not provide laminated proofs on a substrate. Thus, they will not match the exact appearance of the substrate. With high-resolution thermal transfer, you can proof on the final substrate, and there is a sharper halftone dot for extremely high linescreens. They can also reproduce metallic and opaque dots well. There are some distinct advantages of thermal technology. The extended capabilities of a thermal system are the ability to output on the substrate, print metallics, and create a halftone dot exceeding 175 lines per inch. However, an inkjet is 10 times less expensive to operate. So, the question is: Is cost control most important for a remote system? Many people say that for 10 percent of the operating costs of a thermal system and $12-15,000, they will give up metallics. If you don't care about costs, then thermal is OK. You're paying much, much more on multiple remote thermal systems. Is it practical? Probably not, unless you have some very, very critical work.

Sweeney—Common components to both hard and soft remote proofing systems are connectivity, a computer, color imaging device (printer or monitor), and color calibration instrument (colorimeter or spectrophotometer). With the low cost of LCDs, such as the Apple Cinema 20˝ display, and low cost monitor calibrators, such as the GretagMacbeth Eyeone and X-Rite DTP94, color-accurate monitor proofing systems are the most cost effective. If hard copy is required, the newest inkjet devices are the most cost effective.

pP: What are the challenges with respect to the implementation of remote proofing in packaging workflows?

Ashe—In terms of process control and color management, packaging printers are now where offset printers were about five years ago. The reason for this has to do with the fact that a lot of packaging printers don't run traditional CMYK colors. Instead, they might run 4, 5, 6, or 8 colors. Maybe they run rubine red instead of magenta, or they run reflex blue instead of black. Until relatively recently, we didn't have people who could build good profiles that weren't based on CMYK or RGB.

Hutcheson—A primary challenge is the same as it is at any time: getting brands to trust that their color red will look right each and every time. When Coca-Cola labels are printed, for example, the company wants to make sure that it is the right color every single time, and any variation from the right color is unacceptable, as it should be. The perception that because a printer is far away from the source can sometimes be a hindrance to the acceptance of remote proofs.

Lord—Remote proofing challenges particular to packaging include:

• Accurate emulation of a wide range of spot colors, white, and metallics;

• Color separation;

• The ability to laminate to the actual substrate provides a much better emulation of the printed piece; and

• Overlays: When out-of-gamut spot colors or spot varnishes are used, users sometimes choose to proof those separations to clear films that overlay the proof.

Not all of these attributes can be delivered with monitor or inkjet proofing. For packaging, a common approach is to use remote proofing to finalize content and color and then generate an approval proof at the production site, on the actual substrate that serves as the final contract proof.

Summers—The primary challenge is maintaining the consistency of the system in a remote environment. Can you keep the remote system accurate and repeatable? What tools do you need to measure, track, and fix color? Are they easy to use? GMG offers a very repeatable system, where the administration of color management is done at the supplier's site. What could be easier for the customer? When you use a GMG system, you annotate in hard copy. You find a picture of the proof. Most of the time, you get on the phone with someone. You can also send a PDF file and let the customer mark it up. We suggest that you provide a hard copy to look at, and a PDF file to annotate.

Sweeney—The results of the 2004 and 2005 IPA Proofing Roundup showed that monitor proofing systems are superior to any hard proofing systems in rendering spot, or special colors. ICS Remote Director allows the import of the Pantone color library, including full spectral data for all patches. Proof sign-off is password protected, and is considered a legal signoff. Once a proof is finished, all annotations are locked, and cannot be changed. Remote Director stores a record of all annotations, including who made the annotation and when. In short, Remote Director does everything you currently do with a hard proofing system, a FedEx envelope, and a Sharpie pen.

by Jean-Marie Hershey

Author and editor specializing in the graphic communications industry.

jmh@writehandcom.com