Should digital proofing be done on the production equipment (i.e. one the Igen 3 or Nexpres, etc.) or on a seperate proofing device? Can proofs generated on a Xerox Phaser (or other similar device) be used for production to be done on an Igen?

If so, has anyone had particular sucess with any particular proofing device?

We have been proofing on the production equipment using the specified stock(s) for the job. This results in a nice proof; however, it takes alot of time from production. This is obviously different than I am used to in the offset workflow we use.

Great questions...

Yes you can use the digital devices for proofing, but you are right it does cost a fortune. Conventional proofing devices can't similate the larger gamut of digital devices. So if you are opening up the gamut of the digital device and not trying to emulate / simulate the offset 4 color SWOP / Sheetfed gamut then they won't work for proofing.

We have tried using a Xerox phaser 7750 and a Docucolor 2060 for proofing and they work ok for some stuff but for the color accurate needs we still proof on the iGen3. The upside is you can proof on the final stock and even do the finishing if needed like bookletmaking, etc.

We change for the proofing time accordingly and make sure that the client knows that on-press proofing is an expensive process. We try to steer them to our other proofing options but most still want an on-press proof and are willing to pay for it.

I understand the challenge you are describing. On press proofing is costly! Patrick is right, sometimes it cannot be avoided. I think it is important to set the expentation with the customer for an on press proof. They must pay for the best proof possible. The costs are high because of the press cost. Additionally, proofing on press will extend turntimes since it requires an interuption to the production schedule.

Most customers accept and understand the need for higher prices and the need for extra time. I think it is critical to avoid doing on press proofs without educating the customer about the process and charging appropriately for time and expense.

We proof every job on-press. Not only that, we proof on the stock it will be produced on, and with any finishing it is going to require. That way when a customer signs off on a proof, they are approving everything: layout, image quality, colour accuracy, stock, and finishing. Not only that, for the sake of speed, we print two proofs, one for us, and one for the customer. That way they don't have to send it back in order for us to go ahead with the job. This is included with our $30 setup fee.

I don't really understand why you are saying that it is so costly to proof on-press. Why? If I started running proofs for everything on the Phaser or the DC240, my manager would kill me. In fact, if the volume on the DC240 or DC2045 gets too high he has 'a talk' with us. The iGen is the cheapest colour machine in the shop, per click. And if you are running the DocuSP, it's easy enough to submit proofs while a print run is in progress (acutally this is our preferred method, that way the iGen is up to speed and at it's most colour accurate).

If you are talking about the cost of time to produce those proofs, I suppose that is true, but that has to be weighed against the cost of re-doing jobs when the customer is unsatisfied. We have almost no re-do's due to miscommunication/operator error, and lots of happy customers.

yeah, the igen is probably the lower per click device. one factor that may not apply to you that we often encounter is the need to change stocks for a large number of our proofs. The stock changing requires machine stopping when doing mixed media jobs and the cycle up time has a large cost to capacity.

We proof the same way at our shop. In terms of production time we lose very little due to proofing, and silversurfer is right in saying that it helps us avoid unsatisfied customers. The only problems we encounter in doing this is that our iGens' (we have 2) quality can vary from day to day, so sometimes it's difficult to match even a proof off the iGen that was done on the day (or sometimes even several hours) before.

All in all though, one of the reasons our clients work with us is because of our relatively failsafe proofing method. It's something we can offer our customers that so many others don't/can't.

THis Quote interest me.. Igen is promoted (as are all these digital machines) to produce consitant color. From my experiences the Igen does produce very consitantly.. I really don't have color issues from proof to print and the few that I do I can account for the reason why like developers was old and just changed, software updates, or things like that. As long as maintenance is done regularly and you calibrate as speced you should not be seeing much change.. What do you contibute your difficulty to???

PS
When I ran the Nexpress the color always shifted day to day, hour to hour, and was no where near as stable as IGEN. But in all fairness that was 2 years ago and Kodak has changed a lot since then. I would be interested in a Nexpress OPs opinion on this...

THanks!

Dale

That is interesting. We recently ran a light area cover mostly text with a logo and some charts variable piece accross the Nexpress and the Igen. The total run was appr. 1.3 million color impressions. The first page to the last page had no noticable color change on the nexpress; however, from hundred to hundred and thousand to thousand and first to last we experienced tremendous fluxiation on the Igen.

When you had your experience with the Nexpress, what model were you on? 2100? We are running a 2500 and the color consistency has been far superior.

I ran the 2100. It scares me to here the problem you had with the Igen though. I honestly have had zero problems with holding colors on the Igen. Most of my work is all heavier coverages and I know that the Igen has issues with lower coverage jobs and it's developer holding, but the press adjusts for it. I would guess you were having problems with the press at the time. I can believe that the Nexpress has improved it's processes but I have a hard time believing the Igen has tremendous fluxiation under normal circumstances...

Interesting....

Dale

Funny enough, it was actually the best I have seen the igen run in quite some time from an overall productivity standpoint. It did however not manage to outpace / outproduce a 17 ppm slower device! I know it sounds like I am entirely anti-igen, but that is not true. I have a lot of respect for the product and the technology Xerox brought to market at the time; however, the key is "at the time." I think Kodak has leap frogged the Xerox offering.

I am currious, how many total impressions on your igen? Ours is over 20 million.

We are at around 9 mil..

You might want to have your CTIS or your service team to come in an check your Toner Concentration Sensors with the Toner Concentration test tool (your CTIS may be the only one with this test tool). The TC test tool reads the actual concentration of the Developer/Toner Mix in the Housing, not relying on the reading from the actual sensor. If the TC is either too low or too high it can cause weird things to happen to your colors. They may also want to check your ETAC sensors, too. We just had a toner concentration sensor and an ETAC sensor get way out of spec and they were causing us a great deal of color issues on our IGEN. The TC Test tool was the only thing that diagnosed the primary TC problem as it was mimicking something else as being the problem - which my service team was unsucessfully trying things over and over to fix something that was not the real cause of the problem.
The ETAC sensor was also causing color shifts as it was not reading the patches consistantly and the press was working overtime to adjust for the bad reading, thus I did 6 calibrations and had 6 different red's (target was PMS 485) printing from brownish orange to Pinkish Red as the result of the ETAC sensor going bad.

Techs and CTISs are able to perform a TC reset procedure without the tools as well. It involves a fresh material change and a list of NVMs to reset.