Pro-Imaging

We look for a number of qualities in a proofing system:

1. Accuracy

2. Control

3. Flexibility

A proofing system that scores highly in each of these qualities is one that will not only allow the user to match internationally recognised quality standards, but keep pace with developments as new standards are adopted and old standards are adapted.

With the advent of modern ink jet technology, accurate testing equipment and a multitude of software solutions from competing vendors proof quality has improved considerably.

At the same time we have seen the establishment of open standards for quality control of the print process and the acceptance of colour managed workflows using ICC profiles.

Therefore it is surprising to see that magazine production is still dominated by an approval process dictated more by logotype than proof accuracy.

The technical specifications for most UK magazines are low on real technical content and high on brand content. The majority state that submitted proofs are most likely to be from one device, using a specific substrate and a specific adjustment curve – all of which are controlled by one dominant company.

The reasons for using approval by logotype are easy to understand: it's quicker and easier to approve something that only requires you to flip it over and look for the logo! But how accurate is the proof?

This rather old-fashioned production method was OK before people understood that there were better ways of doing things. The big expensive box that nobody understands but simply accepts produces good results was acceptable when work came from a very limited number of suppliers that all used the same box. But now work comes from a variety of sources – including those with better quality proofing devices than the big box manufacturers.

The big industry players like DuPont have been faced with difficult choices to maintain dominance. Their first choice was to join the revolution and market their own software solution that would compete with other RIP vendors.

DuPont's CromaPro was a good product. Too good. When DuPont's biggest Digital Cromalin customers started expressing serious interest in more flexible proofing solutions it was killed off.

The second choice is to be seen helping the industry to adopt new standards and quality expectations while not helping the industry adopt new standards and quality expectations. This was our view of industry involvement in the Proof4Press initiative, which, by viewing the UK magazine technical specifications, appears to have been very successful.

Getting Fogra Certification

The certification process is easy to understand and requires:

1. A colour proofing system that is capable of achieving Fogra's requirements

2. The production of a proof sheet that matches or exceeds Fogra's quality standards

So, why isn't everybody doing it?

Firstly, not all colour proofing systems are capable of achieving certification. The majority of offerings from the modern RIP vendors that can drive different ink jet hardware are usually capable. But some of the industry standard big box devices are notoriously difficult to work with because the end users don't have enough control over them.

Exerting this degree of control also requires test equipment and software that is capable of generating profiles and reading/verifying media wedges. As a minimum you would need to invest around ?1000 in a handheld spectrophotometer and considerably more in an automated device if you don't intend to spend most of your time reading in test targets that may contain thousands of colour patches.

Process control also requires knowledge and an understanding of colour and colour management that isn't required from the big box systems. They either work or don't work and you call an engineer to fix it for you.

Our own system comprises an EFI ColorProof RIP and an Epson 9600 wide format ink jet. We use a GretagMacbeth Eye One to measure and verify each proof and an X-Rite DTP70 to calibrate the system.

Our own in-house standards are more stringent than Fogra's and we achieve and maintain them through a process of iterative calibration. This consists of outputting a test target, reading the values and building Lab correction curve. The curve is applied to the target and another proof is produced, measured and another curve built. The process is repeated until the dE values plateau.

The incorporation of an additional adjustment allows us greater control than is possible with cruder proofing systems that try to achieve perfect results using just a paper profile and a profile describing the final print conditions.

Although the process sounds complicated a full calibration routine is only required when you install the system and only needs to be repeated if you change paper stock, print engine or choose to support new standards (like FOGRA39 for instance).

Quality control is maintained because every certified proof must be checked and the colour values printed on an approval sticker. Problems are flagged immediately and solved by spending a few minutes on one or two further iterations of the calibration routine.

The declaration of the dE values on the approval sticker means that recipients of Fogra certified proofs are able to see for themselves if the proofer was working to acceptable standards. And, because the Fogra standards are open to public scrutiny they are also able to measure the media wedge themselves to independently verify the accuracy of the proofs.

In Conclusion

For us, the combination of the support of open standards and the in-house expertise that are implicit every time we deliver an accurate and certified proof make Fogra certification an obvious choice.

Supplying Digital Cromalin says nothing more about a supplier than the fact that they have purchased a big box solution.

More information about Fogra certification can be found by clicking here.