Would you recommend?

[DCurry]

Can it spit out a TIFF instead?

So, when you have a problem on press that doesn't show up in the proof, does the problem show up in your Layout/Bindery proof? It should, which means you should be checking them for content and it might spare you any surprises on press.

[Farabomb]

I'm sorry but I don't consider a printout that is not using the same data for the proof and what is going to plate a "proof". If they sold you on that BS I'd be on the phone with them. A proof should reflect exactly what is going to plate. The color should be very close and the content should be exactly the same. Anything else is not a proof, just a printout. Might as well send the data to the customer and have them print it out.

[m2r]

Can it spit out a TIFF instead?

Not that I am aware of.

It should, which means you should be checking them for content and it might spare you any surprises on press.

Yes, we do / are, some things will get missed.
At first, our Layout proofs were not from a Rastered file, they are now.

I'm sorry but I don't consider a printout that is not using the same data for the proof and what is going to plate a "proof"

I agree. We did not have that option with the Harlequin, but the files did pass thru the same RIP, just different screening.
Comes down to Money, how much you are willing to loose.

Might as well send the data to the customer and have them print it out.

That would save them the costs of Next Day Airs!

[Ear]

This is a tough one... we've talked about it before. I agree, it needs to be an emulated plate proof to be 100% accurate. That said, we only run re-merged, descreened plate proofs to our spinjet. For color, I run PDF to an Epson through a color control RIP. In reality, once the actual plate screening is done, it would be very difficult to reproduce in composite off of a digital device and have it look decent, since the inkjet printers are using their own screening... thus the need for a descreen.

[Joe]

This is a tough one... we've talked about it before. I agree, it needs to be an emulated plate proof to be 100% accurate. That said, we only run re-merged, descreened plate proofs to our spinjet. For color, I run PDF to an Epson through a color control RIP. In reality, once the actual plate screening is done, it would be very difficult to reproduce in composite off of a digital device and have it look decent, since the inkjet printers are using their own screening... thus the need for a descreen.

EFI one-bit tiff works pretty well, though it does actually descreen and then the inkjet screens it again for the proof but it is an actual proof made from the same files that make the plates.

[Joe]

Can it spit out a TIFF instead?

Not that I am aware of.

You should check with your vendor on that. Almost any workflow these days should have the option to output a raster file for proofing purposes. If they didn't give you that I think you might have gotten hosed.

[m2r]

If they didn't give you that I think you might have gotten hosed.

heh....heh...he said hosed

[Ear]

This is a tough one... we've talked about it before. I agree, it needs to be an emulated plate proof to be 100% accurate. That said, we only run re-merged, descreened plate proofs to our spinjet. For color, I run PDF to an Epson through a color control RIP. In reality, once the actual plate screening is done, it would be very difficult to reproduce in composite off of a digital device and have it look decent, since the inkjet printers are using their own screening... thus the need for a descreen.

EFI one-bit tiff works pretty well, though it does actually descreen and then the inkjet screens it again for the proof but it is an actual proof made from the same files that make the plates.

True, but then it's back to the money thing for another tiff export license.  :rolleyes:

My color accurate proofs are coming from a PDF that has been through my normalize and impo stage, though it is not screened for plate. I used to have problems that showed up on press but not proof. I have not had this happen in years. A lot of it comes down to the operator knowing pitfalls and what to look for. I have found that there are only a few conditions that cause problems and they're not hard to avoid once you know what to look for.

Still, most of our proofs are done with descreened tiffs to our spinjet. The Epson is calibrated very closely to the presses so it is mostly used to help with picky clients and to send out to press.

[Farabomb]

I can't see the savings in not getting the option to use the same data for proof and plating. If you catch it at the press or worse after it's all assembled and delivered that's a buttload of money already lost. That happens twice or really bad once and you have the cost right there. Penny wise and pound foolish.

 I understand you do all you can to check it before it hits the press but it's impossible to catch everything.

[m2r]

A lot of it comes down to the operator knowing pitfalls and what to look for.

Our biggest pitfalls have been put in place by the manufacturer. Upon removing, things have been working - knock on wood.

[Ear]

A lot of it comes down to the operator knowing pitfalls and what to look for.

Our biggest pitfalls have been put in place by the manufacturer. Upon removing, things have been working - knock on wood.

Agreed. When first installed, XMF had some HORRIBLE default settings. Caused me some major problems. Spent a couple weeks tweaking (overprint/KO settings in particular) and now I have no problems.

[Joe]

This is a tough one... we've talked about it before. I agree, it needs to be an emulated plate proof to be 100% accurate. That said, we only run re-merged, descreened plate proofs to our spinjet. For color, I run PDF to an Epson through a color control RIP. In reality, once the actual plate screening is done, it would be very difficult to reproduce in composite off of a digital device and have it look decent, since the inkjet printers are using their own screening... thus the need for a descreen.

EFI one-bit tiff works pretty well, though it does actually descreen and then the inkjet screens it again for the proof but it is an actual proof made from the same files that make the plates.

True, but then it's back to the money thing for another tiff export license.  :rolleyes:

My color accurate proofs are coming from a PDF that has been through my normalize and impo stage, though it is not screened for plate. I used to have problems that showed up on press but not proof. I have not had this happen in years. A lot of it comes down to the operator knowing pitfalls and what to look for. I have found that there are only a few conditions that cause problems and they're not hard to avoid once you know what to look for.

Still, most of our proofs are done with descreened tiffs to our spinjet. The Epson is calibrated very closely to the presses so it is mostly used to help with picky clients and to send out to press.

True on the money but if they want to run with the big dogs... :laugh:

So you can output a raster tiff on your brand of XMF?

[Ear]

This is a tough one... we've talked about it before. I agree, it needs to be an emulated plate proof to be 100% accurate. That said, we only run re-merged, descreened plate proofs to our spinjet. For color, I run PDF to an Epson through a color control RIP. In reality, once the actual plate screening is done, it would be very difficult to reproduce in composite off of a digital device and have it look decent, since the inkjet printers are using their own screening... thus the need for a descreen.

EFI one-bit tiff works pretty well, though it does actually descreen and then the inkjet screens it again for the proof but it is an actual proof made from the same files that make the plates.

True, but then it's back to the money thing for another tiff export license.  :rolleyes:

My color accurate proofs are coming from a PDF that has been through my normalize and impo stage, though it is not screened for plate. I used to have problems that showed up on press but not proof. I have not had this happen in years. A lot of it comes down to the operator knowing pitfalls and what to look for. I have found that there are only a few conditions that cause problems and they're not hard to avoid once you know what to look for.

Still, most of our proofs are done with descreened tiffs to our spinjet. The Epson is calibrated very closely to the presses so it is mostly used to help with picky clients and to send out to press.

True on the money but if they want to run with the big dogs... :laugh:

So you can output a raster tiff on your brand of XMF?

But of course you can. I output raster tiffs to my platesetter and to my spinjet.

[Joe]

So you can output a raster tiff on your brand of XMF?

But of course you can. I output raster tiffs to my platesetter and to my spinjet.

Can it spit out a TIFF instead?

Not that I am aware of.

Can you tell m2r how you do it?

[Ear]

Can it spit out a TIFF instead?

Not that I am aware of.

Can you tell m2r how you do it?

I think he already knows how, it's just a question of tiff licenses vs # of devices and the configuration of the package, as he himself stated earlier in the thread.

Here are a couple of screenshots from my configuration. I have, basically, 2 tiff export licenses. One is for the platesetter, the other is for the spinjet. You can see by the settings that I am exporting tiffs to these devices. However, much like m2r, I am sending non-raster PDFs to an EFI Colorproof Rip for my Epson.