Recently my inkjet proofing printer bit the big one.\u00a0Yes, inkjet. I have been using it to do soft proofing for clients for a few years now, so they can get a sense of what their plates could potentially produce when printed on an intaglio press. There is some interpolation involved on the part of the printmaker for this to work.\u00a0 Essentially all the variables of this process can be boiled down to three categories: Hardware (printing presses, exposure units, vacuum frames), Software (Photoshop files, calibration curves, printer drivers), and what Perl Programming Guru Tom Christianson once referred to as “Wetware”, or the mind of the worker. Proofing is a kind of software, in a sense: Something that can be modified easily, on the fly to have a desired outcome.<\/p>\n
To make soft proofs we output the image on inkjet paper using the same printer driver settings as is used to output the film positive used to create the plate, making sure the correct paper type (in this case Enhanced Matte) is selected in the driver.\u00a0The output will differ from what is printed on the traditional printing press depending on the style, materials, and preferences of the person running the press and wiping the plates, of course.\u00a0 The printmaker factors this in when reading the inkjet proof.<\/p>\n
When our inkjet proofing printer went belly-up, however, we had to make due by producing proofs on the one used to output the film positives.\u00a0 The output between the two would be decidedly different.\u00a0 In fact the output between identical makes and models can be noticeably different.<\/p>\n
Since the clients were used to seeing and judging the potential of the plates based on the output from that specific printer, they needed to compare a proof from the old printer with one from the new.\u00a0\u00a0 Any differences needed to be noted and expectations, adjusted accordingly.\u00a0 Here’s what I advised one client:<\/p>\n
“I also included proofs employing the curves you decided on using for the last plates using \u00a0the new printer.\u00a0 \u00a0Remember, the files and output will be exactly the same for creating the film and plate.\u00a0 It\u2019s just the proof that may appear different.\u00a0 You\u2019ll need to adjust your interpretation of the proofs depending on how they have changed from the former proofs.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n Specifically, you should compare the new proofs to the old proofs I sent\u00a0 to see how this new proofing printer\u2019s output differs from the older ones.\u00a0 If, for example, the new proofs appear slightly darker than the former proofs from last time, you could deduce the bird image\u2019s proofs will be a little *lighter<\/strong>* on the plate than what you\u2019ve gotten accustomed to seeing in the inkjet proofs.\u00a0 \u00a0You\u2019ll then want to choose a curve from a proof slightly darker than may look good on the proofs you\u2019re used to reading, since these new proofs are theoretically darker than what you\u2019re used to seeing.”<\/p>\n Again, by comparing the new proof to the old they could note any differences and adjust expectations accordingly for all future proofs, providing their workflow remains consistent.<\/p>\n Much like when an exposure unit needs a new bulb (hardware) or the formulation of the film substrate changes (software), recalibration is necessary. Typically this is done in the process compensation curves of the image file (again, software) used to produce the film, or in the exposure times used to make the plates. In this case it’s simply the “wetware” of the printmaker that needed to be adjusted to suit the change in variables.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Recently my inkjet proofing printer bit the big one.\u00a0Yes, inkjet. I have been using it to do soft proofing for clients for a few years now, so they can get a sense of what their plates could potentially produce when … Continue reading