Promoting the industry ~ Focused on Members Success
Promoting the industry ~ Focused on Members Success
A few things to check over while you and your file are both still "on the ground."
Before you prepare digital art, ask yourself:
Note: Embedding unacceptable formats in an OK format does not make the resulting file OK. Also, duotones and files with clipping paths must be supplied as EPS.
Before sending the final file, have you:
"Preflight" is now part of electronic prepress jargon across the country. This is actually a superb analogy. The systematic checking of a file first by the originator before delivery to a vendor, and then by the vendor before it is scheduled for production, although not a matter of life-or-death, is an essential to saving both time and money, easily the lifeblood of business.
Supposedly, electronic prepress is supposed to be easier, faster, and cheaper than the traditional process of creating plate-ready film from mechanical art boards, and productivity is supposed to soar. So why then do procedures for checking files normally take longer than the traditional check of art boards? And why do printers and prepress service providers require such detailed forms be filled out with each file submission? Just what does it take to get a simple disk "airborne" ?
Digital files, which are nothing more than electronic "mechanical" art, simply require a new organizational process. Once that process becomes routine, electronic prepress actually begins to fulfill its promise.
One caveat, however, is that even a superb process cannot overcome the quirks of individual software applications. That's where discussions with individual vendors and even belonging to user groups may help. Also, user feedback to software developers spurs industry-specific improved revisions.
The Preflight Checklist was developed with input from printers, prepress service providers and service bureau staff who deal with electronic mechanical art on a daily basis.
While sophisticated file creators may understand all the whys behind these wherefores, most of us can benefit from a little more information.
Reportedly, it is often the simplest things that cause a job to crash, if it "takes off" at all. Across the board, prepress vendors say that what most frequently keeps them from outputting a file is:
Not so long ago, production departments had routine methods of checking to be sure that they had everything needed to produce the job, things like counting all four pieces of a process color separation. Making sure that everything is on a disk is the same kind of basic check, just different.
Vendors really do need both the files prepared in the application and the source files. Application files are the original files created from the program that will be output. QuarkXPress and PageMaker files are typical, but by no means exclusive. Source files are usually the graphics files, such as those created in Illustrator, associated with the application files. These linked files, used by the application file, are required when printing to the imagesetter.
To help you make sure everything is present, some page layout programs have "Collect for Output" or "Gather for Service Bureau" functions. In PageMaker, this option to include files for remote printing can be found in the "Save As" dialogue box. In QuarkXPress, it's in the "File" menu. If this function isn't available, simply refer to the linked images listing, find and then transfer a copy of each file to the transfer media.
As a final check, the best way to verify that all the files are present is first to print a directory of the folder or disk and use this to compare to the gathering function. Then, take the disk that will go to the vendor to a computer that was not used for the project and open the document. Simply manually recheck against the printed directory.
An alternate method while on this second computer, if it has the same application on which the file was created, is to open to the file's linked images listing. This listing will indicate these items as "missing," since the originals obviously aren't accessible. Simply relink the file to the new copies. All images which have been copied onto the transfer media will be listed ŇOK." Any image(s) you've failed to transfer will still be listed as "missing." Whichever method for assuring the source files are all "on board" is used, any missing image(s) must be found and a copy placed onto the transfer media before this portion of preflight is complete.
Few designers would have sent artboards to the printer without marking their images "full bleed" and having their separations sized accordingly. However, this basic element, the allowance for bleeds outside the crop area, is frequently missing from electronic "mechanical" art.
Called overwork in the Preflight Checklist, a bleed allowance means an extra image area that extends beyond the crop marks. It's created by having the image extend past the trim edge of the document page. Usually 0.125" to 0.25", depending on the kind of press that will be used. Just like the old days, overwork provides for a slight margin of error during the trimming/binding process.
In the Preflight Checklist, the originator of a file is asked to include all display and printer fonts used plus complete fonts for the typefaces that have been modified from library faces. It should become a habit to include all fonts with every job including fonts for placed graphics. Customers should also be sure that their vendors have the fonts they are designating.
At this juncture, font licensing and what constitutes copyright violation is under discussion throughout the industry. The jury is still out on the best way to assure fair compensation to type designers and manufacturers without creating production burdens and unreasonable additional costs to consumers. The safest way to avoid potential legal problems is to be properly licensed for fonts and to use a vendor who is also properly licensed for the same fonts used in the file.
Understandably, vendors want to make sure that everything to properly output a job is included in the file, also meaning that nothing extra be included. Service providers report that prepress service users habitually submit high capacity media littered with outdated working files and/or other unrelated files that don't need to be output. Such extraneous content should be removed from the transporting media, or, at the very least clearly listed as such, if, for some reason, it can't be removed. Otherwise, this may cause unwanted confusion, additional costs, and frustrating delays in locating appropriate files for output.
In the not-so-distant past, frugal designers would often reuse artboards (just like we reuse disks today), but the "old" artwork was always removed to avoid confusion. Similarly, designers would never have included preliminary sketches with the final art when forwarding it to the printer for reproduction. This kind of thinking still applies today when preparing digital artwork.
As always, prepress proofing, that is interim proofs, bluelines, and contact proofs, are as much a part of the normal workflow in print production, and are acquired from the prepress vendor. However, today the majority of vendors providing prepress services require (at the very least) a composite laser proof of any digital file before they will begin preparing it for output to provide a simple visual reference. Of course, since this is its purpose, this laser proof should be made from the final version of the file.
As simple as it is, this proof can be critical, because it's a vendor's best way of obtaining an accurate "visual" of what you've created, since a project on screen doesn't always provide the necessary information.
Additionally, generating a laser proof for the vendor from a PostScript printer can provide an internal quality control step for the originator, since a file that won't print on a laser printer very possibly also won't RIP and output on an imagesetter. Therefore, this simple laser proofing step can save money as well as prevent delays related to the output phase.
Originators who do not have access to a Post-Script laser printer, should schedule time to purchase laser proofs and make any necessary alterations to the file(s) before their final deadline for project submission.
With multi-color work, whether spot or process color, a set of laser proofs separated by colors can be vital as well. Color separated laser proofs accurately show what colors are going to print and which elements are going to print on which plate.
Objects may inadvertently be placed on the improper color "layer" and the originator would have no opportunity to discover the error unless these separated laser proofs were made. Also, color photos which aren't saved properly will only print on the black "layer," something that wouldn't be evident on a composite proof. If the laser proofs are black & white, originators should indicate the appropriate color on each separation.
While laser proofs are a good indication that a file will RIP, they are not a guarantee. Be advised that the same file does not always output the same way on an imagesetter as it does on a PostScript laser printer.
Vendors point out that laser printers are far more tolerant of mixed image formats than are imagesetters. The PICT format,
for example, which outputs on laser printers as "low resolution," is a major problem and is considered an unacceptable format for imagesetter output. Also, laser printers include QuickDraw drivers, since many business drawing programs are QuickDraw based, however these drivers aren't resident on imagesetters. When translated to a Post-Script RIP, these images may shift or even distort. An unfortunate reality is the fact that every laser printer doesn't necessarily use the PostScript Level II commonly used in today's imagesetters.
A specific problem of the potential inconsistencies between output devices is their handling of "hairline" rules. Obviously, the resolution of typical laser printers is significantly less than that of an imagesetter, therefore, it's very possible that graphic elements, such as rules, may look terrific when output via laser printers but not even show up on the output made by the imagesetter, entirely opposite what you might expect.
Why? Each electronic output device creates rules only as fine as the resolution that device is capable of achieving. Therefore, any rule (or image) finer than that device's resolution will default to the minimum thickness that the device can reproduce. For example, if a design calls for a "hairline" rule (1/4 of a point or 0.0035") at actual (100%) size, it will appear as intended in a 300 dpi print, since 1/300 of an inch equals roughly 0.0033". However, if the same design were output at 25% of its actual size, the laser printer would only print it at the resolution it is capable of handling, so the rule that should measure 0.0008" would still print out as 0.0033".
On the other hand, an imagesetter, which can achieve resolutions as fine or finer than 1/2540 of an inch (0.0004" or over eight times finer than the laser printer), would be capable of imaging the line, however it would be virtually invisible, might not even record on film, and certainly would not match the laser proof image. Therefore, these output factors should be taken into account when creating graphic elements and images. One should never depend on the output of a laser printer to exactly match that made using an imagesetter.
Type may also yield unwelcome surprises between laser printer and imagesetter output. Designers who want an accurately laid out project should apply the correct version of the typeface to properly represent the spacing and character width. That's one reason why the Preflight Checklist recommends not using type style selections (like "bold") from a program's Style menu (unless a font supports that selection). Instead, the actual font with the desired characteristics should be selected from the Font menu.
Not all fonts have been designed to take advantage of the Style menu feature. Therefore, a selection such as "bold" will not appear when output on an imagesetter if the design of a bold version doesn't exist in the printer font, even if it appears "bold" on the screen. Laser printers are actually designed to artificially create "bold" by doubling the image to make it "fatter," an effect that may look acceptable on the laser proof, but the same "menu-driven" selection may simply appear like a double-printed mistake when output on an imagesetter.
There's nothing wrong with using the Style menu to select type styles, especially if there aren't other options available in the program, if the type style actually exists within the font's design. If you're uncertain about a font's ability to appear as desired, a test output on an imagesetter is recommended.
Finally, for originators who appreciate precise typography, how a font suitcase has been harmonized comes into play. Simply put, harmonization is the setting of a font to be selected when a style variation is chosen. Some font families consist of many different weights of type: light, demi, demi-bold, heavy, etc. For example, harmonization makes it possible to use a "demi" weight font, choose the style "bold" and get "demi-bold," or select "bold" instead of "demi-bold." This level of detail assures the originator that the desired fonts are in use.
When a file is referred to as being unnecessarily complex, this may mean one of several things, some of which may be application specific.
In general, "complex" may mean a file took an extra long time to RIP, thus adding to the cost of the project, and a simpler set-up might possibly have produced the same results in less time (and at a lower cost).
For instance, the "deeper" a graphic is embedded, the more difficult and time-consuming it may be to output. Or there may be just too many anchor points or dots per inch in an image which may require a lengthy RIP time.
Experienced users find that with any digital file, simple is better. Consider limiting anchor points to only the number absolutely necessary to get the job done correctly. If an autotrace feature is used in any of the programs, you may need to modify the resultant drawing.
Finally, and perhaps most important, electronic prepress technicians welcome opportunities to consult, especially before a project gets underway. Some prepress service providers have on-line bulletin boards open to customers specifically for this purpose. Each configuration of electronic imaging equipment has its own unique set of characteristics and different requirements, so techniques that work fine with one vendor may not work with another. An early dialog is always best.
Site built using web standards:
CSS
Site Design and Hosting by NCCOAST Communications
The Printing Industry of the Carolinas, Inc. (PICA)
PO Box 19488, Charlotte, NC 28219-9488
3601 Rose Lake Drive (28217)
(704) 357-1150 || (704) 357-1154 (fax)
General Email, click here. || For individual staff email addresses, click here.
© 2010 The Printing Industry of the Carolinas, Inc. (PICA)
