Color Proofing Committee Established
Staff -- Graphic Arts Online, 11/1/2000
The administrators of GRACoL (General Requirements for Applications in Commercial Offset Lithography) version 5.0 have created a proofing committee, the two-part mission of which is to develop specifications that apply to both analog and digital proofing systems for GRACoL's printing conditions and guidelines, and to establish certification measures with proofing manufacturers.
Interest and confusion
Setting those goals for the GRACoL proofing committee, which follows the acceptance of the Specifications for Web Offset Publications (SWOP) and Specifications for Newsprint Advertising Production (SNAP), is in response to a ground swell of interest and confusion throughout the graphic arts industry on the subject of proofing.
By definition, a color proof should simulate and predict the appearance of the printed image. But the apparent simplicity of this concept belies the complexity of its execution.
Numerous new types of proofs have emerged as a result of technological changes and improvements. Changes also have occurred insofar as how and at what stage of the production process proofs are purposeful, as well as who ultimately in the workflow process directly generates these proofs.
Consequently, the question of what constitutes a proper proof only serves to generate additional questions before it can be answered. For example, as the proof that a designer uses probably will not adequately satisfy the needs of a printer, more often than not the question of how the proof is intended to be used is a legitimate response to the original query.
Taking a further look
Proofing is used throughout the entire print production workflow as a communications device among the designer, production staff, customer, and printer. One purpose of a proof is to show the composition of a job (e.g. color registration, chokes, spreads, traps), which has led to the need for a variety of proofing solutions such as conceptual, imposition, and hard and soft proofs.
Ultimately, the final (or contract) proof should simulate the color of the printed image and establish agreement between customer and printer for the resultant job. As this proof must represent the printing conditions--substrate, color, ink density, total dot gain, and image resolution--a proofing system must approximate these conditions in a consistent and predictable fashion. It is here that many proofing problems fester.
Unfortunately, there doesn't currently exist a proofing "panacea" to suit the needs of all applications. Complicating the matter further is a combination of digital and analog workflow components among the different types of proofing systems in the marketplace. The confusion lies in the various definitions of analog and digital proofing, which in turn serves to produce semantic arguments with no universal agreement.
Most often within the industry as a whole, "analog proofing" refers to proofs that were generated from film, while "digital proofing" refers to proofs generated directly from a digital file without the use of film.
Presently, the majority of proofing systems are hybrid, going from digital to analog and using film. It is argued by many that in order to achieve visual continuity with a hybrid system, an analog proof should be used rather than digital, as analog proofs employ the same dots, screen rules, and angles that are used to make subsequent printing plates.
Digital proofs, on the other hand, can be output anywhere in the workflow without having to make film, thus providing attractive time and cost considerations.
