Uploaded byVIGCbe
CMIC Summit 2013: Ink reduction for food packaging printers
The document discusses challenges in food packaging printing, particularly regarding ink issues such as migration and drying times, and emphasizes the need for education among designers about these problems. It presents findings from a study about visual perception of print quality, revealing that reductions in total area coverage (tac) do not significantly affect print quality as perceived by experienced printers. The conclusion advocates for a holistic approach to printing that combines proper education and adherence to best practices to enhance quality and efficiency in the production process.
More Related Content
Similar to CMIC Summit 2013: Ink reduction for food packaging printers
CMIC Summit 2013: Ink reduction for food packaging printers
- 1. © Cross-Media InnovationCenter – RIT CMIC Summit 2013 Ink reduction for food packaging Eddy Hagen General manager VIGC
- 2. Industry Challenge • Producingfood packaging is a challenge, certainly carton printed with lithography: – Ink setoff can create migration – Oxidative inks dry very slowly (multiple days) – UV inks contain photo initiators, all of them were black listed in the EU a few years ago – Many designers LOVE a 400% black… 10/10/2013 © Cross-Media Innovation Center – RIT CMIC Summit 2013 2
- 3. Audience Survey • Doyou see a difference between the 4 samples that are distributed? – 1: I don’t see a difference – 2: I do see a difference, but all samples are acceptable (i.e. I would not reject the job) – 3: I do see a difference, one of them is unacceptable (i.e. I would reject that one or claim a discount) – 4: I do see a difference, multiple samples are unacceptable 10/10/2013 © Cross-Media Innovation Center – RIT CMIC Summit 2013 3
- 4. VIGC • Flemish InnovationCenter for Graphic Communication (Belgium) • Practical solutions to real live problems – Inspired by questions from our members – Search for the root of the problem 10/10/2013 © Cross-Media Innovation Center – RIT CMIC Summit 2013 4
- 5. VIGC • Some examples:deviations between spectrophotometers – Everybody thinks his/her device tells the truth • Discussion between screen printer and his customer – VIGC study in printing companies (2008) • Deviations up to 3.77 delta E*ab • Differences between different brands • Maintenance is an issue 10/10/2013 © Cross-Media Innovation Center – RIT CMIC Summit 2013 5
- 6. VIGC • Some examples:overprinting in PDF – 2011: many questions from printers: discussions with designers about the content of a print ready PDF • Usually: Adobe Acrobat vs Mac OS X Preview – PDF Viewer test + PDF Viewer Check 10/10/2013 © Cross-Media Innovation Center – RIT CMIC Summit 2013 6
- 7. VIGC • Some examples:transparency blend space – 2012: VIGC Output Essentials • Workflow tool for designers (free!) • Step by step 10/10/2013 © Cross-Media Innovation Center – RIT CMIC Summit 2013 7
- 8. The origins ofour ‘Max TAC’ project • Meeting with a food packaging printer – Complaining about the designs he receives: way too much ink (350% or even higher) – Ink dries very slowly: only after a few days 100% dry • A real risk for contamination / migration! – Coating is not a solution: only top layer is dry • Die cutting: knives cut through the wet ink • Folding: edge might touch inside when folded – UV ink: all photo initiators blacklisted at that time – The root of the problem: designers are not aware of issues with high TAC 10/10/2013 © Cross-Media Innovation Center – RIT CMIC Summit 2013 8
- 9. How black isblack? • Immediate result of meeting: tutorial file – Show the different possibilities of ‘Rich Black’ – Show the influence of varnish • Some designers want a matte varnish (specific tactile experience!) but then complain that the black looks dull… 10/10/2013 © Cross-Media Innovation Center – RIT CMIC Summit 2012 9
- 10. How low canyou go? • Nobody could answer me… – Conventional wisdom: 350%, 300% is already ‘low’ • Launch X-Rite i1 Publish: initial tests – Small vs large profiles – Dozen profiles, increments of 20%, from 320% to 180% – Conversion of multiple images, not only pictures with deep black • Visual evaluation on monitor • Visual evaluation inkjet proof 10/10/2013 © Cross-Media Innovation Center – RIT CMIC Summit 2012 10
- 11. First print test •6 images, up to 9 different renderings – VIGC: 200, 220, 240, 260, 280, 300, 320% – ECI ISOcoated v2: 330, 300% – Adobe CoatedFogra 39 (330%) – Basiccolor ISOcoated v2 (330%) • Evaluation by a few seasoned printers (active in high quality and in food packaging) – They could barely see a difference… and were amazed by that… 10/10/2013 © Cross-Media Innovation Center – RIT CMIC Summit 2012 11
- 12. More quality testing •VIGC50 XCS (eXtreme Color Suite) 10/10/2013 © Cross-Media Innovation Center – RIT CMIC Summit 2012 12
- 13. More quality testing •Print/Easyfairs 2011 – Trade Show – 18 participants • Nobody would have rejected any one of the prints! • Technical director mid sized printing company: “If you would sent this job to 4 different printers, the prints would look much more different” 10/10/2013 © Cross-Media Innovation Center – RIT CMIC Summit 2012 13
- 14. More quality testing •Measurements vs visual perception – We are addicted to numbers, loups and calculations most people don’t understand (e.g. delta E) – What matters: do you see a difference? – Matte coated samples – image C (the one with the highest deviations) • 320%: L = 11.91 • 300%: L = 12.47 (0.56 difference with 320%) • 260%: L = 13.97 (2.06 difference with 320%) • 220%: L = 15.06 (3.15 difference with 320%) 10/10/2013 © Cross-Media Innovation Center – RIT CMIC Summit 2012 14
- 15. More quality testing 10/10/2013 ©Cross-Media Innovation Center – RIT CMIC Summit 2012 15 • Measurements vs visual perception – What matters: do you see a difference? • Most (all) people have a hard time seeing a difference when presented this way: with a small white border
- 16. More quality testing 10/10/2013 ©Cross-Media Innovation Center – RIT CMIC Summit 2012 16
- 17. VIGC Max TACprofiles + kit • ICC profiles available for free – 220%, 260%, 300%, 320% – Fogra39L (coated), Fogra47L (uncoated) • VIGC Max TAC Evaluation kit available for purchase 10/10/2013 © Cross-Media Innovation Center – RIT CMIC Summit 2012 17
- 18. But… old habitsdie hard • “Ink reducation doesn’t work!” – The main issue: highlights (small dots) in CMY • Film based workflows vs Computer-to-Plate • Question: what about flexo? – 4-color printing on 2- or 1-color presses, with visual control by press operator vs 4-color presses with measurement systems – “100% K may cause picking” • Quality of paper has improved, due to higher press speeds – So: historical reasons! 10/10/2013 © Cross-Media Innovation Center – RIT CMIC Summit 2012 18
- 19. But… where toconvert? • What is the best place/worklow for ink reduction? • Use the right profile from the beginning! – And only convert 1 time! – If designers delivers CMYK PDF: they should use a low TAC profile! – But they don’t care… or they don’t know… • Educate! • Use the right incentives! 10/10/2013 © Cross-Media Innovation Center – RIT CMIC Summit 2012 19
- 20. But… where toconvert? • Ink reduction software / ‘color servers’ come with a risk… – PDFs with transparency: first convert, then flatten or the other way around? – Topic recent GWG meeting 10/10/2013 © Cross-Media Innovation Center – RIT CMIC Summit 2012 20
- 21. But… where toconvert? 10/10/2013 © Cross-Media Innovation Center – RIT CMIC Summit 2012 21
- 22. But… where toconvert? 10/10/2013 © Cross-Media Innovation Center – RIT CMIC Summit 2012 22
- 23. But… where toconvert? 10/10/2013 © Cross-Media Innovation Center – RIT CMIC Summit 2012 23 • The designer must do his job right! – And the printer must respect what the designer did… – But probably the designer needs to be educated… • And the printer does have a responsability there!
- 24. Conclusion • Challenge conventionalwisdom! – There are still opportunities for innovation in conventional printing • 260% TAC is not distuingishable from 320%, 220% is in most cases acceptable • Measurements vs visual perception – And how do we do that visual perception… – Be realistic! 10/10/2013 © Cross-Media Innovation Center – RIT CMIC Summit 2013 24
- 25. Conclusion • Holistic approach! –The designer should use the right profile, but he has no immediate benefit – Trying to fix stuff isn’t the right choice: do it right the first time! • Similar to fixing errors in PDF files: yes, you can do that, but why are people creating PDF files with errors in the first place? – Education! 10/10/2013 © Cross-Media Innovation Center – RIT CMIC Summit 2013 25
- 26. Future Research Questions •Ink reduction for spot colors • Ink reduction for flexo • Measuring vs seeing: what are realistic tolerances? – In a P2 environment (500 lux), not P1 (2000 lux) – ‘Average user’, not a trained specialist – How to compare colors, proof vs print? • See the VIGC Max TAC samples with/without the white border • Similar to Farnsworth Munsell 100 Hue test: physical vs online 10/10/2013 © Cross-Media Innovation Center – RIT CMIC Summit 2013 26
- 27. Audience Survey Results –1: I don’t see a difference – 2: I do see a difference, but all samples are acceptable (i.e. I would not reject the job) – 3: I do see a difference, one of them is unacceptable (i.e. I would reject that one or claim a discount) – 4: I do see a difference, multiple samples are unacceptable 10/10/2013 © Cross-Media Innovation Center – RIT CMIC Summit 2013 27
- 28. 10/10/2013 © Cross-Media InnovationCenter – RIT CMIC Summit 2013 28 Thank You! Q & A Eddy Hagen General manager VIGC eddy.hagen@vigc.org