Standards are on the rise ... Print21 magazine article

The topic of international colour standards has generated a lot of interest in the industry over the past couple of years, but while much of the debate so far has focused on offset printing, the scope of ISO standardisation is far wider and is continuing to expand. Simon Enticknap talks with Luke Wooldridge, chairman of the local AU/TC 130 committee, about what future standards lie ahead for local printers and what effect they may have.

Opinions on the use of colour standards in the printing industry often mirror the wider community debate about climate change: there are the believers and the nay-sayers, the converts and the sceptics. There are those who think that printing to an internationally recognised standard is the only way forward for the industry and one which is long overdue, while others argue that it is all smoke and mirrors, an expensive side issue that distracts printers from more important issues, such as trying to stay in business.

The evangelists will tell you that setting up a standards-compliant workflow – usually one that has been certified as meeting the requirements of ISO 12647-2 for offset print – was the best thing they ever did, and that having done it, they wonder now how they ever managed to do without it. Previously they were just printing ‘blind’ but now they can ‘see’. They have control over what they produce. They can predict accurately what the final printed item will look like and are able to re-print at a later date or even at a different site and achieve the same result. Their customers like the certainty of knowing that their jobs will turn out with no nasty surprises and that critical colours will be consistent from job to job. Make-ready times are reduced and there is less waste, fewer reprints and more free time on the press to take on additional work. All these benefits are well-documented and can be testified to by a small but growing band of local printers.

The detractors point out – perhaps justifiably – that they already print to a very high standard, good enough to win awards in fact, and already meet the requirements of the ISO standard without needing to have a piece of paper to tell them that. The cost of getting certified cannot be justified by any reasonable business returns and, while having a certificate might look good on the wall, ultimately the customer only cares about one thing – price – and they are just as likely to leave you for the bloke down the road who offers a lower price, with or without ISO certification. After all, look at some of the high profile companies with ISO certification that have gone to the wall recently – it didn’t help them, did it? At the end of the day, the only people who make money out of ISO standards are the certifiers and vendors, and we all know they have a vested interested in spruiking the importance of these things.

The truth, as always, lies in the eye of the beholder. There are some print companies for whom standards compliance is a given because that is the way they organise their business. They have the resources and expertise required to make it work and understand the importance to their customers of being able to produce a consistent product. Equally, there are many companies for whom the time and expense of becoming certified is harder to justify, however well they may print. Such companies, however, should at least recognise the importance of being able to measure and control what they print and not ignore such matters just because printing has traditionally been seen as a ‘craft’.

One of the problems with the pro-standards push has been a certain amount of confusion surrounding what certification actually means and who can claim to be ‘ISO certified’. Although the ISO 12647 family of standards is well-established and accepted, there is no single internationally-recognised neutral ‘umpire’ with the authority to determine which printers do or do not comply with the various aspects of the standard. That’s why current certification schemes talk about ‘compliance’ with the standard rather than actual ISO certification in the same way that a company can be certified for ISO 9001 or 14001 for instance.

There are moves underway in the UK to have accredited certifiers capable of assessing and awarding ISO 12647 certification but, due to the high cost of becoming an accredited certifier, it seems unlikely that this will happen in Australia in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, what we do have are various organisations such as Fogra and Ugra, the German and Swiss technical institutes, that assess and issue their own certificates of compliance as well as industry vendors that run their own certification schemes based on ISO 12647.

These different certification programs are well-respected within the industry and certainly provide a challenge to any printing company wanting to demonstrate its ability to print to ISO 12647. The drawback is that printers which do achieve certification are scattered across a variety of different schemes and certifiers with no easy way for print buyers to know how they compare. As I discovered when researching this topic a couple of years ago, finding out exactly which printers are certified as being ISO compliant is almost impossible to determine. Until now.

Are you on the list?
When Luke Wooldridge, (pictured) Kayell colour specialist, took on the chairmanship of the local AU/TC 130 committee last year, one of his goals was to make it easier for print buyers to find ISO compliant printers and to promote the benefits of undertaking certification. The AU/TC 130 committee is the local branch of the worldwide ISO TC 130 committee responsible for developing and reviewing standards that relate to the graphic arts. ISO 12647 is perhaps the best-known of these standards but there are others too – and more to come.

While a lot of work had gone into adopting the ISO 12647 standard locally, Wooldridge felt it was time to move beyond the implementation stage and start selling the benefits.

“The real problem, in my mind, was that for a long time if you were certified by Fogra you were on the PSO-certified website, if you were certified by Ugra you were on the Ugra website, if you were certified by Kayell you were on the Kayell website ... There were all these companies in Australia and New Zealand that were all over the place, and worldwide as well.”

To address this shortcoming, the AU/TC 130 website has been re-launched and now includes a list of printers who have been certified locally as being compliant with ISO 12647-2 for offset printing and 12647-7 for proofing. As a result, print buyers will be able find information about all ISO-compliant printers in one location. Wooldridge says the list is a world-first for the global ISO standard and is designed to give print buyers access to information about certified printers as well as recognise those companies that have travelled along the path towards standardisation.

“We feel that it will promote print because we’re hoping that the print buyers will now come to our website and be able to see clearly who is certified and pick a printer based on that merit,” he explains.

He believes that, increasingly, the take-up of the ISO standard is being driven not so much by printers but rather by pressure from the print buyers who are asking for evidence of certification, even if they don’t always fully understand what it means. An easily accessible list of certified printers is likely to accelerate this process.

“Once printers see that their competitor is on the website and not them, they’re going to want to be on the site too,” he comments. “We’re trying to promote a high standard of printing in Australia and promote the international standard of printing. If this helps that process, then that’s what we want to achieve.”

The list will be updated quarterly so any printer who believes they should be on the list can contact the committee via the website to request a listing which will be at the discretion of the committee members. Print companies also have the option of a ‘premium’ listing, for a $297 annual fee, which includes online links and a logo.

Apart from the company listing, Wooldridge is keen to publicise the work of the committee and make the wider industry more aware of its activities. The process of formulating and implementing ISO standards is largely collaborative and requires a considerable commitment on the part of those involved. Working groups are formed to prepare guidelines and draft standards which are then sent out to the different technical committees for feedback. Membership of the AU/TC 130 committee is voluntary and while many members have an interest in promoting the use of colour standards, the work of the committee extends to much more than ISO 12647. To date, more than 600 ISO documents have been reviewed and voted on by the committee and it is actively involved in developing a wide range of international standards that affect the local industry.

In the past, a lot of this work went unnoticed by anybody not directly involved in the AU/TC 130 committee but now Wooldridge wants the industry at large to be more closely involved in what the committee is doing on its behalf.

“I want to get out to the industry an awareness of what we’re doing. Everyone is doing this for free, it’s all of our own free-time and there’s a lot of effort involved in reading all these standards, so I want the industry to know what the committee is doing. There are 15 people who are giving a lot of their time for the benefit of the industry so I think the industry needs to know about that,” he remarks.

“Anyone can contact the committee if they want information about what we’re doing and we’re happy to give that.”

Digital is coming
One of the most eagerly anticipated upcoming standards currently making its way through the rounds of drafts and comment – and one which has already attracted a good deal of feedback from the industry - is the proposed new standard covering digital production print.

Ever since the ISO 12647-2 standard was adopted locally, there has been debate about the extent to which it can be used to assess digital print output, particularly in a commercial environment. Digital printers are naturally keen to show that they can print to the same standard as their offset cousins and achieve the same levels of repeatability and consistency. There are difficulties however in applying the requirements of ISO 12647-2 to digital print, not the least being the fact that, as with other parts of ISO 12647, it is specific to a particular printing process ie offset lithography. It doesn’t matter, the argument goes, if a digital print can match the colour values required of an offset print, that still doesn’t make it ‘offset’ and that’s what is being assessed here.

Using ISO 12647-2 for digital print can also overlook the differences between the two types of print. For instance, everybody knows that banding can be an issue with digital prints, despite what press manufacturers might say these days, and should be assessed as part of any quality acceptance of a digital print. But in this respect, ISO 12647-2 has nothing to say; a digital print might meet the requirement of the offset standard as far as possible and yet still be susceptible to banding and other defects simply because they are not assessed as part of the standard.

So why not simply add another standard to ISO 12647 that applies to digital print? Doing so would at least include digital print as part of the ISO 12647 family.

The difficulty with adding to 12647, it is argued, is that most of the individual standards it refers to are based on specific print processes eg offset, flexo or gravure. Offset presses may differ in the bells and whistles that they offer but the offset lithographic process is common to them all, and it can be standardised using standard papers and standard inks. In contrast, there is no commonly accepted method for creating a digital image on a substrate. What would a standard digital print process look like? Is it toner or inkjet? Electro-ink? Drop on demand or continuous inkjet? Cut sheet or roll to roll? Wide format or narrow web? The sheer diversity of digitally-produced print these days makes it impossible to define a widely-accepted standard process.

There are already parts of the ISO 12647 standard – namely the 12647-7 and -8 standards for proofing and so-called ‘validation prints’ - that are not linked to any specific printing process and these can be used to assess digital output, as some digital press manufacturers have already done. However, the requirements of those standards are for single prints only, as would happen in a proofing environment, and, as such, they are not applicable for production environments where print runs may run into the hundreds or thousands of copies. What is needed therefore is a standard that more accurately reflects what happens in real-life digital production.

The result is the new standard currently being developed under the proposed title ‘15311 Graphic Technology - Requirements for printed matter utilising digital printing technologies for the commercial and industrial production.’ What will this look like and what will it mean?

No match for offset
To begin with, it’s likely that we’re still at least a couple of years away from having 15311 formally adopted as a standard. As a general rule, it takes about three years for a standard to go from initial proposal through to formal adoption and currently 15311 is still at the beginning of this process, although many acknowledge the urgency of seeing it come to fruition quickly.

The broad framework of the proposed standard as it currently stands comprises three parts. One section will define the parameters and how everything is to be measured, a second part will cover commercial production print engines while the third part covers wide format printing. Rather than define a standard ‘process’, the standard will seek to assess digital print according to a series of quality criteria appropriate to its end usage. The criteria that apply to a outdoor banner, for instance, will be different to those required for a four-page brochure.

One thing the new standard won’t do is guarantee that digital prints have to ‘match’ offset print. This mirrors the requirements of the current proofing standard, ISO 12647-7, that contains its own tolerances and procedures but doesn’t specify any particular colour values: what a proof is aimed at in terms of colour match is up to the user. Traditionally this has been offset print but it doesn’t have to be. The same will apply with the digital standard which will set certain tolerances applicable to the various types of digital device but won’t specify that the prints have to meet specific colour targets. This acknowledges the reality that not every job has to be ‘offset’ standard, as well as the fact that some digital printers – in wide format for instance - can achieve a wider colour gamut than offset.

It’s likely too that the standard will include guidelines for assessing the consistency of print runs – how often to pull sheets and so on – which will form the basis of any certification. Mindful of the wide range of digital print engines on the market, Luke Wooldridge says the standard needs to be stringent enough to set best practice guidelines for the digital market but not be so strict that only one or two print engines can meet its requirements.

“It will be an achievable target. That’s what they’ve done with 12647-2 and that’s why it’s become so popular because it doesn’t matter what press or inks you’re using, so long as you are managing those processes correctly you should still be able to achieve the end result regardless of what product you are using.

“That’s the idea behind what ISO are doing with 15311 too. It will definitely keep in mind all the different types of products out there but it’s not going to be so open that every product can do it.”

Wooldridge adds that although the formal acceptance of a digital standard is still some way off, the broad framework of the standard will become apparent a lot earlier and companies will then be able to start using it.

“As we get closer to this new standard, people will start to put it into workflows before it’s actually a standard. People will be working towards it and then, when it becomes an ISO standard, a lot of companies may already be working to it.”

Carbon on the agenda
Looking further down the track, the TC 130 committee has recently proposed developing a new standard for measuring the environmental impact of printing. In particular, it is hoped that this will seek to address current confusion about how to measure greenhouse gas emissions and, in the process, determine a method for accurately assessing the carbon footprint of printing companies. A new international working group has been formed and two Australians – David Rasmus of Heidelberg and Phil Lawrence, the well-known environmental consultant – have been appointed to represent the local industry.

There are already published ISO standards relating to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions including ones for measuring emissions, verifying claims made about them, and accrediting the bodies which carry out such activities. Most of these standards operate at a high level, however, and are not always applicable to what happens, for instance, at a company level. What the new standard will seek to do is draw up a set of guidelines that are specific to the printing industry so that printers will have a consistent, transparent and authoritative means of assessing their carbon footprint.

“There are quite a few standards out there but if they are a blanket standard it’s very hard to quantify what the industry is responsible for and who is responsible for putting out the carbon,” says Wooldridge.

The purpose of the proposed standard will be to determine which emissions are placed in the printing ‘box’ and which ones lie outside it. Comparatively speaking, printing is a low emissions industry so being able to determine accurately what its carbon footprint may be is an important step. Already there are printing companies that are well on the way to calculating their carbon footprint but, as yet, there is no single, commonly agreed method for doing so, and that makes it harder to compare ‘like with like’. It is hoped that this is what the new standard will address.

“The benefit of that is that there are so many ways of measuring a carbon footprint and a lot of companies are claiming that they are carbon-neutral but it’s very hard to quantify what they are really doing. So it’s about putting in a repeatable and measurable process that everyone can abide by,” says Wooldridge.

To outside observers, the wheels of ISO standardisation often appear to grind exceedingly slowly; such is the nature of attempting to achieve global consensus on complex technical subjects when the stakes are high. But while progress may be incremental at times, the arguments in favour of having agreed methods for assessing ‘subjective’ topics such as colour, quality and environmental impacts are also compelling. Like or not, standards are here to stay and they’re on the rise.