Three Uneasy Pieces – news commentary by Andy McCourt
The gray scale of justice – or why proofs aren’t ‘contract’ anymore.
Last week’s news of the Craft Printing – v – PMA Solutions judgement, print21online which saw victory for the printer despite its inability to match a so-called ‘contract’ proof, has produced a lot of comment, not the least of which is that: “we may as well strip the word ‘contract’ out of proofing vernacular in NSW.” Digital colour integrator, Theo Ethferides of Kayell Australia, sent out a news bulletin saying “…What is frustrating here is that, according to the article, the print house in question could not match its own proofs…this is cause for debate within our own ranks to emphasize the seriousness of the whole issue…the technology actually exists to get an accurate proof but is not being used because of lack of attention to details of the process.”
From venerable veteran, James Cryer of JDA Printrecruit: “One question could be ‘does a printer with an ‘old fashioned’ proofing system have a lower duty of care to ‘get it right’ than one who has installed the latest digital proofing system, keyed to a fingerprinted press?... is this a case of rewarding inefficiency and penalizing progress?”
In a lively debate on colour generally on GASAA’s gtxforum website, www.gasaa.asn.au Ian McDougall of Alfred Johns surmised: “…the real question is how do we train the people who are supplying the scans for the products to realize that what you see on screen or digital proof cannot always be reproduced in print whilst ever we use differing colour standards, printing presses, inks, printers, paper, board, prepress, designers and the good old weather.”
Many print buyers will now be wary of viewing colour as ‘contract’ on any kind of proof, with the only bullet-proof answer being a press-check to view actual sheets coming off the end. (Note: Print21 magazine, February issue will carry an in-depth feature on colour-managed workflows – don’t miss it)
There is no question that digital proofs CAN be made to match the printed result if the exact capabilities of the press are known. If you match the ink colour, tonal values of tints, substrate colour and dot gain characteristics of your press the match will not be ‘close’ – it will be exact. This can be verified by spectrally measuring process control bars on both proof and press sheet, and using a densitometer to define ink densities.
Most definitions of ‘contract’ proof refer to adequately predict and to the satisfaction of all parties, regarding colour. It is indeed a ‘prediction’ of how the job will print and only the actual press run will reveal irrefutable colour. However, any colour printer worth his salt will endeavour to match the proof and if the proof proves unmatchable, will call the client in for a press-side check.
You can empathize with the judge in making a ruling in the Craft-PMA case. He needed a reference point, a ‘peg in the ground’ – a STANDARD. “What was the target being reproduced here?” he may have thought. None could be found. The only target that would have worked was the one unique to the Komori press-ink-plate-blanket-chemistry-humidity-operator and maybe star-chart combination being used.
The lack of an industry ‘standard’ does present problems but the presence of one would present problems too because of the extreme variability of the offset process and subjectivity of colour assessment. Even the web-publishing based 3DAP committee state, “…3DAP does not claim that a compliant file and proof will eliminate all disputes between the stakeholders in regard to printed “quality”, content and timeliness.”
However, as has been tested in this case, a ‘contract’ proof alone is insufficient to assure the customer of accurate colour, defensible in law. In the USA, cases have been won by print buyers where additional written contractual stipulations, with the order, state that colours must match the proof.
You can’t blame a printer for wanting to get paid for a job he’s been asked to produce but I view this as a Pyrrhic victory for the Australian printing industry at large – playing right into the hands of offshore printing; which leads me to…
Let’s shut up shop and move to China
In early December, Print Management supremos, Stream Solutions, print21online announced the opening of a Hong Kong office to source more work from China. With clients like ANZ, McDonalds, Westpac and Telstra, the significance of this can not be overstated. Cheap Chinese printing continues to flood into Australia, especially in the form of four-colour hardback books, colour manuals – even Aussie titles such as Australia’s Nobel Laureates, Australian Folklore and so on.
Why? Because it’s significantly cheaper: 30-45 per cent cheaper.
Add to this that a major Australian bank has issued an edict that a certain percentage of all its work MUST be printed offshore and 2006 looks like being a bleak one for Australian printers to compete in. No company can ignore lowering its costs whilst maintaining quality and supply-chain. Forget patriotism, forget loyalty, forget ‘fairness’ – there is no competition to the ‘almighty dollar’ (a term coined by 19th century author Edward Bulwer-Lytton of ‘It was a dark and stormy night’ fame).
So, dear reader – if you are a printer – here’s my tip for 2006. Open up in China. Establish a joint venture or at least a partnership with a Chinese printing company and become a print management operation as well as (or instead of), a physical printer.
You know the process, you know the clients, so why not embrace the spirit of globalization and buy most of your print from China? They’ll supply you for less than you could buy the paper for here (actual quote from a NSW printer); all you do is ensure quality and specification (they’ll even match proof-to-press), mark up the landed cost and ship to the client! Easy money!
And think of the holidays tagged onto the end of business trips to marvelous China! Heck, next year an estimated two million Chinese tourists will visit Australia so why not return the compliment and get to know their country and culture too? Don’t be a sap...print in China! You’ll make more money, new friends, have more free time and before you know it you won’t even need to own that big noisy press.
Welcome to the Year of the Dog. Which leads me to…
Workplace deformity, sorry reforms
As boring a topic as it may be, the IR reforms sledge-hammered through parliament in December, raised more than a mundane level of bile. Even white-collar organizations such as the Association of Engineers, Scientists and Managers – not your average Labor voters – have called the reforms into question stating; “This will be seriously detrimental to the social fabric of Australia as a whole,” and “ APESMA believes that WorkChoices legislation provides choices for employers only and will result in hardship and industrial injustice on professional and managerial employees…”
With Treasurer Peter Costello currently under serious scrutiny over his alleged misleading of Parliament over just how worse off lower income earners would be under the new legislation, and the ACTU’s Greg Combett accusing Costello of lying, saying; "There is no economic case for these laws. They are simply about Liberal Party ideology," the dog-fight promised by Labor leader Kim Beazley right up to the 2007 election has only just begun.
But does it matter and will it make any difference? Many small business operators I speak to say hardly anything’s changed. Busy printers still can’t get enough skilled press minders and bindery trades people and are willing to pay top dollar for the right ones.
“About the only thing that’s changed,” said one, “is that if I catch someone openly stealing from the company, I can now fire them instead of giving three warnings first.”
Time will tell whether the workplace reforms will have any serious impact on Australia’s industry but the way things are shaping up, if there’s one thing that could unseat the Coalition Government at the next election, it’s the indecent haste and arrant disregard for the voices of Australia’s working population that the Howard Government has demonstrated over its IR reform package. And all that with taxpayer-funded $55 million marketing spend attached to it.
Ah well, buy all your print from China and you won’t have to worry about it eh?
Wishing you all a Merry Christmas and a prosperous 2006 – Year of the Dog.