A Survey of Digital and Offset Print Quality Issues - 2006

8/6/2019 A Survey of Digital and Offset Print Quality Issues - 2006

1/56

A Survey of Digita

and Offset Print

Quality Issues

By

Robert Chung

Professor, School of Print Media

Rochester Institute of Technology

Matthew Rees

Graduate Student,

School of Print Media

Rochester Institute of Technology

A Research Monograph of the

Printing Industry Center at RIT

No. PICRM-2006-04


2/56


3/56

By

Robert ChungProessor, School o Print MediaRochester Institute o echnology

Matthew ReesGraduate Student, School o Print MediaRochester Institute o echnology

A Survey of Digital andOffset Print Quality Issues

A Research Monograph o thePrinting Industry Center at RIRochester, NYJuly 2007

PICRM-2006-04

2007 Printing Industry Center at RI All rights reserved.


4/56

Chung & Rees (PICRM-2006-04)

Te research agenda o the Printing Industry Center at RI andthe publication o research ndings are supported by theollowing organizations:

With Thanks

bc


5/56

A Survey of Digital and Offset Print Quality Issues

Table of Contents

Abstract .......................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3

Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 6

Delimitations.................................................................................................................. 6

Literature Review .......................................................................................................... 7

Quality Assurance Trough Attributes Program .............................................. 7

Oset Print Standards .......................................................................................... 7

Digital Print Standards ......................................................................................... 8

Methodology ................................................................................................................10

Survey Design .....................................................................................................10

Print Demerit Denition ....................................................................................10

Survey Distribution .............................................................................................11

Data Analysis & Reporting ................................................................................. 12

Results ..........................................................................................................................13

ier 1: Respondents as a Whole ........................................................................13

ier 2: Respondents Who Provide Both Digital and Oset Services ............ 19

ier 3: Respondents Who Provide Both Digital and Oset Services and

Who Have Formal Customer Quality Requirements .................................... 24

Conclusions .................................................................................................................29

Reerences ....................................................................................................................30

Appendix A: Survey ools .........................................................................................32

Appendix B: Further Analysis o Print Demerits .................................................... 45

Table of Contents


6/56

Chung & Rees (PICRM-2006-04)2


7/56


Abstract

Using an Internet-based industry survey, the dierences and similarities o oset and

digital print demerits within the print industry are examined. Running parallel to this

examination is a look at the extent to which demerit-based quality assurance proce-

dures exist within the printing industry. Te survey ndings indicate that oset and

digital printing processes share common color-related print demerits. What dierenti-

ates oset print demerits rom digital print demerits can be attributed to two actors: (1)

technology dierences and (2) printing standards. Oset printing, given the multitude

o material choices, produces more requent print demerits, relating to non-conorm-

ing materials. Digital print demerits more likely result rom technical constraints such

as addressability and resolution. Te other actor associated is a lack o printing stan-

dards or digital printers. While both processes show a high requency o color-related

problems, oset print providers have more tools and standards available or addressing

these problems. Digital print providers, on the other hand, have ew color standards or

tools or solving similar problems. When examining procedures or deect prevention,

the general lack o digital printing standards makes the use o ormal quality assurance

procedures dicult. Oset print providers are more likely to have ormal quality assur-

ance procedures or dealing with requent and severe print demerits and ormal proce-

dures or how customer quality requirements are communicated.

Introduction

Te motivation to examine the dierences between oset and digital print quality issues

was prompted by the Government Printing Oce (GPO). Within the ollowing sections,the necessity or this examination will be explained. In addition, the two print centric

models examined, oset and digital, are illustrated and discussed under the context o

quality assurance.

Print-Centric Models

A print-centric production system is made up o two parts: (1) image generation sub-

system and (2) imaging reproduction sub-system. In an oset print production system

(Figure 1), the image generation sub-system receives print buyers digital les. Tese

les oen require urther processing to address pagination, imposition and proong.

Te job is only sent to the RIP or platemaking aer customers approval. Te imag-ing reproduction sub-system combines consumables, such as colorants and substrates,

under the printing nip. In this instance, the pressman acts as the process controller. He

would load paper and add ink o his or the customers choice; adjust the press settings

or proper inking and image-to-image registration during the press makeready. He

would pull press sheet samples, visually inspect the job or possible print deects, and

measure solid ink densities rom the color control bar to veriy the stability o the press

run. Te hands-on approach o the process control eventually determines the quality o

Abstract


8/56


printed job.

Figure 2 is a model that depicts a digital printing system. Te image generation sub-

system receives print buyers digital les. Tese les may or may not require urther

processing to address pagination, imposition and proong. Te job is then sent to theRIP or hardcopy output. Te imaging reproduction sub-system combines colorants and

substrates under the imaging (electro-photographic or inkjet) nip. In this instance, the

printing system acts as the process controller where all press settings and material trans-

portation are handled without human intervention. Te job o the press operator is to

load paper and dial in the print quantity needed. Te hands-o approach o the process

control determines the quality o printed job.

A undamental dierence between the two system models lies in how the process is

controlled. With the oset printing system model, the print vendor purchases the print-

ing devices rom a technology provider and has the options to choose materials rom

an open market. Te printer then chooses how he manages the consumables and tech-

nology to ensure that they are able to turn his customers data into a product. Processcontrol is acilitated by the standards available to oset printers. Te digital printing

system model, because both the consumables and technology are married to the same

proprietary provider, has a limited choice o press management options or the printer

to choose rom.

Te other undamental dierence between the two system models is how each is utilized

in ullling customers printing needs. I a print buyer submits a print order or 10,000

Introduction

Fgure . Oset prntng system model

Nip

Printing Device

Customer

Data

ProductLayout,Design,

RIP

Free MarketConsumables

Colorant, Substrate, etc.

External Process Control


9/56


brochures with spot and process colors, the print vendor is likely to use oset to print

the job. However, i a print buyer submits a print order or 100 yers including variable

data, the printer will use digital printing to produce the job. Tus, we anticipate a large

number o survey respondents who use both oset and digital printing systems in their

business.

The GPO Prompted the SurveyTe Digital Print Quality project was prompted by input rom the Government

Printing Oce (GPO) when it rst became an industry partner o the Printing Industry

Center at the Rochester Institute o echnology in 2005. Te GPO uses a quality assur-

ance standard originally created or oset lithography when purchasing digital print.

Tis standard, however, ails to address many o the print attributes common to digital

print, such as background toning, banding, color variation, etc. As digital printing gains

a larger portion o the print market share, the ability to express and quantiy its quality

becomes more important. Currently there are no digital printing standards or material

conormance or or preventing digital deects. Tis is in opposition to oset printing,

which has at its disposal a myriad o printing-related standards that acilitate the testingo material conormance and color reproducibility.

Introduction

Fgure 2. Dgtal prntng system model

Nip

Printing Device

Customer

Data

Product

ProprietaryConsumables

Colorant, Substrate, etc.

Internal Process Control

Layout,Design,

RIP


10/56


Objectives

Given the absence o digital standards and the growing need to objectively quantiy

digital print quality, a survey was conducted with the ollowing objectives:

o investigate whether digital print demerits are signicantly dierent than

oset print demerits, and

o determine to what extent attribute-based quality practices are used in the

printing industry.

Delimitations

One time survey distributed through e-mail or a duration o two weeks.

Population sampled consists o solely oset and digital printing companies.

A majority o the input comes rom print providers who have a relationship

with the GPO.

Te ocus o the survey is on the companys opinion on dealing with oset and

digital print quality issues.

Based on the literature review, little was ound regarding print providers

opinions o oset and digital print quality issues.

Based on the literature review, this is the rst survey o its kind.

Te ndings are based on the analysis o the survey.

1.

2.

Objectives


11/56


Literature Review

Tis review o the literature surrounding oset and digital print standards and quality-

based assurance practices begins with an overview o the approach o the Government

Printing Oce (GPO) to speciying quality requirements. Te GPO is an agency within

the legislative branch whose mission is to produce and distribute inormation products

and services using both traditional and digital printing processes. Approximately 70% o

the printed work it produces today is purchased rom commercial sources.

Quality Assurance Through Attributes Program (QATAP)

In the late seventies, the GPOs Quality Control and echnical Department established

the Quality Assurance Trough Attributes Program (QAAP) to provide specica-

tions and quality assurance procedures or its printed materials. Te program divided

government printing into ve quality levels. At each level, the quality requirements o a

contractually-printed product are clearly identied and described in terms o denableand measurable attributes (Materazzi & Meade, 1977).

Te evaluation o image quality traditionally has been one o visual deect detection,

as assessed by the customer. Te presence or absence o undesired visual print attri-

butes within a nal product (e.g., hickies, poor text readability, excessive color variation,

extraneous marks) would lead to the rejection or acceptance o a job. QAAPs model

denes attributes and data collection procedures, and allows the use o a demerit system

to determine i a job meets the required quality levels. In practice, a print demerit is

assigned to attributes o the printed product that are inadequate, unacceptable, or which

ail to meet specic requirements. Te model allows print quality to be turned into

numbers, which can then be used or management and control purposes.

In a paper written by Ian C. White entitled Te Print Quality Index, A Management

ool, three categories o deects are dened: minor, major and critical (White, 1975).

Minor deects are slight imperections which, i noticed, would not be the source o

any complaint. A minor deect does not all outside o any specied numerical toler-

ances. Major deects are deects which seriously aect the overall visual appearance o

the product. Examples o these deects are hickies, streaks, and mottle. Major deects all

outside o specied tolerances. Critical deects are serious deviations rom specications

which jeopardize the integrity o the product (e.g., the cover o a book tears away rom

the spine when its laid at). When the number o print demerits exceeds a specied

tolerance level, particularly with critical deects, there is sucient cause to reject the job.

Offset Print Standards

Within the oset printing eld, there are various understandings on how to deal with

conormance. Tis situation developed in part because the maturity o oset technol-

ogy has resulted in the development o many standards and industry-recognized prac-

tices. As shown in able 1, these standards and practices give the printer great control

Literature Review


12/56


over the measures used to prevent deects. Oset print standards also aord the printer

a great deal o control over the conormance o materials beore they enter the produc-

tion process. Tese standards only ail in their ability to address the visual signicance

o any print deects.

Table . A lst o applcable standards or oset lthographc prntng

MateralConforman

ce

ISO 24Provdes procedures or measurng fnenesso grnd

ISO 2644 Facltates the measurement o vscosty

ISO 264 Allows or the measurement o nk tack

ISO 240Enables the brghtness o a substrate to bemeasured

ISO 626Provdes procedures or measurng oldngendurance

ISO 24Specfes how to measure the gloss o asubstrate

Ink Draw DownAccommodates the prelmnary evaluaton ocolor propertes

ISO 246Specfes the color and transparency valuesor process colors

ProcessControl

ISO 264Defnes tonal value ncrease and sold nktolerances or a varety o paper grades

Digital Print Standards

Digital printing, when compared to oset printing, is a hands-o process. An oset

press operator who has tested the inks and substrates can make modications (e.g. byadding suractants, deoamers, primers, etc., or adjusting plate pressure, press speed, ink

coverage, etc.), either prior to a pressrun or on the y, to make up or any problems that

might occur on the press. On the ip side, most production digital printing processes

depend on the use o certied paper to perorm to their best capacity. Any adjustments

that need to be made to the actual press require the intervention o technical support

personnel other than the press operator.

Literature Review


13/56


While digital printing materials are not yet standardized, some work has been done

exploring the impact that materials have on digital printing, with the intention o

developing material standards. In a recent study, the print quality o digital and tradi-

tional technologies was compared subjectively and quantitatively (Norberg, Westin, &

Lindberg, 2001). wo test images were printed using a variety o commercially avail-able digital printing devices such as color copiers, ink jet printers, and liquid and toner

based presses. Te same two test images were also printed using exographic and litho-

graphic technology. Te test images were produced on a variety o paper stocks rang-

ing rom uncoated to ully coated. International Color Consortium (ICC) proles were

created or each paper type and applied to each print. Te results showed that oset

print quality is still ahead o what is possible in digital technology, although the quality

o oset printing is highly dependent on the substrate, whereas digital image quality is

less dependent on the substrate. Te study also exposed the two print attributes which

were most inuential on subjective print quality: mottle and micro gloss variation. In

corresponding studies it has been veried that digital printing substrates are critical to

the quality o the image; however, as stated above, there are currently no standards ortesting digital printing substrates.

Regarding digital color reproduction, an article entitled Properties o Digital Presses

and Teir Prints, outlines the results o a study aimed at establishing basic target values

and tolerances or colorimetric and technical properties o digital presses (raber &

Gemeinhardt, 2005). Te study examined properties such as digital reproducibility,

registration, spatial and temporal color variation, and toner bonding, and compared

them to oset print standards (ISO 12647-2). Te results o this study demonstrated that

many o the ISO 12647-2 tolerances could be applicable to digital print. Tis study and

the substrate experiments o Norberg et al. (2001) indicate a change in the atmosphere

surrounding the materials used in digital printa desire to develop standard proce-dures or evaluating these materials. However these new experiments, like the oset

standards in place, do not address the visual signicance o the digital print attributes.

In 2001, a paper entitled Evaluating the Overall Image Quality o Hardcopy Output

(Dalal et al., 1998) became one o the rst articles written with regards to known digital

print attributes and a proposed methodology to quantiying such attributes. Tis article

served as a guide or the development o the rst digital standard, ISO 13660. ISO 13660

is a standard or evaluating the digital image quality o black-and-white digital print-

ing produced by oce equipment, using the diagnostic metrics described earlier. In the

GPO method (the Quality Assurance Trough Attributes Program or QAAP), oset

print attributes are compared against a spec or an OKd print in order to assess printquality; however with digital printing, the image to be evaluated is produced directly

within the digital device and thereore has no reerence to which it can be compared.

What ISO 13660 accomplished was to provide:

Denitions or many print attributes,

Bitmap test patterns, and

Literature Review


14/56


A method or measuring the dened attributes.

Once these measured attribute tolerances could be set by the end user, digital print qual-

ity could be evaluated.

ISO 13660 has certain limitations and drawbacks. Being a standard or black-and-white

oce printers, there are no methods in place to measure color. It also ails to address

many common print attributes such as banding, and does not account or the visual

signicance o occurring print demerits. o address these issues, a new proposed ISO

standard, ISO 19751, states: A small number o general visual attributes have been

recognized as essential in describing image quality. Tese include micro-uniormity,

macro-uniormity, color rendition, text and line quality, gloss, sharpness, and spatial

adjacency or temporal adjacency attributes (Rasmussen et al., 2004). Tis new standard

proposes a method or quantiying the visual signicance o occurring print demerits

and also expands on the list and denitions o print demerits.

Te available literature demonstrates that oset print attributes and the assessment o

these attributes are well established. With the new activity in the development o digital

printing standards, questions surrounding the dierences or similarities between digi-

tal and oset attributes have arisen. Also, there is little documentation examining how

customers express their print quality requirements. Te objectives o this survey were to

shed light into these areas.

Methodology

Te GPOs need to dierentiate between the print quality o oset and digital processes

is clear. Instead o assuming that we have all the answers, we decided to survey the print-

ing industry. In doing so, we were able to veriy how it is coping with the same prob-

lem. Te ollowing procedures were used to design a print quality survey, implement the

survey via the Internet, and analyze the data.

Survey Design

Te survey was designed to collect inormation regarding the characteristics o each

responding printing company (size, services provided, years in business, etc.), as well

as the requency and severity o digital and oset print demerits. o ulll the research

objectives, questions were also asked regarding how customers express quality require-ments and how those requirements are ullled. A certain element o exibility was

added to the survey by allowing respondents to provided open-ended answers to ques-

tions. A complete copy o the survey can be ound in Appendix A.

Print Demerit Definitions

As illustrated in the literature review, the GPOs QAAP, ISO 13660 and the proposed

Methodology


15/56


ISO 19751 all provide concrete denitions or many print attributes. It is rom these

documents that a set o print attributes and their denitions were derived. Te ocus o

the survey is such that the denitions o the derived print attributes were rewritten to

spotlight the visual aspects o a print attribute as opposed to the quantiable character-

istics. Te print attributes and denitions chosen or this survey are as ollows:

Banding - A breakup o a smooth blend into stair-steps in a gradient; also

known as alse contour; one dimensional, periodic lightness and/or chromatic

variation.

Color cast - An overall tendency within an image toward a hue direction; the

most noticeable area o color cast is in neutrals and near-neutrals in a color

image.

Color non-uniformity- Subjective impression o color constancy o lightness,

hue, saturation across a large area o a single print.

Color variation - Subjective impression o color constancy o lightness, hue,saturation rom multiple printed sheets.

Ghosting - Heavy removal o ink or toner, by other areas on the printed page

resulting in starvation o ink or toner in other areas o the printed image.

Graininess - A non-uniorm sand like or granular appearance within the imag-

ery o a printed product

Hickies - Spots or imperections on the printed image that can be traced to

dust, dry ink skin, paper particles, ink splatter, etc

Mis-registration - Mis-alignment o one printed element to another, typically

this reers to how precise one printed element overlays another printed elementwith the same dimension

Moir - An objectionable intererence pattern caused by the out-o-register

overlap o two or more regular halone dot or line patterns.

Mottle - Uneven appearance o a uniormly printed area which may be caused

by uneven inking or uneven adherence o ink on substrate; variation in density,

typically dened as large, low requency variations in solid areas

Poor line quality- Inability to resolve ne lines due to either addressability or

resolution limitation.

Poor trapping - Lack o overprinting o a narrow strip o one color over theother at their junction

Poor text quality- Lack o quality o the text, (seris, thin strokes vs. thick

strokes), variation in type density.

Survey Distribution

With the support o various entities, we e-mailed over 3,000 print providers, inviting

Methodology


16/56


them to take our survey online using SurveyMonkey.com. Te communication provided

inormation regarding the nature o the research and also enticed the print provid-

ers to respond by oering them the opportunity to enter a drawing or an Apple iPod.

Using the Internet as the medium by which data would be collected allowed or a great

amount o versatility to be built into the survey. Such versatility allowed respondents,based on their responses, to be steered toward questions which would yield the most

relevant inormation. Additionally, accessing the survey online allowed participants

the reedom to take the survey at their own leisure, which may have contributed to the

strong response.

Data Analysis and Reporting

As seen in Figure 3, the data analysis is handled in three iers. ier 1 represents the

overall data analyzed rom all 279 respondents in terms o pros and cons between oset

and digital printing. Since the goal o the survey is to investigate whether there are real

print quality dierences between oset and digital printing, ier 2 represents a smaller

data set, 157, rom respondents who use both oset and digital printing in their busi-

nesses. ier 3 represents the smallest data set, 47, that was urther ltered whereby

respondents also have ormal quality assurance practices. We expect more signals and

less noise in the data analysis as we move rom ier 1 to ier 3.

Methodology

Tier 1

All survey respondents

3

2

1

Tier 2

Respondents who provide bothdigital and offset services

Tier 3

Respondents who provide both digitaland offset services and whose customers

have formal quality requirements (i.e. QATAP)

Fgure . Three ters o data analyss


17/56


Results

Te online survey was launched on October 9, 2006, and was active or two weeks. Te

survey was distributed to over 3,000 contacts. Within those two weeks, 279 individu-

als responded to the survey, with 87% o those responses occurring within the rst

two days. At the close o the survey, the gathered data was complied and analyzed. Te

ollowing charts provide an aerial perspective o the population o respondents.

Tier 1: Survey Respondents as a Whole

Te rst question asked respondents to indicate which type o service they provided:

oset, digital, or both. As shown in Figure 4, 157 (56%) o respondents oered both

services, 75 (27%) oered only oset services, and 47 (17%) oered only digital services.

Respondents were asked to indicate how many years they had been providing printservices. For example, a 4 color printing press has our printing units. As shown in

Figure 5, the majority o respondents had been providing oset or more than 20 years.

In contrast, the majority o those providing digital services had only been doing so or

the last 1 to 10 years.

Results

Fgure 4. Servces provded by respondents

56% 27%

17%Offset Service

Both Services

Digital Service

Fgure . Years provdng prnt servces

0

20

40

60

80

100

1

to1

0

11

to2

0

20+

1

to1

0

11

to2

0

20+

20+

20+

1

to1

0

11

to2

0

1

to1

0

11

to2

0

DigitalOffset

DigitalOffsetBoth


18/56


o gain inormation regarding the size o the company, respondents were asked the total

number o printing units, by service, within their company. Te assumption is that; the

more printing units within a company, the larger the company. As shown in Figure 6,

a majority o companies have 1-10 printing units, while a minority has over 30 print-

ing units. Te majority o companies which provided digital services had 1-10 printingunits, while a small number had 11 to 20. Tere were no companies which had more

than 20 digital printing units.

Overall Frequency and Severity of Print Demerits

Respondents were asked to rate the requency and severity which they experience printdemerits on a scale o 1 to 5, where 1 indicates low requency or severity and 5 indi-

cate high requency or severity. As seen in Figure 7, 84% o oset providers indicated

that the requency o print demerits occur at a low rate (1 or 2 on a 1 thru 5 scale). 74%

o the digital respondents signied that the requency o print demerits is low.

Results

Fgure 6. Sze o company by number o prntng unts

0

20

40

60

80

100

1

to1

0

11

to2

0

20

to3

0

30

+

1

to1

0

11

to2

0

20

to3

0

30

+

20

to3

0

30

+

20

to3

0

30

+

1

to1

0

11

to2

0

1

to1

0

11

to2

0

DigitalOffset

DigitalOffsetBoth

Fgure . Frequency o prnt demerts based on all respondents

Offset

16%

84%

24%

76%

Digital

Low

High


19/56


Figure 8 illustrates that, 87% indicated that the severity o oset print demerits which

occur is low, while 76% o digital providers indicated that the severity o occurring print

demerits is low.

We used the ollowing weighting unction to calculate a weighted sum: Where N is

the weighted sum with A indicating the number o responses indicating the lowest

requency or severity and E indicating the highest requency or severity.

N = 1A + 2B + 3C + 4D + 5E

Te highest-ranking demerits or both requency and severity were identied. As seenin Figure 9, hickies were ound to be the most requent oset print demerit, ollowed by

color variation and color non-uniormity. Color variation was noted as being the most

requent digital print demerit ollowed by banding and color non-uniormity.

Results

Fgure . Severty o prnt demerts based on all respondents

Offset

13%

87%

24%

76%

Digital

Low

High


20/56


Te same three oset print demerits indicated as the most requent, seen in Figure 9,were ound to also have the most severe eect on print quality. Instances o banding,

seen in Figure 10, had the most severe impact on digital image quality ollowed by color

non-uniormity and color cast.

Overall Customer Quality Requirements

Respondents to the survey were asked to indicate how customers were expressing

quality requirements. As seen in Figure 11, oset print providers responded that 43%

o their customers never express any quality requirements. 30% indicated that qual-

ity requirements are expressed, however there is no documentation o those expressed

requirements. 27% indicated that customers were using ormal quality requirementprocedure such as the GPOs QAAP. Digital services providers ollowed similar suit

as oset print providers with regards to how customers are expressing quality require-

ments. Shown also in Figure 11, 43%o digital print providers indicated that no qual-

ity requirements are expressed. 39%, slightly larger than oset providers, indicated that

quality requirements are expressed, however nothing is documented and 18% indicated

that there is a ormal quality procedure.

Results

Fgure . Overall prnt demerts by requency

Banding

Color Cast

Color Non-Uniformity

Color Variation

Ghosting

Grainess

Hickies

Mis Registration

Moire

Mottle

Poor line quality

Poor trapping

Poor text quality

Offset Digital


21/56


Results

Fgure 0. Overall prnt demerts by severty

Banding

Color Cast


Color Variation

Ghosting

Grainess

Hickies

Mis Registration

Moire

Mottle

Poor line quality

Poor trapping

Poor text quality

Offset Digital

Fgure . How qualty requrements are expressed

Offset

27%

43%

18%

43%

39%30%

No Documentation

Formal Requirements

Digital

No Requirements


22/56


Overall Handling of Frequent and Severe Print Demerits

Respondents were then asked to identiy how print demerits which are requent or sever

are handled. As determined rom the data gathered and as shown in Figure 12, 69%

indicated that they experimented to resolve problems. Te next 30% indicated that printdemerit issues were addressed with either the technology providers or the consumable

providers, and the remaining 1% o oset providers signied that nothing was done

about requent or severe print demerits. For digital processes, 59% noted that print

demerit issues were addressed with either the technology providers or the consumable

providers, 35% purported that they experimented to nd solutions and 6% o digital

providers communicated that nothing was done about print demerits that were deemed

requent or severe.

Discussion

Many companies indicated that given the advancements made in workow and imaging

technology, requent and severe print demerits which occurred prior to the introduction

o computer aided workows has signicantly been reduced. As a result, a large major-

ity o print providers (84% o oset providers and 76% o digital providers) responded

that attribute related print problems are either non existent or occur at a low requency.

Te ollowing is a typical response Tese (print demerits) were trouble we had up until

the 1990s. With computers and workow being used, demerits are low in requency and

severity... Overall, the dierences between the requency and severity o oset and digi-tal print demerits indicate that oset providers struggle with print demerits which may

have more to do with the consumable materials involved with the production process

(i.e. hickies as a result o substrate quality) where as digital print providers struggle with

the limitations o the process (i.e. non-uniormity as a unction o unevenly distributed

electromagnetic charges). Each process, oset and digital, share similar color related

print attributes, such as color variation and color non-uniormity.

Results

Fgure 2. How requent or severe prnt demerts are handled

Offset

1%

30% 59%

35%

6%

69%

Issue is adressedwith vendor

Experiment tosolve problem

Digital

No action taken


23/56


Tier 2: Respondents Who Provide Both Digital andOffset Services

O the 279 respondents to the survey, 157 oer both oset and digital services. Tis

portion o those sampled represents ier 2 o our analysis. Te practices o companiesthat oer both services are o signicance to this current body o research because they

oer insights into the dierences and similarities o oset and digital processes, as seen

by companies that run them side-by-side on a regular basis.

Frequency and Severity of Print Demerits in Companies ThatOffer Both Offset & Digital Services

Respondents in this category were asked to rate the requency and severity in which

they experience print demerits on a scale o 1 to 5, where 1 indicates low requency

or severity and 5 indicates high requency or severity. In addition to asking respon-

dents to rank the requency and severity o print demerits, the survey also asked them

to indicate how quality requirements were being expressed by customers and how print

demerits that were deemed requent or severe were being handled.

As seen in Figure 13, the majority o the ier 2 respondents indicated there were low

requencies as ar as encountering print demerits. Specically, 86% o ier 2 respon-

dents indicated a low requency in oset demerits and 78% indicated low digital print

demerits.

A smaller section o the ier 2 respondents indicated there were high requencies o

print demerits. In this case, 14% o ier 2 respondents indicated high requencies in

oset demerits and 22% indicated high digital print demerits.

Figure 14 illustrates the severity o oset and digital print demerits by providers who

oer both services. 91% o ier 2 companies indicated that they experience a low sever-

Results

Fgure . Frequency o prnt demerts n Ter 2 respondents

Offset

14%

86%

22%

78%

Digital

Low

High


24/56


ity o oset print demerits, 9% indicated a moderate to high severity. 78% o ier 2

companies also indicated that the severity o digital print demerits was low., while 22%

told us that digital print demerits occurred with moderate to high severity.

Results

Fgure 4. Severty o prnt demerts n Ter 2 respondents

Offset

9%

91%

22%

78%

Digital

Low

High

Fgure . Prnt demerts by requency

Offset Digital

Banding

Color Cast


Color Variation

Ghosting

Grainess

Hickies

Mis Registration

Moire

Mottle

Poor line quality

Poor trapping

Poor text quality


25/56

A Survey of Digital and Offset Print Quality Issues 2

In ier 2 companies, the oset print demerit which occurred most requently was the

problem o hickies, ollowed by color variation and color non-uniormity. (See Figure

15.) Te three most requent digital print demerits exhibited by ier 2 companies were

color variation, color non-uniormity and banding.

With regards to oset print demerits which cause the most severe print problems, hick-

ies and color variation were the top two oending print demerits, ollowed by ghosting.

Tis is shown in Figure 16. Te digital print demerits o color variation, banding and

color non-uniormity had the most detrimental impact on image quality.

Results

Fgure 6. Prnt demerts by severty

Offset Digital

Banding

Color Cast


Color Variation

Ghosting

Grainess

Hickies

Mis Registration

Moire

Mottle

Poor line quality

Poor trapping

Poor text quality


26/56


Customer Quality Requirements in Companies That Offer BothOffset & Digital Services

As shown in Figure 17, when we examined how customers and companies express and

communicate quality requirements, we ound that 47% o ier 2 companies disclosedthat their customers do not express oset quality requirements. Another 30% o these

companies had customers whose quality requirements were expressed but not docu-

mented, and the remaining 23% used a ormal quality procedure program such as the

QAAP. When compared to the digital side o their business, also shown in Figure 17,

44% o ier 2 companies indicated that customers o their digital services do not express

quality requirements. 38% o the companies had customers who discussed quality

requirements, but did not document them, and the remaining 18% have ormal quality

requirements. Within this group o respondents we see that digital quality requirements

are discussed more requently than oset quality requirements; however there are ewer

instances o ormal quality procedures.

The Handling of Frequent or Severe Print Demerits byCompanies That Offer Both Offset & Digital Services

When asked to indicate how requent or severe print demerits are handled, companies

oering both oset and digital services responded in a similar ashion as the oset print

providers we surveyed. Seen in Figure 18, or oset problems, 68% experiment on theirown, 31% take issue the consumable provider and 1% o these companies do nothing.

For digital problems, 59% take issue with the consumable or technology provider, 33%

experiment on their own, and 8% do nothing with digital demerits which are deemed

requent or severe.

Results

Fgure . How qualty requrements are beng expressed

Offset

23%

47%

18%

44%

38%30%

No Documentation

Formal Requirements

Digital

No Requirements


27/56


Discussion

Te occurrence o oset print demerits within ier 2 companies is nearly identical

when compared to the responses rom all oset providers, however only 9% o compa-

nies that oer both services indicated severe problems associated with print demerits as

compared to 13% o the oset print providers. Respondents who oer both services also

shared the top three ranking oset print demerits with the oset print providers in the

survey, these being hickies, color variation and color non-uniormity. Companies that

chose to provide open-ended comments stated that substrate problems (such as varia-

tions within a papers coating, issues with lightweight stocks, or the common mispercep-

tion by customers that high-quality reproductions can occur on low-quality stocks) had

a large impact on image quality. What should be noted is that color variation, color non-uniormity, and mottle can all be side eects o non-conorming or ill-suited substrates.

Te requency and severity o digital print demerits ound in ier 2 companies is nearly

identical to the larger population o digital print providers we surveyed. Te top-oend-

ing print demerits were very similar: both groups (companies who oer both services

and those who were strictly digital providers) ranked color variation and color non-

uniormity in the top three. Digital print providers also had color cast as one o their top

three oending print demerits, whereas companies which oer both services had band-

ing as their third top oending print demerit.

Te high ranking o digital color-related print demerit problems was urther substan-tiated in a review o the open-ended comments. A large portion o these comments

ocused on color issues which appeared to result rom the immaturity o digital color

technology. Tese color issues revolved around diculty in matching colors and notice-

able patterns in large at tinted areas. Comments regarding the lack o stock versatility,

stock curl, and gloss variation within the substrate were also present. Many digital print

providers also indicated that workow problems occur requently, such as truncated

paragraphs, data that is present in the le not printing or RIPping, and ront-to-back

Results

Fgure . How prnt demerts whch are deemed requent or severe are handled

Offset

1%

31% 33%

59%

8%

68%



Digital

No action taken


28/56


mis-registration. No comments were made regarding whether these issues were a result

o the RIPping process or whether they arose rom supporting print soware or hard-

ware.

Tier 3: Respondents Who Provide Both Digital andOffset Services and Who Have Formal Customer QualityRequirements

ier 3 companies are broken down into two sub groups. A companys placement into

one subgroup or the other is determined by how its customers communicate print

quality requirements. Companies that responded to the survey were asked to indicate

how their customers communicated print quality requirements rom three choices, as

ollows:

Tere is no requirement communicated until aer the act.

Print demerits are discussed, but not documented.

Tere is a ormal quality assurance program, e.g., GPOs QAAP.

For the sake o simplication, these responses will be given the title Customer Quality

Levels (CQLs). Response one, indicating no quality requirements are communicated

until aer the act, is Customer Quality Level 1 (CQL 1). Response two, indicating that

print demerits are discussed, but not documented, is Customer Quality Level 2 (CQL 2).

Tose companies who chose response three, indicating that a ormal quality assurance

program does exist within their companies, were assigned a Customer Quality Level 3

(CQL 3).

Te rst subgroup was composed o companies that indicated that customers communi-

cate requirements using CQLs 1 & 2. Te second subgroup was composed o companies

that signied that customers communicate requirements using CQL 3. Te results o

those companies which have CQLs 1 & 2 were analyzed, ollowed by companies which

have CQL 3. Ten these two subgroups were compared to see whether there are real

dierences in oset vs. digital print demerits.

Figure 19 illustrates the requency o oset print demerits or both CQL 1&2 compa-

nies and CQL 3 companies. Te dierences between the two are miniscule. Jumping

ahead in the analysis and looking at Figure 23, what is shown is that the top three most

requently occurring oset print demerits or CQL 1&2 and CQL 3 companies are iden-tical. Overall, when looking at the requency and severity o print demerits between

CQL 1&2 companies vs. CQL 3 companies, it was ound that having a ormal proce-

dure in place or expressing quality did not have an impact on the requency or severity

o print demerits. Nor did ormal quality procedures play a role in which print demer-

its occurred. Both CQL 1&2 companies and CQL 3 companies responded along paral-

lel lines with regards to the requency and severity o oset and digital print demerits.,

thus ltering the ier 3 companies by customer quality assurance requirements did

1.

2.

3.

Results


29/56


not produce a greater signal to noise ratio, with regards to the requency and severity

o print demerits. Most CQL 1&2 and CQL 3 companies are not experiencing requent

or severe print demerits, but when they do, there is no dierence in the type o print

demerit experienced.

As such, Figures 19-26 are placed in Appendix B.

Results

Fgure . The requency o oset prnt demerts or CQL & 2 vs.

CQL 1 & 2

16%

84%

13%

87%

CQL 3

Low

High

Fgure 2. Oset prnt demerts by requency or CQL & 2 vs. CQL companes

CQL 1 & 2 CQL 3

Banding

Color Cast


Color Variation

Ghosting

Grainess

Hickies

Mis Registration

Moire

Mottle

Poor line quality

Poor trapping

Poor text quality


30/56


Tier 2 Versus Tier 3 Companies

While a companys customer quality requirements, either inormal or ormal, had no

eect on the nature o occurring print demerits, the response to occurring print demer-

its was notably dierent. As seen in Figure 27, when asked how their companies handleoset print demerits which are deemed requent or severe, 59% take issue with the tech-

nology or consumables provider, 40% experiment on their own to nd solutions to such

oset print demerit and 1% o the CQL 1 & 2 companies responded that they do noth-

ing. On the other hand, 67% experiment on their own to resolve issues, 33% take their

oset print demerit issues to the technology or consumables provider, and there wasnt a

single CQL 3 company that took no action against requent or severe oset print demer-

its.

Results

Fgure 2. How oset prnt demerts n companes wth CQL & 2 vs. CQL are handled

Offset

23%

47%

18%

44%

38%30%

No Documentation

Formal Requirements

Digital

No Requirements

Fgure 2. How dgtal prnt demerts n companes wth CQL & 2 vs. CQL are handled

Offset

1%

31% 33%

59%

8%

68%



Digital

No action taken


31/56


As seen in Figure 28, 76% take issue with the technology and consumables provider,

18% experiment on their own to nd solutions and 6% o the CQL 1 & 2 companies we

surveyed do nothing when digital demerits are ound to be requent or severe. For the

CQL 3 companies, 50% take their issues to the technology and consumables provider,

43% experiment on their own to resolve issues and 7% take no action when it comes todealing with requent or severe digital print demerits.

Discussion

Print Demerits

Tere is little dierence between companies whose customers have no ormal quality

requirements (CQL 1 & 2) and rom those who have ormal quality requirements (CQL

3), with regards to the requency and severity o print demerits. Similarly, there is little

dierence in the top three oending print demerits. Color issues such as color varia-

tion and color non-uniormity are consistently ranked as the top print demerits or both

requency and severity. Color related print demerits also extend equally into each print-

ing process. Oset and digital printing process share reoccurring color problems.

In examining the print demerit dierences within CQL 3, companies when comparing

oset to digital, what can be seen is that the ranking o print demerits directly corre-

lates to the print process. For example, oset printing is able to resolve and address a

much ner dot. Te result is that addressability based print demerits (Poor line qual-

ity, poor text quality and banding) are ranked lower than digital printing. What is also

seen is that high ranking digital demerits such as (banding, graininess, variation in large

at tints) appear to be attributed to the inherent variations with the technology, such as

variations in electrostatic charges and with the workow, such as digital le input prob-lems.

Regardless o the CQL or printing process the oundation o a quality print is in part

built rom the customer supplied les. From the open ended responses, a typical

comment relating to this issue was that Usually the only problem with bad copy is what

the customer has supplied to us and they know in bad out bad. In once case, a company

made mention that issues such as banding within their output could be attributed to the

les provided by the customer.

Handling of Print Demerits: Formal vs. Non Formal Quality Requirements

As seen rom the data gathered a large percentage o oset printers experiment toresolve requent or sever print demerits on their own. Tis is reected in the open

ended responses. Te predominant comments throughout the responses indicate that

those who are experimenting to resolve issue are doing so under an ISO or internal QA

system. CQL 3 companies are more likely to have well dened SOPs, are more likely to

supply vendors with material specs, are more likely to monitor and measure their own

process and are more likely to hold routine reviews o internal procedures. CQL 1 &

2 printers are much more likely to address problems with a vendor and less likely to

Results


32/56


experiment on their own to resolve issues, when compared to CQL 3 printers. Digital

printers, as shown in the charts, ollow the same suit with a greater percentage o CQL 3

printers experimenting to resolve issues when compared to CQL 1 & 2 printers. Formal

QA procedures do not indicate that less problems occur, but indicate that time is saved

by sel experimentation.

Within the open ended responses, two comments were made which couldnt be cate-

gorized into a group (i.e., color comments, substrate comments, workow comments,

etc) which were unique to digital printing. Te rst comment was that the companys

down time on digital presses was greater than down time on oset presses. Te second

comment, as one printer put it, was that rom a quality assurance point o view, the

process is never in control. We have to look at every sheet. Tese two side comments

stand out as being by-products o the closed system in which digital printing currently

unctions. Down time is greater due to the necessity o resolving issues with propri-

etary vendors. Quality initiatives are more dicult because the entire process cannot be

examined to determine i it is under control. In this closed system, incoming materialsare delivered by the technology and consumables providers with no standards in place

to ensure conormance. While the variability o the output can be determined through

color measurements, gloss measurements, etc., the options or controlling the output

variability is limited because the hands-o nature o the process. Process changes

within the digital system have to be initiated by the operator o the digital press and, i

substantial changes are required, need to be carried out by the press manuacturer.

Results


33/56


Conclusions

Te data gathered rom the survey paints a picture depicting the occurrence o print

deects, the relationships customers and their print providers have with regards to print

quality, and the print deects which are the most problematic. Te key ndings o the

survey can be summarized as such:

O the 3,000 invitations we sent out to companies or this survey, 279 responses

were received, a 9.3% response rate.

Te majority o the respondents (84% o the oset and 76% o the digital print-

ing providers) indicated that the requency o print demerits they experience is

low.

O the 279 respondents, 157 (56%) oer both oset and digital services.

Less than 25% o the respondents using both digital and oset processes indi-cated that their customer quality requirements are documented.

Color variation and color non-uniormity were ound consistently to be in the

top three most requently occurring print demerits in both oset and digital

printing processes.

Print providers who oer both digital and oset processes and whose customers

have ormal quality requirements tend to solve print quality problems by exper-

imenting on their own. Tose print providers whose customers do not have

ormal quality requirements tend to take print quality related problems to their

vendors.

Overall, when looking at the requency and severity o print demerits between

companies which dont have ormal quality requirements vs. companies which

do have ormal quality requirements, it was ound that having a ormal proce-

dure in place or expressing quality did not have an impact on the requency

or severity o print demerits. Nor did ormal quality procedures play a role in

which print demerits occurred.

Tere is a correlation between the requency and severity o the top three

oending print demerits. Tose print demerits which occurred most requently,

also were the cause o the most severe print deects.

Te root causes o print demerits are:Te open-system nature o oset printing technology. Tat is, print demer-

its are oen the result o incompatible consumables, such as paper grades.

Te closed-system nature o the digital printing technology. Digital print

demerits are oen the result o the workow (including customer-submit-

ted les, the RIP, etc.), or the inherent noise o the digital printing engine

(spatial non-uniormity and temporal consistency, etc.).

1)

2)

Conclusions


34/56


Te data shows that the top-ranking print demerits aficting both oset and digi-

tal print providers are color-related. What is unknown, however, is the nature o these

requent and severe color print demerits. Are color-related problems arising because

industry standards or color tolerances are too low when compared to customer expec-

tations? Are print providers measuring their color variation?

What has been established through this survey is that the majority o color-related prob-

lems ound within oset printing can be attributed to the materials involved in produc-

ing the printed product, whereas with digital print, color-related demerits appear to

stem rom the inherent constraints o the technology. Since the oset printing industry

has already at its disposal the tools or measuring and monitoring color-related print

demerits, the path orward needs ocus on how digital technology providers can address

color-related print problems within their own proprietary devices. In addition, the path

orward will also need to ocus on what the printing industry as a whole will do to bring

about standards and procedures or monitoring and measuring color within the digital

printing environment.

References

Dalal, E. N., Rasmussen, R., Dr., Nakaya, F., Crean, P. A., & Sato, M. (1998). Evaluating

the Overall Image Quality o Hardcopy Output. IS&Ts 1998 PICS Conerence, 51,

169-173.

ISO (International Organization or Standardization). (1993). Determination o olding

endurance. ISO 5626.

ISO (International Organization or Standardization). (1996a). Determination o rheo-

logical properties o paste inks and vehicles by the alling rod viscometer. ISO 12644.

ISO (International Organization or Standardization). (1996b). Determination o tack o

paste inks and vehicles by a rotary tackmeter. ISO 12634.

ISO (International Organization or Standardization). (1999).Measurement o diuse

blue reectance actor (ISO brightness). ISO 2470.

ISO (International Organization or Standardization). (2000). Determination o fneness

o grind. ISO 1524.

ISO (International Organization or Standardization). (2001).Measurement o imagequality attributes or hardcopy output. ISO/IEC 13660.

ISO (International Organization or Standardization). (2004). Process control or the

production o hal-tone colour separations, proo and production prints. ISO 12647.

ISO (International Organization or Standardization). (2006). Colour and transparency

o printing ink sets or our-colour printing. ISO 2846.

Conclusions


35/56


Materazzi, A. R., & Meade, C. B. (1977). GPOs Quality Assurance Trough Attributes

Program. TAGA Proceedings, 1977.

Norberg, O., Westin, P., & Lindberg, S. (2001). A Comparison o Print Quality between

Digital and raditional echnologies. DPP 2001: International Conerence on Digital

Production Printing and Industrial Applications, 380 - 385.

Rasmussen, R., Dr., Kress, W. C., Ng, Y. S., Doyle, M., Donohue, K. D., Johnson, K., et

al. (2004). INCIS W1.1 macro-uniormity. IS&T/SPIEs 16th Annual International

Symposium on Electronic Imaging Science and Technology, San Jose, CA.

Saleh, A. G., Dr. (1982). Te analysis o the dot gain problems and its eect on colour

reproduction. TAGA Proceedings, 1982, 497-517.

Stanton, A., & Hutton, P. (1999). An Analysis o sheeted lithographic print attributes.

TAGA Proceedings, 1999, 389-408.

raber, K., & Gemeinhardt, J. (2005). Properties o Digital Presses and Teir Prints. DPP

2005: IS&Ts International Conerence on Digital Production Printing and Industrial

Applications, 47-48.

White, I. C. (1975). Te Print Quality Index - A Management ool. 1975 TAGA

Proceedings, 1975, 259 - 269.

References


36/56


Appendix A:

Survey Tools

Appendix A


37/56


Appendix A

Objective

Conducted by the Rochester Institute of Technology's School of Print Media, in association with the RITPrinting Industry Center, the objective of this survey is to investigate

1. whether digital print defects or demerits are significantly different from offset printed demerits, and2. to what extent demerit-based quality assurance practices are used in the printing industry.

We are requesting 10 minutes of your time to answer a few questions regarding printing technologies used inyour company, print demerits encountered (as shown below), and your companys quality assurancepractices for digital and offset printing operations. Individual data will be treated with strict confidence; onlysummary data will be used for reporting and publication. This survey is open October 9 - 23, 2006.

Print Demerits

Win an iPod!

Upon completion of the survey, qualified respondants may enter a drawing to win anApple iPod 30GB MP3 and Video Player. The drawing will be held on October 30,2006, to select the winner from all qualified entries. The winner will be contacted using anemail address requested in the survey.

Questions

Questions regarding this survey may be directed to:

Thank you for your participation!

Banding

Color castColor non-uniformityColor variationGhosting

Graininess

HickiesMis-registrationMoire

Mottle

Poor line qualityPoor trappingPoor text quality

Bob Chung, Professor, RITphone: 585.475.2722email: [email protected]

Matthew Rees, Graduate Student, RITphone: 585.298.4381email: [email protected]

Please indicate the services that your company offers:

Both OFFSET and DIGITAL printing services

OnlyOFFSET printing services

OnlyDIGITAL printing services

Neither


38/56


Appendix A

Part 1. About Your Company's OFFSET Printing Capabilities andProducts

Part 2. Regarding OFFSET Print Demerits and Quality AssurancePractices

This section includes questions regarding OFFSET print demerits, which are defined below.


Print defects or demerits are described here. Please review these definitions before answering the followingset of questions.

Banding A breakup of a smooth blend into stair-steps in a gradient; also known as false contour; onedimensional, periodic lightness and/or chromatic variation.

Color cast An overall tendency within an image toward a hue direction; the most noticeable area of colorcast is in neutrals and near-neutrals in a color image.

Color non-uniformity Subjective impression of color constancy of lightness, hue, saturation across a largearea of a single print.

Color variation Subjective impression of color constancy of lightness, hue, saturation from multiple printedsheets.

Ghosting Heavy removal of ink or toner, by other areas on the printed page resulting in starvation of ink or

toner in other areas of the printed image.

Graininess A non-uniform sand like or granular appearance within the imagery of a printed product.

Hickies Spots or imperfections on the printed image that can be traced to dust, dry ink skin, paperparticles, ink splatter, etc.

Mis-registration Mis-alignment of one printed element to another, typically this refers to how precise oneprinted element overlays another printed element with the same dimension.

What is the total number ofOFFSET printing units in your company? (e.g. one 4-

color press has 4 printing units)

0

1 < 10 units

10 < 20 units

20 < 30 units

30 or more units

How many years has your company provided OFFSET printed products?

What is the average run length for your company's OFFSET jobs?


39/56


Appendix A

Moir An objectionable interference pattern caused by the out-of-register overlap of two or more regularhalftone dot or line patterns.

Mottle Uneven appearance of a uniformly printed area which may be caused by uneven inking or unevenadherence of ink on substrate; variation in density, typically defined as large, low frequency variations in

solid areas.

Poor line quality Inability to resolve fine lines due to either addressability or resolution limitation.

Poor trapping Lack of overprinting of a narrow strip of one color over the other at their junction.

Poor text quality Lack of quality of the text, (serifs, thin strokes vs thick strokes), variation in typedensity.

Part 2. Regarding Offset Print Demerits and Quality AssurancePractices (co...

Rank the following 13 print demerits in terms of the FREQUENCY in which your

company typically encounters in its OFFSET printing.

1 = Low

Frequency2 3 4

5 = High

Frequency

Banding

Color cast

color non- uniformity

Color variation

Ghosting

Graininess

Hickies

Mis-registration

Moir

Mottle

Poor line quality

Poor trapping

Poor text quality

Rank the following 13 print demerits in terms of the SEVERITY in which your


1 = Low

Severity2 3 4

5 = High

Severity

Banding

Color cast


Color variation

Ghosting


40/56


Appendix A


Graininess

Hickies

Mis-registration

Moir

Mottle

Poor line quality

Poor trapping

Poor text quality

Did we leave any important OFFSET print demerits out?

How do your major customers communicate OFFSET print quality requirements

to you?

There is no requirement communicated until after the fact

Print demerits are discussed, but not documented

There is a formal quality assurance program, e.g., GPOs QATAP

What do you do about OFFSET print demerits that are deemed freqent and are

severe to your print quality?

Nothing

Take the issue up with the vendors

Experiment to resolve demerits on my own

Other (please specify)


41/56


Appendix A

Part 3. About Your Company's DIGITAL Printing Capabilities andProducts

Part 4. Regarding DIGITAL Print Demerits and Quality AssurancePractices

This section includes questions regarding DIGITAL print demerits, which are defined below.












What is the total number ofDIGITAL printing units in your company? (e.g. one

4-color press has 4 printing units)

0

1 < 10 units

10 < 20 units

20 < 30 units

30 or more units

How many years has your company provided DIGITAL printed products?

What is the average run length for your company's DIGITAL jobs?


42/56


Appendix A



solid areas.




Part 4. Regarding Digital Print Demerits and Quality AssurancePractices (c...


company typically encounters in its DIGITAL printing.

1 = Low

Frequency2 3 4

5 = High

Frequency

Banding

Color cast


Color variation

Ghosting

Graininess

Hickies

Mis-registration

Moir

Mottle

Poor line quality

Poor trapping

Poor text quality


company typically encounters in its DIGITAL printing.

1 = Low

Severity2 3 4

5 = High

Severity

Banding

Color cast


Color variation

Ghosting


43/56


Appendix A

Part 4. Regarding Digital Print Demerits and Quality AssurancePractices (c...

Graininess

Hickies

Mis-registration

Moir

Mottle

Poor line quality

Poor trapping

Poor text quality

Did we leave any important DIGITAL print demerits out?

How do your major customers communicate DIGITAL print quality requirements

to you?




What do you do about DIGITAL print demerits that are deemed freqent and are


Nothing





44/56


Part 1. About Your Company's OFFSET Printing Capabilities andProducts

Part 2. Regarding OFFSET Print Demerits and Quality AssurancePractices

This section includes questions regarding OFFSET print demerits, which are defined below.












What is the total number ofOFFSET printing units in your company? (e.g. one 4-

color press has 4 printing units)

0

1 < 10 units

10 < 20 units

20 < 30 units

30 or more units

How many years has your company provided OFFSET printed products?

What is the average run length for your company's OFFSET jobs?

Appendix A


45/56




solid areas.







1 = Low

Frequency2 3 4

5 = High

Frequency

Banding

Color cast


Color variation

Ghosting

Graininess

Hickies

Mis-registration

Moir

Mottle

Poor line quality

Poor trapping

Poor text quality



1 = Low

Severity2 3 4

5 = High

Severity

Banding

Color cast


Color variation

Ghosting

Appendix A


46/56



Graininess

Hickies

Mis-registration

Moir

Mottle

Poor line quality

Poor trapping

Poor text quality

Did we leave any important OFFSET print demerits out?

How do your major customers communicate OFFSET print quality requirements

to you?




What do you do about OFFSET print demerits that are deemed freqent and are


Nothing




Appendix A


47/56


Part 5. Products Printed

Copy of the Survey and Enter for a Chance to with an iPod

Enter Your Contact Information

Please provide us with your contact information so that we may provide you with a copy of the surveyresults and/or enter you into the drawing for an iPod.

For each product type listed, please indicate whether your company prints a lot,

prints occasionally, or not at all.

Prints A Lot Prints Occasionally Not At All

Informational (periodicals, books, annual reports,

legal)

Promotional (catalogs, advertising, direct marketing)

Packaging (labels, packaging)

Product (stationary, wrapping paper, forms, greeting

cards)

Would you like to receive a copy of the results of this survey?

Ye s

No

Would you like to enter the drawing for a chance to win an Apple iPod (30GB

MP3 and Video Player)? The winner will be selected on October 30, 2006, from

all qualified and successful survey respondants.

Ye s

No

Please provide us with your contact information.

Name

Company

Title

Phone Number

Email Address

Appendix A


48/56


Thank you for your responses!

Thank you for completing our survey! Your responses will be anonymously compiled and reported in a

research monograph to be published with the RIT Printing Industry Center.

Select SUBMIT below to submit your responses.

Appendix A


49/56


Appendix B:

Further Analysis of Print Demerits

Figures 19 thru 26 compare the responses o CQL 1 & 2 companies vs. the responses o

CQL 3 companies. It was ound that both groups o companies responded similarly with

regards to the requency and severity o print demerits, regardless o quality require-

ments. Since there was little dierence between the requency or severity o occurring

demerits and the type o print demerits which was occurring, this inormation has been

moved to the appendix. Te ollowing presents a complete analysis o Figures 19 thru

26.

Figure 19 illustrates the requency o oset print demerits or companies with CQLs 1

& 2 vs. those with CQL 3. 84% o CQL 1 & 2 companies indicated that the requency o

oset print demerits was low, and 87% o CQL 3 companies indicated that oset print

demerits occurred with a low requency. In other words, both groups were virtually the

same.

Digital print demerits occur more requently than oset print demerits. As seen in

Figure 20, 78% o the companies with CQLs o 1 & 2 indicated that digital print demer-

its occur with low requency, whereas 80% o CQL 3 companies indicated that digitalprint demerits occur with a low requency. Again, both groups had similar rates o digi-

tal print demerits.

As seen in Figure 21, 89% o CQL 1 & 2 companies indicated that the severity o their

oset print demerits was low. And 84% o CQL 3 companies indicated that the severity

o their oset print demerits was also low. Again, the two groups were virtually the same

in the severity o oset print demerits.

Fgure . The requency o oset prnt demerts or CQL & 2 companesvs. CQL companes

CQL 1 & 2

16%

84%

13%

87%

CQL 3

Low

High

Appendix B


50/56


As seen in Figure 22, companies responded nearly identically to the severity o digital

print demerits as they did to the requency o digital print demerits, with 78% o CQL

1 & 2 companies indicating low severity o occurring digital print demerits, and 81% o

CQL 3 companies indicating a low severity o occurring digital print demerits.

Fgure 20. The requency o dgtal prnt demerts orCQL & 2 companes vs. CQL companes

CQL 1 & 2

22%

78%

20%

80%

CQL 3

Low

High

Fgure 2. The severty o oset prnt demerts orCQL & 2 companes vs. CQL companes

CQL 1 & 2

11%

89%

16%

84%

CQL 3

Low

High

Appendix B


51/56


When ranked, and as illustrated in Figure 23, the top three requently occurring osetprint demerits or CQL 1 & 2 companies were color variation, hickies, and color non-

uniormity. Tis is compared to the top three requently occurring oset print demerits

or CQL 3 companies, which were hickies, color variation, and color non-uniormity.

Fgure 2. Oset prnt demerts by requency orCQL & 2 companes vs. CQL companes

CQL 1 & 2 CQL 3

Banding

Color Cast


Color Variation

Ghosting

Grainess

Hickies

Mis Registration

Moire

Mottle

Poor line quality

Poor trapping

Poor text quality

Fgure 22. The severty o dgtal prnt demerts orCQL & 2 companes vs. CQL companes

CQL 1 & 2

22%

78%

19%

81%

CQL 3

Low

High

Appendix B


52/56


As shown in Figure 24, the top three most requently-occurring digital print demer-

its or CQL 1 & 2 companies were color variation, color non-uniormity and banding.

Companies with CQL 3 experienced the same requently-occurring digital print demer-

its as CQL 1 & 2 companies.

Illustrated by Figure 25, the top three most severe oset print demerits in CQL 1 & 2

companies were color variation, color non-uniormity, and ghosting. Te most severe

oset print demerits in CQL 3 companies were color variation, color non-uniormity,

and hickies.

Fgure 24. Dgtal prnt demerts by requency orCQL & 2 companes vs. CQL companes

CQL 1 & 2 CQL 3

Banding

Color Cast


Color Variation

Ghosting

Grainess

Hickies

Mis Registration

Moire

Mottle

Poor line quality

Poor trapping

Poor text quality

Appendix B


53/5

Date post:	07-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vladokamenov
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

A Survey of Digital and Offset Print Quality Issues - 2006

Documents