We need to invest in a new proofer but would also like to use it for personalised short-run poster work and wide-format digital jobs. What should I look out for to ensure I choose the right piece of kit?

There are four things you should consider. The first is accuracy, which is vital for proofing. My advice would be to choose a machine that has more control over the dot size, shape and placement; this will give high-quality output every time. Also, look at the inks on offer. A good inkset will provide a wide colour gamut and will be more able to meet industry standard proofing targets. Check the stability of the inks: those that can achieve a delta E of <1 in about 30 minutes will allow an accurate colour measurement to be taken from the proof quickly, improving efficiency.

The second consideration is compatibility. You need to look for a machine that is compatible with a range of RIPs and that will ensure early and smooth integration with the existing workflow.

A third factor is repeatability. To meet standards, whether officially recognised or those set in-house, repeatability is essential. A job sent to the printer should be the same every time, whether it is printed immediately after the first, a week later or a month later.

Finally the printer should look for flexibility, in print size and in the media that can be used. Look at the take-up options, whether it can take sheets as well as roll-fed paper. Find out what the tolerances are with regard to thickness and finish. Can fine art paper, board, film, gloss and photo paper go through without incident? Flexibility of resolution is also important. There are times when speed rather than accuracy may be required, so the ability to print at draft quality then switch to colour critical proofing, or to switch from poster printing at 360dpi to fine art at 2,880x1,440dpi, may also be a consideration.

Martin Johns, senior product manager, Pro Graphics, Epson UK


I’m looking to sell my business and someone told me to consider a VIAMBO. How does this differ from a traditional MBO and why should I consider going down this route?

The management buyout (MBO) is a traditional route to acquiring a business where the existing management team, or a part of it, makes an offer to the owner of the business with a view to purchasing the company and running it for themselves.

A recent spawn of the MBO is the VIAMBO, or vendor-initiated and assisted management buyout. As this suggests, it is a highly practical form of MBO, especially as it eliminates any possibility of initial resistance or offence being created because of an unexpected or unwanted approach, which can be the case with an MBO.

Because the owner initiates the approach to the existing management and also assists in the funding arrangement, it is a much simpler and more attractive procedure for vendor, buyer team and, importantly, the banks. It is a potentially high-reward, low-risk option that can provide benefits for all concerned.

A VIAMBO is actually a simplified procedure, as both buyer and seller obviously know each other well and the details of the company’s operations. In a typical VIAMBO arrangement, the vendor and MBO team agree the price for the business based on their intimate knowledge of it – and with input from their advisors. An initial payment is made by the VIAMBO team with the remainder paid off over an agreed period.

For the seller, there is potential for a premium price as a reward for remaining operational within the business and for accepting deferred payment. He retains control until all payments are completed, in effect watching over the company to reduce the risk of the new team initiating over-ambitious new business directions and at the same time protecting his interests should the management team fail to meet its financial obligations. It is also tax efficient for the vendor and no onerous warranties are necessary.

The VIAMBO is actually an extremely good option given the current state of the market where financing is not so easy to obtain. With all in agreement, and with a company track record and established forward business plan in place, the likelihood of sourcing finance is much more positive.

Paul Holohan, chief executive, Richmond Capital Partners

At Drupa, I heard about new developments in printing plates that can be imaged on inkjet printers using normal inkjet inks. What are the pros and cons of these plates and could they mount a challenge on platesetters?

You’re referring to Israeli processless plate specialist VIM Technologies and its JT Direct Inkjet Plate, which the firm showed in concept form at the show. VIM is the latest firm to have attempted to offer CTP based on inkjet imaging; Polychrome and Scitex dabbled with the approach in the late 1990s, but never got to the stage of having a shipping product. Since then other firms have launched products, with US firm JetPlate Systems claiming to be the first.

These machines are based on a standard (normally Epson) desktop or wide-format inkjet printer. All bar the VIM machine replace the Epson inks with special fluids for forming the image on the plate. JetPlate uses what it terms Liquid Light, which reacts with a conventional plate that is then processed normally, in effect replacing the film and UV lamp stage. Glunz & Jensen’s PlateWriter applies what becomes the printing surface on to a bare grained aluminium plate. VIM says that its plate, which will be launched next year, is designed to react to the Epson inks to form an image.

Inkjet CTP is an elegant concept that promises to cut the cost of moving to CTP to around £10,000. Some systems also offer the promise of processless too, and all offer it on metal plates. But you need to make sure that the registration and repeatability of any system based on a modified desktop printer is good enough for spot and multi-colour work. Also check that the plates work with your press chemistry and inks. Early systems were hampered by the low resolution of inkjet printers and the lack of acceptance of the FM screening needed to get around that. Now FM is more widely accepted and the latest printers have enough resolution to produce a 175lpi AM screen, that is less of an issue. Productivity is another sticking point, as these systems aren’t going to set any speed records.

As it stands, for all bar the smallest printer looking for a low-cost route to CTP for undemanding work, the compromises of inkjet are likely to outweigh the benefits.

Barney Cox, executive editor, Haymarket Print Group