I’ve heard I could make savings by moving from hard copies to soft proofs. I’d like to cut our materials budget, but I’m concerned about print buyers not being able to see the quality of the work if I make this change. How much should I expect to invest?

The first thing you need to remember is that soft proofing works and is accurate under the right conditions. It is very easy to set up, but the client must have good quality calibrated and profiled computer monitors. These are unlikely to cost less than £600-£700 per monitor, and that’s at an entry level.

After that, it’s a question of how interactive you want to be. If you just want to send the client press-ready PDFs, these can be viewed in Acrobat Professional. But some clients may want a more interactive soft-proofing system – they can come in via a web browser and view the finished files as well as having the ability to make comments. Dalim Dialogue and ICS Remote Director are two such products.

This does require a considerable investment from both printer and print buyer. There are savings on the materials front, but the main saving will be on transport. That helps the environmental side and is definitely a factor for many of the large publishers.

From a technical perspective, soft proofing is a given, and for colour viewing it is sound. The issues surrounding soft proofing are more cultural; people don’t always like reading large amounts on screen.

Paul Sherfield

---

When I employ new staff I want to make sure I have completed all the relevant checks on their legal status to work. What should I ask for in terms of documentation, and how can I make sure they’re genuine? Where can I get advice on this?

It is very difficult to give definitive guidance on what checks to make in such a short answer; you will need to check the government guidance (www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/employers) in full for that. However, the basic guidance is as follows.

There are two categories of people potentially eligible to work in the UK, and both need verification. The first are those not subject to immigration control and free to live and work in the UK. These are nationals of the European Economic Area (EEA) plus Switzerland; this, of course, includes British citizens.

A common misconception is that all nationals of all EU countries are free to live and work in the UK without restriction: this is not the case. Nationals of so-called Accession states, the newer members of the EU, are eligible to work but must register with the Border and Immigration control agency; in the case of Romania and Bulgaria, they also need an Accession worker authorisation document to work.

Although these people are free to work in the UK, their status and eligibility should still be verified; don’t take their word for it when they say they are an EEA national. The checks to carry out for this group essentially fall around verifying nationality, so include a passport, residence permit, national identity card, birth certificate, adoption certificate – you only need to verify an original of one of these documents.

The second category of people eligible to work are those where leave to enter or remain in the UK is time limited, and this applies to nationals from the rest of the world – most people would think of this as a work permit or visa.

The checks for these people are to verify this leave to remain, so include a passport, immigration document, work permit or residence card suitably endorsed to show the holder is allowed to stay and work in the UK. It is important with this group to ensure there are follow-up checks, as once the leave to remain expires they become illegal, and this could apply to people you already employ.

To summarise, you must check and keep a copy of documents that verify the person’s eligibility to work, whether through nationality or time-specific leave to remain. Check everyone to avoid suggestions of discrimination, and don’t forget existing foreign national workers.

Dani Novick

---

We’ve heard a lot about the environmental pros and cons of using different inks for our offset press. We’re trying to decide between UV-curable, solvent and eco-solvent, but not sure which would be best. Can you explain the benefits of each?

There are only two mainstream ink options for sheetfed offset applications: energy curing UV inks and conventional drying inks. An environmentally friendly solution can be implemented with both processes, although market trends suggest the choice is linked to the market sector in which printers operate. We work closely with customers to advise on the best printing process for their individual business, in terms of the environment, economy and efficiency.

UV is used widely in the packaging, large-format display and business forms markets, and conventional is dominant in the main commercial applications for magazines, direct mail, catalogues and brochures.

Energy curing UV inks are available in process and PMS (Pantone Matching System) types for all sheetfed markets. Recent innovations include products that have superior light fastness and high adhesion, which help enhance the quality and increase the life of the printed product.

The technology and lithographic properties of UV inks are similar to conventional inks. However, the key difference is that UV inks dry instantly when passed under UV lamps on the press. Although this uses more energy than conventional processes, it allows printers to improve conversion rate and increase throughput.

Conventional inks dry by absorption and oxidisation and, therefore, the drying time varies. The conventional offering has been enhanced in recent years through developing new vegetable-based technology produced from sustainable resources.

To support both types of sheetfed applications there are a wide range of lower VOC press solvents and a growing trend towards alcohol-reduced or alcohol-free fount solutions that comply with tighter regulations for solvent emission control.

Ink manufacturers, such as Sun Chemical, are developing environmentally friendly initiatives for both printing processes in the sheetfed offset market.

Kevin Purdy