Historically, when presented with technologies or processes that could save printers vast amounts of time and money and improve quality, our first reaction is to reject them out of hand and continue with our old methods and habits.

In the early days of scanning, technology was introduced that removed the need for scanners, but they were initially dismissed. When Apple and Quark came along, they were deemed not professional enough. Many said inkjet digital proofing couldn't replace Cromalin because 'it hasn't even got dots on it'. ICC profiles, ISO 12647 and closed-loop colour were all also resisted initially. I suspect that wood block carvers and scribes rejected Gutenberg's moveable type as too complex to use.

Most print companies that have adopted new methods have run new technology in parallel to more traditional methods, which creates its own problems, as well as increasing costs. In fact, I can think of very few truly visionary companies that have used new technology as the building blocks of their business.

Slow on the uptake
Some of the applications that are around today are relatively inexpensive to implement, but are excellent at adding value, for example, ink optimisation, colour management tools, and speciality or effect printing systems.

One technology that has been debated for some time, and that printers have been very slow to adopt, is monitor or soft proofing. This technology has been around for years and has suffered from the same old 'fear of change'. Introduced almost a decade ago, it has proven itself to be effective and accurate, not to mention the best opportunity for removing cost from a supply chain.

All the objections about quality, from 'you can't get good colour on a flat-panel monitor' to 'I still need a hard proof
for press', have been overcome and it is widely accepted that a monitor can proof a job all the way from design to the
press console.

But let's look at the supply chain for a minute. Creatives and agencies need to show their clients accurate designs for a whole host of different titles. They must then send out the proofs to the publications and the publishers need to give proofs to the printer for it to match the desired effect.

The proofing cycle is responsible for significant cost to the entire process, but more important perhaps is the time lost.

Pages are created in seconds and transmitted equally as fast these days, but the proof still needs to be created to the correct profile, on the correct substrate, measured and verified and then couriered either to the printer or the publisher.

There must be millions of pounds in this process that can be easily removed. Advertisers could place an ad, transmit the PDF and effectively the proof follows it. Agencies could automate the creation of pages much more easily, which would make advertising in magazines and newspapers much easier and timely. So why is monitor proofing not being adopted more widely?

To be fair, many presses and pressrooms have been retrofitted with monitor proofing. One of the more common reasons cited by the unconvinced for not investing is 'my proofs are supplied, why should I invest in any technology?', but surely removing cost and time out of the supply chain has to be in everyone's interest.

Is the real problem that we haven't worked out the costing structure of who pays for it? If all the benefit is upstream and most of the cost is downstream, it hardly seems fair.

Eventually, this technology will be standard and it will be the companies that embrace the behaviour change and the technology that will benefit the most.

John Charnock is the managing director of Print Research International