Many of our smaller clients prefer to handle their design work in-house rather than employing a third party. However, this comes with its own advantages and disadvantages – and one of the biggest concerns is choosing the right design software that is both easy to use but that doesn’t limit the scope of the artwork itself. Here are our thoughts on the current options:

The key players are Adobe, Quark, Microsoft Publisher and Word, and Coral Draw. The Adobe Suite can be considered to have the edge with around 60% of all of our clients using it to design their own artwork.  We believe Adobe can definitely be considered the market leader. Its Illustrator program is your best bet for producing the most print friendly outcome and its usability is particularly enhanced with various online tutorials providing great user information. Microsoft Word and Publisher are on the rise. However, Publisher does not have a standard PDF (Portable Document Format) output meaning an online conversion is required: zamzar.com is good for this.

What are the minimum requirements of a software package?

The software should allow bespoke sizes as opposed to just A4 and A5 and for all images to have a crisp professional look, the software should also be able to output at a minimum of 300dpi and in a CMYK (Cyan Magenta Yellow Key) format. The RGB (Red Green Blue) output, when converted to CMYK, can produce some unexpected outcomes. For example florescent green turns to a dull cameo green when converted.

In the future it would be great to see screen to print discrepancies solved with a feature that would allow the user to view the design as it would be printed. Unfortunately, as of yet technology does not allow for unexpected print outcomes caused by paper absorbency for example, meaning sometimes designers are faced with an unsatisfactory design result.

Not matter how much you spend on the software each programme will have its own little idiosyncrasies which you will only come to understand once you’ve been working with it for a while.  For example, when using Quark and Indesign it is essential  to save artwork as a high resolution PDF before sending it to us. Without doing this, fonts and pictures may not be embedded into the design meaning that when we receive it, default fonts will be used instead and pictures will not be displayed.

Another common mistake is when saving a JPEG (Joint Photographics Experts Group) file from Photoshop, quality can be lost as once saved it can become pixelated. In order to avoid this you should save as a TIFF (Tagged Image File Format) as this will stop any compression and maintain the original quality.

If you are about to purchase a new design suite, are about to save finished artwork or anywhere in between and would like a second opinion, then don’t hesitate to call our client team.

The future of printing was hotly contested at last month’s IPEX – the printing world’s annual get together at Birmingham’s NEC. The topic on most people’s lips was that of the ongoing battle between B2 digital (inkjet) and litho press (offset) printing.

Fujifilm remains the inkjet’s biggest advocate with their launch of the Jet Press 720 at IPEX. Keith Dalton, Graphic Systems director at Fujifilm, claims the Jet Press 720 fulfills a need in the short-run market. Furthermore it is claimed that the inkjet can cut paper waste by 50% and has a carbon footprint around 25% smaller than offset, giving digital a more environmentally friendly appeal.

This positive sentiment is echoed by Tim Taylor, marketing manager at Screen Europe. Taylor believes there is a definite need for more cost effective short-run work which the B2 inkjet provides. Adding to this the inkjet allows for personalisation, something which Taylor believes all companies should at least have the option to do.

However, there are many that believe the existing offset already caters for the short-run needs that the inkjet is targeting. Neil Handforth, from Apex Digital Graphic says the existing offset can handle the short run jobs with their “very effective and efficient turnaround times.” Andrew Tribute, a PrintWeek columnist agrees with Handforth and remains unconvinced by the inkjet. Tribute claims the only advantage of the inkjet is being makeready, which cannot compensate for the higher costs associated with digital. The full PrintWeek Article can be found at printweek.com.

So with all this debate, where does Solopress stand on the issue? Well we believe that in the past litho has been superior to inkjet, in both quality and cost at high runs. However, now inkjet is quickly becoming a real contender with more flexibility during the run and easier personalisation: inkjet makes it possible to print 1,000 leaflets with different names on each, in any font, style or colour.

We support the Fujifilm argument that for short runs, digital is better in terms of cost effectiveness. We have managed to lower our short run prices because we have invested in two Xerox machines. This proves that the main challenge of inkjet cost is being overcome.

Essentially there are advantages and disadvantages with both inkjet and offset. Litho offers cheaper prices for long run and higher quality. Digital is still very much up and coming, but offers shorter print operator training times, and as prices continue to drop and quality increases it is sure to become a real competitor. Here at Solopress we believe the future does seem to be digital.

If in doubt please ask us which method we believe is best for your job.  We’ve got an experienced client team who can give advice and balance your budget requirement against quality control.