Be Inquisitive. Ask Questions.

A few years ago, the creative department where I work had a meeting to kick off the new year and encourage excellence in our overall work. My presentation included a handout titled: "Be Inquisitive. Ask Questions."

My headline about questions may have caught some people off guard. What does that mean? What does this have to do with graphic design and production? I recently revisited this topic in talking to a staffing executive, as a way to explain some of the qualities I look for in production staff, and encourage for anyone working in the design profession.

Does this make sense?

It's not enough for a layout to have high-resolution images, four color swatches, fonts loaded, and consider the project complete and ready to go out the door. You have to look at the contextual nature of a design—as an object. How is it intended to function? Does it have an internal logic? How does it fit into a bigger picture? To see that picture, you need to put yourself in someone else's shoes. You need to look at the work from the perspective of a client, a designer, a copywriter, a printer, a mailing house, and the intended audience.

Some examples of questions that might need to be asked: 

• Can you read all the type? Will it still read when printed?
• What paper is it printing on? What kind of press?
• Has this piece been created before? How does it compare to the previous editions?
• Was it the same size before? If not why is it different?
• Is it being mailed?
• Is it going in a envelope? Is the right size for a particular envelope?
• Which envelope? Does it need to be ordered? Do envelopes need to printed?
• Is it a postcard?
• Does the size allow for the cheaper postal postcard rate?
• Does the layout conform to other relevant postal regulations?
• Was something that seems odd done on purpose, or was it a mistake?
• Is the use of display and body text styles inconsistent? Is that intentional?

This is meant to illustrate how one question can lead to another. There are many questions one can ask, but more than the specific questions, it's a state of mind, or even a philosophy. Curiosity, and skepticism are valuable tools to see and fully comprehend all sides of a designed object. If something seems not quite right, follow your instincts. Sometimes the one loose thread you notice will lead you to see how the whole design was ready to unravel. Just as an example, asking why an image is missing, instead of just finding it could be important. Was the original was moved after it was linked? Why? Is it an older image from a prior project? Does that matter? Is it out-of-date content and needs to be replaced?

Can you see through solid objects?

Don't get caught up on the screen or printout. Your final product isn't in front of you. Even if the final destination is a web site, mobile device or an email--it's many different screens where it will be received. For a printed piece, it doesn't really matter how your screen, the laser proof, or even a SWOP or virtual proof looks. What matters is the final product--and everything else is just a tool to help you achieve the end result. Your monitor is never the product, it's a tool used to create that product. Over time you can learn to take the mental leap, and "look through" the monitor, or laser print, or contract proof, almost as if it were a transparent Photoshop layer, and see the finished product in your mind's eye.

A laser proof is a lot different than a magazine page printed on a web press. An LCD monitor is different from a smart phone screen. A SWOP proof is a representation, a target, a guide. But it's not a final printed, dried, cut printed piece. Neither is it one piece. It's sometimes hundreds, or thousands, or millions of pieces. Things out of control will occur after the design leaves your hands. In a manufacturing process binding and trim will have variation, as will registration. Ink will gain. These are inevitable things that are going to happen. Keep this in your mind, and use it to help ask the right questions during the design and production process.

How do you like work to be given to you?

Last we have the blandest, but perhaps most essential question, based on the golden rule. Give work to others how you would have work passed on to you.

The clearer a project is defined in the early stages, and the more relevant information is shared at the beginning, the less time is wasted. Creating a project form is very helpful, with fields to be filled out or checked off such as contact information, deadlines or timelines, specifications and other reference material.

When you work as a team, you often share work. Set a standard for how files should be named and organized, document it, and make sure everybody knows it. Ask all staff to keep the files on shared servers in an organized file system (not stored locally on an individual's computer). And by using an organizational system, if someone else takes over a project, there's as little cause for confusion as possible. Then people don't spend their time asking questions that don't need to be asked.

Knockout Type - Bare Minimums

Problems with "Knockout" or "Reverse" type

When placing type in white (or another light color) on top of an image or a background tint,  I always take a close look at small point sizes, thin Modern fonts (like Bodoni or Didot) and thin versions of fonts. The risk is that if the width of the thinnest part of the font is too thin, that registration variations and/or ink gain will cause the type to fill in, rendering it illegible, or at least not looking as intended.

This is so much of an issue in printing that there has long been a section dedicated to the topic in the industry standard SWOP (Specification for Web Offset Publications) guidelines

Reverse type and line art should not be less than .007” (1/2 point rule) at the thinnest part of a character or rule. Reverse type should use dominant color (usually 70% or more) for the shape of letters. Where practical, and not detrimental to the appearance of the job, make the type in subordinate colors slightly larger to minimize register problems on the production press. Small type and fine serifs should not be used for reverse type. The surrounding tone must be dark enough to ensure legibility. —SWOP ® SPECIFICATIONS 2007 (SWOP ® 11th Edition) See the full guidelines here. 

In order make sure a file is prepared for successful printing, I've outlined some methods that use to I deal with overly thin reverse, or "KO" type.

How can I make sure I'm meeting SWOP specifications?

Zoomed in to 4000% in InDesign (maximum zoom), I use the Rectangle Frame Tool to draw a box to measure the thickness of the thin portions of the letterforms. In the screenshots here, Frutiger Neue Book is being used at 8.75 point size.

The capital L's vertical stem measures 0.011" wide, much thicker than the 0.007" required by the SWOP specs quoted above. However even sans serif typefaces will almost always have some variation in thickness between different parts of different letters. The height of the crossbar on the lowercase e measures only 0.008"—thinner, but still thick enough to meet specifications. This job printed digitally on coated stock on an HP Indigo and came out looking great.

What's the risk?

Art Directors will sometimes show me examples of tiny KO type that has printed decently, to say, "Why can't we do that?" You can't assume that your printed result will be the bast case scenario. It's safest to take all factors into account and work to ensure a successful result.

Here is a scan of a page of a catalog I got in the mail yesterday. The text is muddy, uneven, plugged up, etc.

What went wrong? A lot was working against them here: 

• They used thin serif type at text and caption sizes, set in white on a very dark portion of a photograph. 
• We don't know the density (total of all four ink channels added together) but it's a four -color black regardless. Darker/denser colors are a greater risk for KO type.
• Color plates are slightly out of registration. So little that you might not notice if the type wasn't so thin. This registration is probably within the tolerance for variation allowed by industry standards. If the type were thicker, you wouldn't notice the registration.

Solutions:

1) Change the font. Change to a font that is bolder, or a bolder sans serif.

2) Make the font bigger.

3) Change the design, so it's black type on a light background, by adding a box to enclose the copy.

But often, anyone looking at these kind of problems doesn't have the option to make what might be considered creative changes. The client may have already signed off, and the proofreader may have already read the approved copy, and you would want to avoid reflowing the text. So there is a fourth option.

4) Add a stroke to the type, making sure that the stroke matches the color of the letter itself.

Here's how the math works out. 

• SWOP minimum KO letter thickness is a half point or 0.007" which is seven-thousandths of an inch.
• There are 72 points in an inch, so 1 point = 0.014"
• When you add a stroke to an object, the width increases by twice the stroke width, as it runs around both sides of the shape.
• If your type is 0.005" wide, and you want to increase to 0.007", you can add a stoke that is 0.001" wide, or 0.072pt wide. 0.005 + (0.001 x 2) = 0.007

As long as the changes are subtle, and the thickness of the stroke does not significantly alter the character of the letterforms, you can use this method you can avoid any changes to the font style, as well as preserving the line breaks of your approved text.

Is it OK to work in RGB when designing for print?

I recently was asked a question by a colleague that is a pretty common issue in print design.

Question:

"Before you send a PDF-x1a or release a file to print with images do you convert the psd image file (for example) to CMYK or leave as RGB?

The short answer:

Any pdf file I send out for print will be CMYK (except when spot colors are required--more on that in another post), but I generally don't bother converting the images I've placed in Indesign to CMYK. If you use the X1a export settings in Indesign, it should be converting to a SWOP CMYK color space by default when you export the pdf. This is the same conversion that you would make if you were converting your image to CMYK in Photoshop.

The longer answer:

Converting a layered psd file will usually require you to flatten your layers, especially if the there are adjustment layers. So I avoid converting to CMYK for that reason as well (if you merge all the layers, instead of flattening, you can avoid losing transparency/silos). However it is best to be working in AdobeRGB in photoshop, not sRGB (camera and web color space).

The only time I do sometimes convert everything is when I have to send packaged files to a printer, when they need my layout instead of just a pdf. Some printers can be finicky about converting for you. In a case like that I'll package the InDesign layout to my desktop, convert all the images, update the images in the desktop copy of the layout—making sure no silos were lost (from flattening of the images). Then it's ready to send out.

If you have a CMYK file, you can leave it as CMYK, but you'll want to be aware of ink density. When RGB images convert to CMYK SWOP, the total ink coverage in the darkest areas will be no greater than 300%. (Lower specified densities, such as SNAP for newsprint, are a different issue.) With a CMYK file, with the use of adjustments such as levels and contrast, it's possible for total ink coverage to reach as high as 400% (100% ink in all four channels). Densities exceeding 300% can become a problem on press, leading to ink not drying fully, rubbing off, or bleeding through the paper. The "registration" color swatch in your layout program is 400% of ink coverage, and is intended only for registration and trim marks on the outside of the trim area of the page, never for type or other elements that are part of a page design.

If you have a CMYK file that exceeds the maximum allowed ink density, what's the easiest way to fix the problem? Convert it back to AdobeRGB. Need it to be a CMYK image file you are sending with packaged files to you print vendor? Convert it back to CMYK. The ink limits were constrained when you went to RGB, but will not 're-expand' when converting back to CMYK. They will fall within the limits of the profiles used within Photoshop.

So why doesn't it matter if you switch back and forth? When you are designing for print it doesn't. RGB has a wider gamut than CMYK, so you can't get any 'narrower' in your color space than CMYK.

In the image above, the blue line shows the colors achievable in CMYK, and the yellow line the colors you can achieve in RGB. Images may appear brighter on screen (also you have light being projected at you, with the darkest part of the screen emitting no light at all. But with CMYK, you will always end up with ink on paper. the brightest part of the image will be the white of the paper, and ink will make it darker.

I hope you've found this helpful, rather than more confusing.