Seeking perspective: UV LED ink gloss on Arctic Volume White, printer accountability

[Davino]

Some of you have seen my earlier posts. I'm starting fresh here as I think it's best to present the larger picture for outside perspective before responding to my printer.

Project: a scholarly illustrated edition, now 5 years in development, 400 pages, 21cm x 26 cm with 240 new or archival architectural photographs. Stock is Arctic Volume White (AVW) 130gsm – chosen specifically for its natural, matte-like finish despite being a coated sheet. The aesthetic intent of this book sought to reflect that tactile, non-glossy quality (not specifically with regard to images, but everywhere else). I can accept the UV gloss and saturation on photos, but not the text gloss and resultant glare, and the rest of the virgin areas of the pages should preserve the natural character of AVW, and not undergo added coating. We moved production from Taiwan to Eastern Europe specifically to preserve the option of using this stock and preserving its attributes.

The European printer, I later learned, uses UV printing. I was never informed that UV LED inks cure to a noticeably glossy finish. The matte character I was paying a premium for, with the design intention to remove every impediment to readability (such as glare) in this challenging, detailed text, with annotations in a separate Pantone grey spot, is being undermined by the ink sitting glossy on the surface. It was the printer that unilaterally chose to print UV, when in fact, they have both traditional offset and UV Heidelberg presses. No warning was given on this inevitable outcome of UV, nor even that it was being employed and that this would make a difference.

It was at the point of printing a wet scatter proof that the issue of UV LED printing's gloss was revealed for to us: all text has visible sheen affecting readability under certain lighting, a problem we invested great effort in designing out from the start. The overall look contradicts what the stock was chosen to do.

The printer's response has been to shift all responsibility to us. They've proposed a UV matte varnish overprint as a potential solution – but have acknowledged they've never applied this as an overprint before, saying they cannot guarantee results, and expect us to fund all testing. And the implication is clear: if it doesn't work, that's my problem.

I need to be clear about our situation: finishing this book is the priority, at all costs. I'm committed to seeing this through. I also cannot afford to lose this relationship with the printer – we're locked in now; cascading effects of the process to this point have bound me to them: the contract proof, the detailed calibration of all 241 images to their UV LED proof, representing hundreds of hours of photo editing work with very capable photo editors, all at great cost. Walking away isn't an option. But the next test of their matte overprint varnish will run $1000-$1400. And the process itself adds another $3000 to the production run, this time, and for all subsequent printings and foreign language editions. This is on top of already paying a premium for the Pantone grey spot ink on the hundreds of margin notes (annotations in the scholarly edition). All this will force the book to remain a complex and expensive to reproduce edition.

So my questions are practical:

1. UV LED on premium matte-finish stock: Should a professional printer have flagged this gloss risk, noting its departure from conventional offset printing's behavior, particularly when the stock choice itself signals aesthetic intent?
2. Accountability: When a printer's technology creates an outcome the client didn't anticipate and wasn't warned about, where does responsibility lie?
3. The matte varnish proposal: Is asking me to fund an untested solution reasonable? What should I expect in terms of confidence and guarantees?
4. Placing responsibility back on the printer: If the consensus is that some accountability legitimately belongs with the printer, how would you recommend I frame that conversation without damaging the relationship I need to preserve?

I'm not looking for validation – if the consensus is that this is standard practice and I should have known, I need to hear that. But if professional printers would view this situation differently, that perspective would be valuable before I respond.

Thank you for any insight.

(Below: scatter wetproof on a 900 x6030mm sheets below, for further context. The arrangements for these images took years and in some cases, contacting very elderly photographers in Switzerland and Germany now in retirement homes to gain their permissions. Extensive efforts involved in producing this work on every front.)

 

[Henri123]

Hi,

If the paper is still in full sheets, you could try to run it through the UV-lamps again. Some UV and LED-inks come more matte the more you cure them.

 

[Davino]

Hi,

If the paper is still in full sheets, you could try to run it through the UV-lamps again. Some UV and LED-inks come more matte the more you cure them.

Hi, thanks - I can foresee this printer is likely to respond, effectively, with don't tell us how to cure sheets on our press, or something along those lines. They adhere to their standard procedures. I believe this job is all sheet-fed; would they ever switch to rolls if the wetproof was on this sheet size?

The gloss on the photos is fine. The issue is gloss/glare on the text, the most important element of the publication (though the imagery is of a high standard), and to preserve how the virgin paper looks and feels, hence why a matte flood coating is out.

 

[SteveSuffRIT]

Hi Davino,

I think a better term than wetproof is "press proof". Some may consider a wetproof to be inkjet?
I don't think the B&W photos are 1/c-K halftones, or 2/c duotone from spot text type, but are 4/c Quads?
If quad-tones (CMYK) you should be using a high degree of Gray Component Replacement (GCR) or they will take on a slight color cast and not preserve neutrality consistency throughout the 400 page book.

 

[Davino]

Hi Davino,

I think a better term than wetproof is "press proof". Some may consider a wetproof to be inkjet?
I don't think the B&W photos are 1/c-K halftones, or 2/c duotone from spot text type, but are 4/c Quads?
If quad-tones (CMYK) you should be using a high degree of Gray Component Replacement (GCR) or they will take on a slight color cast and not preserve neutrality consistency throughout the 400 page book.

Hi Steve,
Noted, press proof will be the term used for clarity. It's indeed 4-color offset but with a 5th spot (gray Pantone) for annotations, not an Epson proof. I offered to apply that grey, if useful, to the B&Ws for enhanced tonality, but everyone (printer, retocuher) felt it was too challenging, or had more drawbacks potentially than benefits. Duotone was also not selected as circa 30% of the images are in color. It therefore had to be CMYK.

B&Ws are fully desaturated, then a 3% sepia layer is added (Arctic Volume White is a high whiteness stock and I prefer the very subtle 3% setting them off very gently). Conversion to CMYK is via PSO Coated v3 (FOGRA51) as mandated by the printer. The printer strictly advised against using Arctic's dedicated color profile as all their work is FOGRA51 or 52 - their entire workflow is optimized to this. GCR is whatever's built into that profile - medium, I believe. Printer handles it from there, in whatever else is done in their rip. Their lineature is 175 LPI. Wish they had advised 350 Effective PPI on images. Many or most are that high, but the standard 300 DPI was the spec the printer advised.

It's likely more comfortable on the forum to cover technical points like this, and the input is always valued. I am really wondering though what my leverage or expectations should be, in the view of those here, with the printer who introduced a problem (UV gloss glare to text) unilaterally and doesn't offer to help cover fixing it, instead situating all responsibility and cost on me, a problem I sought to design out from the start.

 

[Grant B]

I've read a few of your posts regarding this project of yours.
I've worked on presses for 45 years and have printed on many different stocks on many different presses. I have, or have been involved, in the printing of books, catalogs, annual reports and much more. I have done thousands of press approvals with customers over the decades. I learnt years ago that there are different kinds of customers. Brokers for instance have a huge knowledge of the printing process and know what their looking for at the press. Decisions have been made well before a job is on press. What I've read from you is that your experience in this area is limited. Please don't be offended by that.
I wanted to address your questions, and I'm going to be very direct.
You are the director of this project and you are the one responsible for every decision.
1. You selected the stock to be used. You saw its inherent sheen. If you don't like how it may prove difficult to read text, you had/have the choice to change stock. You could have asked for samples. You wanted that stock for a tactile effect, so you must deal with issues that come from it.
2. All accountability falls on you. You can't blame the printing process on the company you're dealing with. You are the designer of this book and how you envision it is not known to the printer. All they can do is show you a finished piece. If it's not to your liking, you have the choice to change things in your design, or change shops. You said that you're invested in this company and can't afford to change now. Again, that's your choice.
3. It sounds like the company listened to your concern of glare and suggested a solution, matte varnish. Again, ask for samples of something printed with matte varnish. Of course there's going to be a cost to using it, just as there was additional cost for your PMS. It's not an unproven process, but with all varnish applications, yellowing will occur over time.
4. All the responsibility falls on you for the final outcome of this book. You need to make decisions. You need to allow this company to help guide you through this process, and you need to be understanding of some possible limitations of the printing process. You could, and should, approach the company should you find issues with print quality, such as scumming or mis-registration, poor crossover colours.

All of your questions sound like you are wishing to direct, or find fault in others, should this project not end up as you envisioned it.
If I was your customer service representative at the company you're dealing with, I'd insist you be present for press approvals. If you denied being present, I would not print your job.
You need to go to the shop during printing and approve every make ready for colour. At those approvals, you will have to make decisions. A good pressman will listen and help work with you. If what you see is terribly different than what you envisioned, you have a choice to make. Either pull the job or accept the differences.

You are responsible for this project, take responsibility for it.

 

[Davino]

I've read a few of your posts regarding this project of yours.
I've worked on presses for 45 years and have printed on many different stocks on many different presses. I have, or have been involved, in the printing of books, catalogs, annual reports and much more. I have done thousands of press approvals with customers over the decades. I learnt years ago that there are different kinds of customers. Brokers for instance have a huge knowledge of the printing process and know what their looking for at the press. Decisions have been made well before a job is on press. What I've read from you is that your experience in this area is limited. Please don't be offended by that.
I wanted to address your questions, and I'm going to be very direct.
You are the director of this project and you are the one responsible for every decision.
1. You selected the stock to be used. You saw its inherent sheen. If you don't like how it may prove difficult to read text, you had/have the choice to change stock. You could have asked for samples. You wanted that stock for a tactile effect, so you must deal with issues that come from it.
2. All accountability falls on you. You can't blame the printing process on the company you're dealing with. You are the designer of this book and how you envision it is not known to the printer. All they can do is show you a finished piece. If it's not to your liking, you have the choice to change things in your design, or change shops. You said that you're invested in this company and can't afford to change now. Again, that's your choice.
3. It sounds like the company listened to your concern of glare and suggested a solution, matte varnish. Again, ask for samples of something printed with matte varnish. Of course there's going to be a cost to using it, just as there was additional cost for your PMS. It's not an unproven process, but with all varnish applications, yellowing will occur over time.
4. All the responsibility falls on you for the final outcome of this book. You need to make decisions. You need to allow this company to help guide you through this process, and you need to be understanding of some possible limitations of the printing process. You could, and should, approach the company should you find issues with print quality, such as scumming or mis-registration, poor crossover colours.

All of your questions sound like you are wishing to direct, or find fault in others, should this project not end up as you envisioned it.
If I was your customer service representative at the company you're dealing with, I'd insist you be present for press approvals. If you denied being present, I would not print your job.
You need to go to the shop during printing and approve every make ready for colour. At those approvals, you will have to make decisions. A good pressman will listen and help work with you. If what you see is terribly different than what you envisioned, you have a choice to make. Either pull the job or accept the differences.

You are responsible for this project, take responsibility for it.

A few points need correcting here, because the core of that argument rests on a premise that isn't accurate.

You say I "saw its inherent sheen". Arctic Volume White was extremely carefully chosen for its largely matte finish in order to ensure matte text under conventional offset printing — that is the entire, well-established rationale for achieving highly readable matte text via the stock. The gloss I'm dealing with is not a property of the paper. It's a property of this printer's UV LED printing process interacting with the ink, curing as a glossy film, undisclosed to me prior. I chose a matte stock specifically because I understood standard offset behavior. The printer's UV LED technology is what broke that plan, not my stock selection. That distinction is at the heart of the matter. Most of your career spans the emergence of this technology. You may have also had the opportunity to work with matte-formulation UV LED inks. Our printer explicitly won't use a matte UV LED ink, which would solve the glare Hence where we're at now.

On yellowing: you mention all varnish applications yellow over time. We wanted to preserve the color and tactility of the stock which was chosen for these very properties by avoiding coatings. The UV LED process and something else within the printer's handling of the job ultimately produces a very different paper stock surface, even in unprinted areas of the page. And what I've documented is different from what you're describing — an immediate, present-tense tint from the varnish application tested on the wet proof as an experiment itself, visible on a fresh proof, independent of further yellowing from aging.

I do own every decision — press approvals, whether to accept flood coat, how to handle tradeoffs. Nobody else signs off on final files. But owning the decisions ahead of me isn't the same as having caused a problem that originated in undisclosed printer technology causing a problem we specifically designed out from the start by our choice of a more matte stock to get matte text. We had no knowledge of UV LED printing's existence and its separate drawbacks (the gloss/sheen on cured ink film), nor was that disclosed to us. And yet when a very carefully designed project, one intended to remove every impediment to readability, comes in with a matte stock spec for matte text, it would seem inferable to a printer that we might not be happy if they changed our intended matte outcomes and desire to preserve the stock's inherent properties.

 

[Grant B]

I do apologize, I confused the matte with satin (a bit tired here). If I read correctly, did you mention that they're shop had another large press that was not a UV press?

 

[Davino]

I do apologize, I confused the matte with satin (a bit tired here). If I read correctly, did you mention that they're shop had another large press that was not a UV press?

We knew nothing of UV LED printing. We later learned of its existence when we inquired what on earth was turning our text and images shiny on this largely matte stock with no varnish applied on the first proof. We then later came to understand that they also had traditional offset available. The choice was never presented. We operated on the assumptions of traditional offset, where matte paper surface equals matte results. UV LED's gloss/shine problem is an unwelcome discovery.

But, yes, they do offer, on Heidelberg presses, both traditional offset and UV LED printing separately. Our 240 images are calibrated to the latter.

Equipment — High-quality book production — Livonia Print

Livonia Print is your partner in high-quality book production

www.livoniaprint.lv