When to reject a printer's work?

[seligman]

At what point do you reject the work of a commercial printer? Is there any standard for tolerance that the printing industry expects customers to accept?

I'm having problems with a well known (and reputable) commercial printer. I had them do 2000 copies of a softcover book, with PUR binding.

The main problem has been defective binding. I have hundreds of copies with binding that looks like this. Several hundred others are much worse. The pages seem tight, but I think it's a matter of time before it falls apart, even with PUR glue.

Would you definitely reject work like this?

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/2743/binding1dl1.jpg

Another problem has been blurry ink, such as the following.

Would you reject a book for workmanship like this?

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/5945/ink1ut8.jpg

[jimking]

I'm not sure what PUR binding is, can't quite make it out viewing the pic, can you elaborate? What kind of printing is this....offset? The text looks wrong. I've seen this happen before with files not quite imaging to plate or film correctly do to a font issue. What kind of file was supplied to the printer and what kind of proof did you see before it was put on press. This is important because if you signed off on a softproof instead of a hard proof this may explain why no one picked up the font issue before press. The pdf proof looked fine but errored when rendered to plates. A hard proof on the other hand is or should be created by the same file (ripped and trapped 1 bit tifs) and would have shown the errors.

[jimking]

Also, if it is a font issue, and not a photoshop created mess the printer should have picked up on it. If the proofs do not show this defect I would bounce the job.

[seligman]

PUR stands for Polyurethane Reactive glue, it's supposed to be the toughest glue on the market. PUR glue or not, what I have a problem with is the notched edges of the paper being exposed. In some of the books (not all), the page on the bottom tears out like a perforated piece of paper with minimal force. Those copies are obviously no good, but with the others, I'm not sure what to do. Would it be reasonable to reject every copy where the jagged edges are showing? Sure, the binding hasn't failed yet, but to me, that's a case of loose pages waiting to happen.

These books were indeed offset. The files were uploaded as PDF's from InDesign/Illustrator.

The text problem is not universal. Some books look perfect, the rest look like this. In poor lighting, it is difficult (if not impossible) to make out some of the numbers.

[seligman]

Also, if it is a font issue, and not a photoshop created mess the printer should have picked up on it. If the proofs do not show this defect I would bounce the job.

The proofs did not look bad at all.

I'm just debating if this text problem is bad enough to reject it. I'm also curious what caused this problem. Is this something they *should* have caught?

[budafist]

I would reject that job. I doubt a job would leave our print shop looking like that. That text should definitely not look like that!

[CkretAjint]

Is the super light text backwards? If so they might have ran a quick laser print if it and photocopied all your books, cut then glued them. The light text is just the other side of the page showing though from the intense scan light!

[jimking]

Some of that text looks perfect on some copies? Strange, and what kind of proofs were aproved? It is strange that the text is different on some. The reason is if it was a machanical issue such as a blanket problem on press you'd think other areas of the image would be effected. It could be a page from the tail of the sheet that was flopping around. But it does look like a font issue. So far of what I've seen and heard and I've been a printer for over 30 years, I'd say talk to your printer and tell them this can not be excepted. They can check all the books and toss the bad ones and reprint at their expence.

[budafist]

It could be the the image box of the river/road is causing any text in that image box to rasterize.

[seligman]

What about the binding? Would you reject every copy that looks like that?

The headache in all of this is that I noticed the defects in a drop shipment before the pallet left the warehouse. I quickly notified them to stop the bulk shipment so the Quality Dept could re-inspect the books. They swore only 345 of the 1752 they had were defective. I told them it sounded way too low (percentage-wise) compared to the drop shipment.

They shipped the remaining 1407 books anyway. Of those 1407, I found 1123 defective copies.

Since I've never done business with them before, the Quality Dept is indirectly suggesting I'm a crook trying to get free work out of them. Nobody has actually said this to me, but I can tell from their subtle remarks and their actions that this is what they're thinking. Evidently, somebody is worried about losing their job.

The company has an excellent reputation. They have consistently been rated in the "Top 10" printers in the USA for several years now.

I just hope this doesn't wind up in court.

[jimking]

It could be the the image box of the river/road is causing any text in that image box to rasterize.
The problem with that is all the copies would look the same but they don't.
If the job is defective, they don't have a leg to stand on. Make it clear to them and show them the defects in binding and printing. Those that were shipped out, they can at least give you a discount on.

[frankster]

I would not buy a book with binding like that. Even if the pages are not falling out and the text is still readable, that is still going to put people off buying if they pick the book up and see that whilst flicking through. It looks cheap and nasty and if the printers are as reputable as you say then they should be concerned about such a high percentage of a job they did looking like arse.

[seligman]

I would not buy a book with binding like that. Even if the pages are not falling out and the text is still readable, that is still going to put people off buying if they pick the book up and see that whilst flicking through. It looks cheap and nasty and if the printers are as reputable as you say then they should be concerned about such a high percentage of a job they did looking like arse.

That's exactly how I feel.

[seligman]

The problem with that is all the copies would look the same but they don't.
If the job is defective, they don't have a leg to stand on. Make it clear to them and show them the defects in binding and printing. Those that were shipped out, they can at least give you a discount on.

Let me mention some other things.

On some of the copies, the registration on the color pages is just barely off. Wouldn't that rule out laser copies of any kind?

With the blurry ink problem, I found the following:
1. It was always the black text...never any other color.

2. When the blurryness appeared, it was always at the same location on the page. The same words or numbers would be blurred, but not every instance was as bad as the other. Some were dark (like the photo), others were lighter.

3. The blurryness appeared on every color page, but never at the same time. At most, 2 of the 8 pages were affected at one time, but it was usually 1 page per book.

4. The blurryness was widespread throughout the shipment. In other words, every case had books with this problem, but they were scattered throughout the box.

5. About 50-60% of the books had this problem, in some way or another.

[seligman]

One other observation and I'll shut up.

About 150-200 books were trimmed badly. The pages were crooked and some text was chopped off. Each and every trim defect also had defective binding.

Is there something to this, or just a huge coincidence?

[jimking]

You did say it was an offset printed job, correct? As far as trim goes they should not be crooked. It could be that when they trimmed the books they trimmed several at the sametime, stacked on top of each other and when the cutter's clamp drops down on top of the books to hold them tight just before the blade cuts them there could be books slipping causing some to be trimmed cockeyed. This could also explain the binding being a mess. Several books stacked with a clamp with one ton of pressure can crush spines easily if not done correctly. Point out these defects also to the printer.

[seligman]

Yes, an offset job.

Like the ink problems, the trim defects were consistently on the same pages, but never grouped together. It wasn't the whole book that was trimmed badly, it was 1-4 pages per book that were crooked by 1/4". The rest of the pages were centered (trimmed) perfectly.

[budafist]

The ink problem is weird. The black should look like that on every copy if it were like that on the plate. It doesn't make sense that random pages would do that bold black text like that.

[jimking]

Yes, an offset job.

Like the ink problems, the trim defects were consistently on the same pages, but never grouped together. It wasn't the whole book that was trimmed badly, it was 1-4 pages per book that were crooked by 1/4". The rest of the pages were centered (trimmed) perfectly.
Now I'm confused. The only way certain pages in a bound book can be trimmed differently than the rest is the signatures were trimmed separate from each other and not together at the same time after the book was bound or at the very least depending on the type of binding, just before they are bound. Are there foldouts on this job. Can you give us a snapshot of the book laying closed with the spine showing?