Digital Workflow, Defined - Statistical Data Included

Control, flexibility and a fatter bottom line are the benefits of an in-house production process--despite foot-dragging by some advertisers.

Ever since the computer, specifically the Macintosh, first appeared nearly 20 years ago, the route to self-reliance in magazine production seemed a foregone conclusion. With the right mixture of software and hardware tools, a knowledgeable staff and a strong will, publishers could take on all the processes traditionally done by prepress houses. Gone would be the days of leaving envelopes at the front desk filled with chromes, copy and submission forms. Gone also: that equally important return envelope with an invoice.

Heresy you say? Nonsense. The truth is, publishers can control the means of production. Computer-to-plate has already provided the gateway by taking away one of the most daunting of tasks. Gone is the need to physically prepare lithographic film and final color matchprints. All the tools needed to produce final files for CTP platemaking devices are available for purchase.

In 1995 I started on this path, feeling it could bring the greatest economic return, production control and flexibility. In place at the time was a production infrastructure based on film production. Most of the books (Easyriders Inc. annually produces 12 titles with 100 issues, 12,000 pages and 18,000 images) were outsourced, but a few were being done in-house. With CTP in its magazine infancy, there were opportunities to bring the entire process in-house. We began to employ a CTP workflow in August 1995, and within two years all 12 publications were produced digitally. Our flagship publication, Easyriders, was the last to come aboard in November 1997.

Today, most scanning is done on the premises with a high-end CCD scanner. Our Linotype-Hell Topaz with robotic arm was installed in early 1996 with an eight-month ROI. We scan all transmissive art and as much reflective as we can (transmissive being faster and easier, therefore more productive). Some reflective art is currently outsourced, with plans to add a sec and scanner to take on the remainder of the load.

The cornerstone of the workflow is an Open Press Interface (OPI) server. Software of choice is ColorCentral. Backup and archiving is done with DigiLinear tape (DLT).

Art directors flow in the edited text to page layout (QuarkXPress) and import low-resolution files generated by the OPI software. The pages are output to two Imation Rainbow printers. Each art director marks up specific art and color-correction requests for the staff of digital imagers. Final digital color proofs provide the final color sources for the printer.

When the pages are approved by editorial and art, they are ripped through the OPI workstation again and output as fat PostScript files onto another workstation. Here they are turned into CT/LW (Continuous Tone and Linework files) using VIP software from Scitex. They are quickly previewed, renamed for proper identification and moved to hot folders, where a second application, RorkeData's PageComposer, proofs the files to a 600 dpi laser proofer. These proofs will act as the final digital blueline and copy proofs that are sent to the printer. Each final page weighs in at around 35 megabytes.

What makes this workflow elegant and fast is the use of composite Post-Script flies. CMYK is at the back-end, at the platemaking device. Therefore, we are ripping a file once per page, not four times.

The final files are loaded onto DLT cartridges and sent to the printer, along with the color proofs. T1 and ISDN lines complete the picture for the odd late file or emergency transfer.

Simple doesn't mean it's easy

Sounds too simple, right? Simple does not mean easy. What is the point of magazine production if it's easy? The wild card is advertising, the 400-pound gorilla that sits where it wants, usually right on your head during shipping.

Since 1995, a slow and steady pattern has emerged in the quality and makeup of our ads: Film has decreased to around 2 percent of ads, and properly prepared ads have risen. Film is currently outsourced for copydot scanning, but does not work in the CT/LW workfiow. Native Quark files must still be sent to the printer with copydot files. The emergence of flat file formats, such as TIFF-IT/P1, has been helpful. With a less sophisticated base than the newsweek-lies and high-end monthlies, we are forced to wrestle with a mixture of ad formats from the ridiculous to the sublime.

One key to success has been a five-year head start in peppering our ad providers with educational and practical information for the correct preparation of their ads. The hard reality is that we will probably never achieve 100 percent compliance in standards, but we are in no position to turn down advertising revenue. Basically, we have to make the ads work.

Our first choice in ad submission is currently TIFF-IT/P 1, which requires no images or fonts. It's on the rise, but still a low percentage. Second is PDF that follows specifications provided by the production department. The third choice is native application files with all images properly turned to CMYK and accompanied by all fonts. This is the most popular route for submitting ads and requires the greatest interface by advertising production. Finally, at the low end, is the advertiser that uses low-end business software on a PC with little understanding of minimum standards of ad production. We continue to educate these advertisers and hope the next ad is better prepared. The best ad is the one that quickly allows you to go on to the next ad that does need help.

Now that you have absorbed the basics of the workflow, let's look at the production department personnel: a scanner operator, four digital imagers, one editorial production manager, one advertising production manager, two prepress operations associates, one manufacturing/production director--and one shift.

So what are the objections? "We hear you, but it will never work for us because we have a CFO who won't let us upgrade our Mac SE's." Or, "We don't know anyone who knows how to turn on the computer except for our MIS person, who is not a production person." Or, "Our art director will never go for it because she still believes in paste-ups--blah, blah, blah."

If your current workflow is optimum for your needs, by all means do not change it. But we did, and it works. Now no one can say it can't be done.

Michael Weinglass is vice president of manufacturing/production for Easyriders Inc.

                               Cost per page
            There's something to be said for doing it yourself.
             The cost of producing a page of Easyriders/V-Twin
            magazines has been sliced by about 66 percent, from
          $73.33 to $24.07, since 1992 as prepress functions were
                        gradually brought in-house.
1992 $73.33
1993 $54.73
1994 $49.40
1995 $49.40
1996 $39.30
1997 $37.10
1998 $27.22
1999 $26.70
2000 $24.07
                          AN EASY RIDE TO SAVINGS
          Easyriders Inc.'s yearly savings for Easyriders/V-Twin
                 VENDOR     IN-HOUSE    IN-HOUSE     PRINTER
         TOTAL   SCANS/       SCANS    FILM/PROOFS  CTP COSTS
         PAGES FILM/PROOFS LABOR/EQUIP  EQUIPMENT  BILLABLE CTP
1992     1,800  $132,000
1993     1,800   $96,000                  $2,520
1994     2,000   $96 000                  $2,800
1995     2,000   $96,000                  $2,800
1996     2,000   $60,000     $6,000      $12,600
1997     2,000   $50,000     $6,600      $12,600      $5,000
1998     2,136    $6,000     $7,200      $14,952     $30,000
1999     2,208    $6,000     $7,500      $15,456     $30,000
2000 [*] 2,208               $7,680      $15,456     $30,000
(*.)Projected

TIMELINE

1993 Film recorder installed, 20 percent of prepress done in-house

1996 Scanner installed, 90 percent of Easyriders/V-Twin scanned in-house

1997 November magazine changes to CTP

2000 Second scanner to be installed

Over the past seven years, Easyriders Inc. has gradually moved production in-house for Easyriders/V-Twin. (V-Twin is a family-oriented version of Easyriders.) The chart quantifies total cost per vendor versus total cost in-house and shows how the publisher has produced more pages yet realized measureable savings as equipment was added throughout the step-by-step process. The cost of vendor scans and film proofs--$132,000 in 1992--has been reduced each year to just $6,000 in 1999. Easyriders went fully computer-to-plate in 1997 and will be adding a second scanner for additional savings this year.

SOURCE: EASYRIDERS INC.

COPYRIGHT 2000 Copyright by Media Central Inc., A PRIMEDIA Company. All rights reserved.
COPYRIGHT 2003 Gale Group