Agfa Azura

[Ritter]

After reading all of this thread I don't understand this beef about the plate checking. It seems like a very antiquated way of thinking. If you are proofing correctly (through the same RIP, and processes) and calibrated in proofing, then keeping sound maintenance on the plating equipment (to include cleaning, changing filters, etc.) as well as maintaining a plate room with constant stable temperature and humidity why in the hell would you bother checking the plates? Nothing should get to plating that hasn't already been checked, rechecked and signed off. It seems way too late in the game to me to be checking plates. If screening/image issues are to occur after all of this diligence you won't see them until the ink hits the paper.

Maybe I missed something here?

[Santa]

After reading all of this thread I don't understand this beef about the plate checking. It seems like a very antiquated way of thinking. If you are proofing correctly (through the same RIP, and processes) and calibrated in proofing, then keeping sound maintenance on the plating equipment (to include cleaning, changing filters, etc.) as well as maintaining a plate room with constant stable temperature and humidity why in the hell would you bother checking the plates? Nothing should get to plating that hasn't already been checked, rechecked and signed off. It seems way too late in the game to me to be checking plates. If screening/image issues are to occur after all of this diligence you won't see them until the ink hits the paper.

Maybe I missed something here?

Ritter,

I could not agree with you more.

It just seems to me that this is a discussion of "theory vs. actuality"

The "theory" is that without checking a plate you must be a fool and I quote Alois "So we have another " Fool" in the Pre Press, not checking the Plates, no wonder the Printers have problems on Press !!

The "actuality" is that checking plates in our shop running the Azura is unnecessary as we have not had any press related issues that Alois has so boldly assumed we have.

Alios please do me a favor and stay in your theory land and the rest of us who actually put ink on paper for a living (3rd generation printer here) will keep our feet firmly grounded in reality.

[Erik Nikkanen]

.

The goal is not to measure, but to continue to produce consistent results! If we are reaching the goal, then is there a need to question the process? To reevaluate it at times is good, but measuring for the sake of measuring is like watching paint dry.)

Absolutely correct.

The goal of modern manufacturing is to have processes that have the capability of being inherently consistent and to avoid continuous inspection where ever possible.

It is very unfortunate that the traditions in the industry, which are perpetuated by the graphic technical organizations such as RIT, GATF, Fogra and Urgra, still think that targets are control devices and still encourage continuous inspection as a desired goal.

Targets tell you when the process is not in control. Targets are good as indicators but don't control anything. Control is a result of the capability of the design of the process. If a process required continuous monitoring, then it is not capable. If it can't be made capable, then it does need the monitoring but that is not a good thing.

The real goal is to have no need for targets. Targets waste paper. If the technical groups were more interested in process capability issues for the last 50 years than selling targets and its related expertize, one would have had consistent and predictable processes by now.

When I hear that a process is so consistent that it does not need close monitoring, that's great news.

[Kevin@Kodak]

Absolutely correct.

The goal of modern manufacturing is to have processes that have the capability of being inherently consistent and to avoid continuous inspection where ever possible.

...<snip>...

The real goal is to have no need for targets. Targets waste paper. If the technical groups were more interested in process capability issues for the last 50 years than selling targets and its related expertize, one would have had consistent and predictable processes by now.

When I hear that a process is so consistent that it does not need close monitoring, that's great news.

Erik - I agree 100% too, and I'm glad to see some support for that stance here. The discussion comes up regularly when discussing things like Thermal Direct, but it's a much wider issue - It's the basis for value in our core technologies like SQUAREspot. We're even leveraging that in the flexo world now to provide unheard-of consistency and quality with the Flexcel NX system (the GATF now sees the benefits for sure!).

While I accept fully that it would be nice to overcome the contrast limitations of Thermal Direct, in reality the reason it's become a concern is the historical variables throughout the platemaking process. Eliminate the variables, and you (theoretically) eliminate the need for inspection and the associated cost/overhead. That goes across everything from workflow, plates, imaging, and processing, to on-press performance through the end of the run. It's a big task, but that's our goal.

Kevin.

[SteveAgfa]

Savage:

<snip>
Reading through the forum, i see many people using the :Azura plate.
<snip>

There's also a study that reflects your observation. In a recent (March 2009) industry report,
nearly 80% of WW consumption of processless plates (of the Big 3) are Agfa plates.
(You can argue semantics - that's the category for Azura in this report.)

<snip>
May i ask to those who use it, if they ever considered the :Amigo plate, and why have you chosen the :Azura over the :Amigo?
<snip>

Savage - the core technology of the two plates are the same. However, Amigo was designed
to be more thoroughly cleaned-out prior to press, to enable baking. The application configuration
is also designed toward the higher-volume shops. I switched several shops last year to Amigo -
who claim their chemistry consumption has since dropped by about two thirds. With the faster
emulsion of the newer Azura TS - I'm finding larger shops interested in Azura TS.

Either way - similar technology, similar wide latitude - it's just finding the best fit for your needs.

Regards,

[beermonster]

hey steveagfa

i'm going onto the new TS when they schedule me in - is my gum quantity usage likely to change at all?

cheers steve - top man

[SteveAgfa]

Hi Beer...

The recommendation is to do the auto-rinse on the unit about every 300m2 of plate material -
which I believe is the same recommendation as before. You might find that we're laying down
a slightly thinner coating of gum. Let's see what your results are, and your thoughts on the switch.

Regards,

[Santa]

hey steveagfa

i'm going onto the new TS when they schedule me in - is my gum quantity usage likely to change at all?

cheers steve - top man

Beer my gum usage went from 1 jug per 4 weeks to 1 jug aprox every 6 weeks. But our plate usage is also down so I can't say for certain it was the TS.

One thing I will say, on the day of the switch we ran a poster for the NFL on the old Azura. The Agfa techs took about an hour to adjust the drum speed on my Ascento, we dropped in the new TS plates. Re-imaged the same poster on the them and strapped on them on at the end of the run and ran a few hundred extra sheets. No one in the shop could tell which piece was run on which plate. Did not have to adjust curves in pre-press, no fountain solution changes on press, and no change in the S.O.P for the way we print.

That was last July and we are still going strong!

[Baldbug]

Can anyone give me their opinion on the Agfa Azura plate. We are currently using the Fuji LHPI and are thinking of switching.

We just installed a Acento II S using the new Azura TS plates. Its only early days yet with a small teething issue with the Acento and some plate issues with wear which is being sorted out. Different plate wear on a two colour MO and plate wear on an old KORD press. No wear issues on GTO46 and GTO52 multiple presses and a 2 colour SORK yet.

[beermonster]

TS is being installed as i type.

thanks again santa and steveagfa

just as a side issue - run length...these are unbaked azura plates - we print on some harsh boards which leave plenty of debris

we are running a 500k run right now - 5 colour - B1 full sheet on some not overly friendly pulp type of board - NOT what i'd call ordinary conditions

black on 2nd cylinder seems to be - for whatever reason - getting the most hard work and is lasting about 65k impressions - but the others - well they finally gave up at 179k - yes that's 179k.

the process elements are not overly large in fairness - probably cover 40% of sheet with the rest being a full out solid - nonetheless - that's an impressive run length - getting on for twice the rated run

just thought i'd throw that in there…………