By Kevin Abergel, CEO, Taktiful

Digital embellishments have revolutionized the printing industry, offering new possibilities for enhancing printed materials with visually striking and tactile effects. These techniques, particularly those based on inkjet technology, have gained significant traction in recent years due to their versatility and cost-effectiveness for short runs.

The printing industry has long relied on standards to ensure consistency, quality and interoperability across various processes and technologies. These cover things like color management, file formats, data exchange and print quality. However, the rapid advancement and sophistication of digital embellishment techniques have outpaced the development of corresponding standards, creating a gap in
the industry.

This increasingly is problematic as digital embellishment becomes more prevalent. It affects quality control, hinders widespread adoption and potentially impedes innovation.

This article aims to establish whether there is a need to create standards for digital print embellishments, and if so, who should lead this effort and what should these standards cover?

The Importance of Standards in the Printing Industry

The printing industry has a long history of standardization, with organizations like the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), APtech (CGATS, B65), ICC, Printing United (G7), Fogra, Ghent Workgroup, etc., playing crucial roles. These standards have been instrumental in ensuring quality assurance, interoperability and consistency across different printing processes and technologies.

Cheryl Kahanec, CEO of Quantum Group, a large commercial print, fulfillment and mailing supplier based in Morton Grove, Illinois, emphasized that certifications play a crucial role in printing, especially in regulated sectors like pharmaceuticals. The landscape of required certifications has evolved, she said, with a growing emphasis on environmental and safety standards. “Those types of certifications are not any longer just… whether you have recycled content,” she added, underscoring the need for printing companies to adapt to the compliance requirements of their clients.

She pointed out that “there are no real certifications, no real standards,” in digital embellishment, which poses challenges for brands. Kahanec also highlighted the potential risks, particularly for products aimed at children, stating, “if a child takes this printed piece and puts it in their mouth, we need to make sure it cannot cause any harm.” She believes that as the market matures, “we’re going to start getting picky,” and anticipates a future where digital embellishment processes will require certification similar to traditional printing standards.

Challenges Arising from the Lack of Standards

The lack of standards makes it difficult for designers and brands to adopt digital embellishments widely, as they cannot ensure consistent results across different providers or regions. This also creates inefficiencies in supply chain and production processes.

Some argue that the lack of standardized terminology is creating confusion and potentially slowing down the adoption of these innovative technologies. Sabine Lenz, founder of PaperSpecs, an online hub for graphic designers and brand owners who print, highlighted this issue. “We’re confusing them,” Lenz said. “And the more we confuse them, the fewer decisions they will make for print and print embellishments. We all know a confused mind doesn’t make any decisions.”

The problem stems from the fact that different manufacturers and printers often use their own branded terms for similar technologies. Lenz explained, “One designer was looking for soft-touch coating, and her printer called it ‘velvet touch coating.’ And where’s the difference? There is none; it’s marketing.”

This extends beyond just coatings. Lenz added, “There is cold foil, my printer has cold foil. What is that? Or, oh, my printer has Lux FX or has glaze. What is that?” These varying terms for similar processes may lead to unnecessary confusion and hesitation among designers.

This is not just an inconvenience; it’s potentially hindering the adoption of digital print embellishment technologies. Lenz asserted, “We want people to buy print, but on the same hand, we’re confusing them with all the different wordings and the different terminologies that we’re using.”

The solution, she feels, lies in clear, concise education about these technologies and their benefits. “We as an industry cannot expect designers to drop just about everything to learn whatever fancy-schmancy terminologies we come up with,” she said.

David Stevens, senior manager of product development at gaming card publisher Wizards of the Coast, said, “I do think that at some point in time there needs to be a standard nomenclature on how we refer to this. I think that that’s probably the first need.”

Amnon Naschon, who spent more than a decade at Shutterfly in senior roles, including senior director of research and development, played a key role in introducing digital embellishments to the company’s product offerings. Shutterfly conducted focus groups to determine optimal embellishment characteristics, informing his practical approach to standardization.

He said there is no question that standardization would be beneficial to end customers trying to produce the best holiday cards, photobooks or any other embellished output. As for what these standards should cover, he suggested three or four attributes that would improve customers’ overall satisfaction with the product.

These include the height of the polymer, the shininess or gloss levels and the characteristics of foils used in embellishments. He proposed creating standardized levels for these characteristics.

Naschon also noted the confusion caused by inconsistent terminology, stating, “there is way too much lingo that is not clear to the customers.” He suggested developing standardized terms and definitions for different embellishment techniques and effects.

He also highlighted the need for guidelines on the strengths and limitations of digital embellishment technologies, drawing a parallel to the RGB vs. CMYK color models. This approach, he believes, would help designers and brands better understand and utilize digital embellishment technologies effectively, ultimately driving adoption and innovation in the field.

What Should Be Standardized?

If standards for digital print embellishments were to be adopted, they likely would encompass several key aspects of the printing process.

Standardized terminology would be crucial for consistent communication of embellishment techniques and effects across the industry.

Standards could include file formats, such as standard names for embellishment layers within PDFs. There could be guidelines for font sizes and weights or thicknesses suitable for various embellishment techniques, ensuring readability and quality.

Paper and other substrate types and their compatibility with different embellishment methods could be categorized for guidance on which work best with specific effects. There also could be specifications for foils, such as metallic gold and silver, detailing their appearance and reflective properties and optimal application methods.

Scodix acknowledges the need for standards in digital print embellishments but recognizes the complexity too, due to the diverse technologies and materials involved. April Lytle, brand manager for Innovation, highlighted several areas where standardization could be beneficial, with terminology being a primary concern: “The biggest thing is, do we call it varnish? Do we call it polymer? Do we call it something else? It’s the clear effect that has the biggest controversy, I think, behind what it’s going to be called.”

As for what could be standardized, Lytle suggested focusing on foil appearance across different application methods. “I think going through and standardizing like the density in the shade of foil after it’s applied could be super-helpful.” She also proposed establishing universal color codes for specific effects in file preparation: “Maybe clarifying, for example, for gold, use 100-percent magenta mask’ or ‘for clear use, 100-percent cyan mask,’ making that a little bit more universal.”

However, Lytle noted that substrate standardization particularly is challenging due to the variety of materials and their interactions with different embellishment technologies. She suggested that creating comprehensive standards would require collaboration among industry players: “You would have to have the major players all sitting around a circle in this table working together to create something like that.”

Nick Bruno, CEO of Harris & Bruno International, highlighted the critical need for objective, data-driven standards in the digital print embellishment industry. “Standardization is not just about maintaining uniformity; it’s about leveraging data to drive quality and innovation,” Bruno stated. “By establishing clear metrics for elements such as foil adhesion and detail resolution finesse, we can ensure that brands can expect consistent, high-quality results across various substrates, including the often-challenging uncoated papers.”

Bruno also acknowledged the complexities involved in enforcing these standards across different manufacturers. “One of the biggest challenges we face is ensuring that these standards are universally adopted and enforced,” he explained. “It’s essential that we have a unified approach to measuring key aspects of material compatibility. This will not only enhance the reliability of our products but also foster greater collaboration and trust within the industry.”

Toward a Standard Descriptive Language

Standardization of descriptive language would play a crucial role in enhancing the digital print embellishment process in several ways:

1. Consistent terminology: it would establish a common vocabulary for describing embellishment techniques, effects and materials across the industry. This would reduce miscommunication between designers, printers and clients.
2. Improved workflow: standardized terms would help to ensure that everyone from client to design to production understands exactly what embellishments are being requested and how they should be applied.
3. Quality control: standardized terminology would make it easier to define, measure and compare different embellishment techniques.
4. Automation: a standardized descriptive language could facilitate the development of automated systems for interpreting design files and setting up embellishment processes, reducing errors and increasing efficiency.
5. Training and education: standardized terminology would make it easier to develop training materials and educational programs, so new professionals would learn a consistent set of terms and concepts.
6. Cross-platform compatibility: a standardized descriptive language could help ensure that embellishment requirements are interpreted consistently across different software and printing systems.
7. Client communication: It would provide a clear, standardized way to describe embellishment options to clients, helping them to better understand the possibilities and make informed decisions.

Who Should Lead the Standardization Efforts?

The question of who should lead the standardization efforts is complex and multifaceted. Industry bodies such as the Digital Embellishment Alliance, the Association for Print Technologies (APTech, owner of WhatTheyThink), Printing United, Ghent Workgroup and others could play a significant role, leveraging their experience in developing and implementing standards across various industries.

The Foil & Specialty Effects Association (FSEA) has nearly 300 members, including active practitioners and industry suppliers. It plays a crucial role in educating and supporting companies involved in graphic arts finishing.

To address the unique challenges and opportunities presented by digital embellishments, the FSEA formed the Digital Embellishment Alliance about two years ago, recognizing “the differences on that side of the embellishment tree.”

Jeff Peterson, executive director of FSEA stated, “We can drive standardization of terms and definitions as an association.” The FSEA sees inconsistent terminology as a significant issue, and Peterson said, “Standardizing and defining the terms used in digital embellishments can help educate the industry and eliminate confusion.”

While he acknowledged the potential for more comprehensive standards in the future, he sees terminology standardization as the crucial first step. He suggested, “Standardizing terminology can go a long way in helping the industry. Once it’s started, it doesn’t mean it’s finished.” The FSEA views standardization as an ongoing process, with Peterson also highlighting the need to clearly define what constitutes an embellishment in the digital realm.

While FSEA certainly has the experience and knowledge of embellishment, APtech has ANSI accreditation to support national and international standards development, so its standards can be accredited, as well as having the ability to reach a wide audience with its recent acquisition of WhatTheyThink. Perhaps the best course of action would be a joining of forces that could bring both sides together for the betterment of the industry.

Conclusion

The need for standards in digital embellishments, particularly those based on inkjet technology, is clear. The benefits of standardization – including improved quality control, increased market adoption and facilitated innovation – outweigh the challenges of developing and implementing these standards.

Without a common terminology and associated standards, digital embellishment manufacturers and users may not be able to develop their markets adequately and run the risk of losing out on mainstream adoption.

Moving forward, it is recommended that the industry takes a collaborative approach to standardization, involving key stakeholders from across the value chain. A consortium approach involving diverse stakeholders, including industry bodies, leading manufacturers, brands and perhaps government agencies, could ensure that the resulting standards are practical and widely accepted.

By establishing a common language for describing digital print embellishments, the industry significantly could improve communication, efficiency and consistency in the embellishment process. This would benefit designers, printers and clients alike by reducing misunderstandings and ensuring that the final product matches the intended design.

A standardized framework also could facilitate innovation by providing a common ground for technological advancements. This could encourage collaborative development and industry-wide progress, rather than siloed innovations by individual companies. 

Reprinted with permission from WhatTheyThink magazine. For more information, visit whattheythink.com.