I have been stirring the pot around LinkedIn, asking questions related to digital print quality and particularly graphic designers’ and print buyers’ perceptions of what digital is capable of producing. While there are designers and print buyers who understand the full capabilities of digital production, there is still notable misperception that digital still offers more of a quick-print-quality output.
As part of those discussions, Stu Leventhal, president of Lexicon Communications (New York City) and adjunct professor – Graphic Design/Production at the Fashion Institute of Technology, made an interesting comment that I’d like to get your comments on here.
It is no secret that, in most cases, designers are not taught production in design school anymore. Consequently, young graduates may not understand the differences between production processes or even between Pantone and CMYK. They are learning on the job, and especially early in their careers, may not know the questions to ask to understand why some jobs are outputting well and others are not.
In this context, Leventhal pointed out that because younger designers often spec their print online, they may not know what they don’t know; and because they are disconnected from the process, they don’t realize that if they’d work with someone locally, they could have a partner who really invests in their education (and, consequently, their ability to output a much better quality job).
The unspoken issue today is that many young designers just know the online resources. They don’t even think to use someone local – or where there is a real person to help and advise.
So young designers may not know what they don’t know, and if they are outputting junk, they may not realize that it doesn’t have to be that way. That doesn’t benefit anyone — including the designer. This spotlights the need to encourage designers to tap into the expertise of local providers and to intensify education efforts among young designers.
Anyone have experience with this? Want to share?