The digital versus litho debate is one that has been, if not exactly raging, then at least stewing for the past few years.
From a personal point of view, it isn’t a question of one being better than the other, more a question of which is fit for purpose.
Digital is the logical option for certain jobs, where there’s variable data, an ultra short run, or large format, for example, and litho is the process of choice for longer runs on a more regular format/sheet size.
But even that assumption is up for debate. The exact crossover point of the two technologies’ cost effective run lengths depends on who you listen to – press manufacturers say it’s in the low hundreds, while digital vendors say it’s still well into the thousands.
This question is further clouded as faster digital machines appear and, at the same rate of knots, litho press manufacturers unveil a make-ready advance that brings litho presses up to saleable print in just a handful of sheets.
Finally there’s the tricky question of print quality. It seems that you’re either of the opinion that digital is comparable to offset, or it’s not and never the twain shall meet. Personally, in terms of standard 4 colour process application, both options provide perfectly acceptable results, especially to the untrained eye, and it is the skill and advice provided by a professional print company, such as Print-Leeds, which becomes of greater value.
Judging by the number of firms like us that run both digital and litho kit, the question of which is best is largely redundant. We have recognised that it makes sense for the technologies to work in tandem and, rather than get bogged down in the subjective question of which is best, it turns into a simple question of economics.
Namely, which process will produce a specific job in the most cost-effective manner.
Simple!
Thanks to Darryl Danielli (editor of PrintWeek) on who’s original article this post is based.








