Black too dense?

Pixels Ink

Okay folks, having a bit of bother with a print job.

Sent a piece to print but was told by the printer that the black was too dense for 170gsm stock and that I
would have to upgrade to 300gsm.

Now, I agree there is a lot of black on the leaflet with a make up of 100K & 40C.

When I called back to discuss the job I was told by someone else that normally that amount of black would
not be an issue, but rather it was something to do with something needing tightened on their presses as it
wasn't picking up the paper properly and smudging.

As you can imagine, having to upgrade from 170gsm to 300gsm for 40k leaflets is a big jump in costs.

Can any printers comment on this?

Jpeg of artwork attached to show amount of black.


  • JD A4 to A5 Outside.jpg
    JD A4 to A5 Outside.jpg
    90.9 KB · Views: 13
hi pixels

If its their technical fault then upgrading to 300gsm should be THEIR problem not yours.

If they can't print to your spec because of their problem, then surely they must provide an alternative at no extra cost??

Hi Pixels,

Laura's point - the supplier doesn't have to do anything until a contract is entered into. He / she can offer an alternative quotation, that is all.

Pixels - This makes very little sense and with such a jump in gsm is extraordinary. I could guess a few reasons, none of which follow the information that you have been provided with. I would certainly not upgrade. Seek a few alternative quotations from other suppliers. You will find others can do this at the weight of stock you require.

Love your logo btw.

Unfortunately I had no choice but to go with the printers recommendation and get 15k printed on 300gsm as the client desperately needs them for Wednesday, was supposed to be tomorrow.

Thanks for the info guys, I'll be right on the phone to them tomorrow morning asking what the deal is, because its cost me extra money and basically made this a non-profit job :(

If I find they have made me upgrade purely becuase their machines can grab the heavier stock better I'll not be very happy at all :icon_cursing:
Maybe they didn't have enough 170gsm and had loads of 300gsm in stock as its doesn't seem to make sense other wise, maybe trying to pull the wool possibly? Hope not though, being transparent is key. Lets us know how you get on Col.
Well, the 300gsm stuff turned up, and it does look good.

However, another printer has gone ahead with printing on 170gsm and said that it isn't a problem!

So there may be a claim coming from me in regards to the probably unecessary upgrade in paper stock!
Definitely stick a claim in for that one, sounds uber dodgy to me (I work at a printers). There's male cow poop going on somewhere from them.
I agree with the above comments, don't know what their problem is as we print heavy black on 170gsm all the time. Infact, it seems everybody wants everything black nowadays.
Was the 170 stock coated or uncoated. Have had x1 job where the black/v. dark blue image on one side bleed through slightly to the other on an uncoated stock. Did they not have any 200 / 220gsm instead of going right up to 300?
It was gloss coated stock, and no, the choice was nothing or 300gsm.

Have put it behind me now and won't use them again.