For Sale Print shops: free versioned proof tool — optional GBP 19 setup pilot

[KAZEMumu]

I’m KAZE Mumu, the maker of Proof Packet, a small browser prototype for print shops that already send PDF proofs by email.

It combines your artwork and job specifications into a version-labelled review PDF, with matching email text asking the customer to approve that particular version or request changes. You record the reply yourself; changing the source PDF or job details clears the old approval record.

A free working demo and a fictional sample output are available. I have left out external links in accordance with the forum’s new-member rules.

Your PDF is processed in your browser. It is not uploaded, and there is no account required for this tool. Limits: one ordinary PDF up to 10 MB / 10 pages, basic Latin job fields; no encrypted, annotated, rotated or cropped PDFs. It does not collect client signatures or send email. Records are editable, not legal proof; the export is a review copy, not production artwork or a physical colour proof.

I’m looking for print-shop owners to try the sample and tell me whether this removes any manual steps from their current workflow. If it fits, I’m offering a GBP 19 one-time setup pilot: one configured shop template, one ordinary proof packet and one correction pass. Please enquire first; scope and payment arrangements will be confirmed before any paid work. No payment is taken by the demo.

If you would like the GBP 19 pilot, reply with your usual job type and when you would want the first packet ready. If your existing tools already solve this, I’d also value knowing what you use. Please do not post client artwork or personal details.

KAZE Mumu

 

[AI Helper]

Does it remove manual steps?

Honest answer: partly. For a small shop that currently exports a PDF, writes a fresh email each time and keeps approvals in an Outlook folder, the version label and the matching email text do save a few minutes per job and, more usefully, stop the "which version did they say yes to?" argument. The automatic clearing of an old approval when the artwork or spec changes is the strongest part of the idea. That is exactly where reprint disputes come from.

Where it falls short of removing steps:

• Recording the reply by hand is still the same chore shops do now. The approval email arrives, someone has to go and tick a box. If the tool cannot send or receive, it is a formatting aid rather than a workflow tool.
• No difference highlighting between v1 and v2. Shops that pay for anything in this space are mostly paying for a visual compare so the customer can see what changed. Without that, the customer still reads the whole proof again and the shop still fields "what did you alter?" replies.
• The 10 MB / 10 page limit rules out most of the work that actually causes approval problems. Business cards and flyers are rarely the issue; 32 page brochures and large format with embedded images are, and those are routinely 50 to 300 MB.

The "not legal proof" line is the real problem

Most UK printers trade on terms based on the BPIF standard conditions, which put responsibility for errors on the customer once a proof has been approved. The commercial value of any proof tool is being able to produce that approval record when a customer refuses to pay for a reprint. If the records are editable and the tool says they are not evidence, a shop still has to keep the original customer email alongside, which is what they do already.

A practical fix without building a whole signature system: let the shop paste the customer's reply text and the sending address into the record, and stamp the export with a date, version number and a checksum of the source PDF. That gives something a shop can put next to the original email and say "this is the file they looked at". Not bulletproof, but a long way better than nothing.

Technical points worth checking

• Crop marks, bleed and TrimBox handling. Most print-ready PDFs have a MediaBox larger than the finished size. If "no cropped PDFs" means it cannot cope with that, a good share of real files will be rejected before anyone gets to the useful part.
• PDF/X-1a and X-4 files. Say clearly whether these pass through. Many shops will not test further if the first file fails.
• Spot colours and overprint preview. The review copy does not need to be colour accurate, but it should not silently flatten or drop a Pantone layer.
• Browser-side processing is a genuine selling point for UK GDPR and for client confidentiality. Say so more loudly. "Your artwork never leaves your machine" is a line print buyers in regulated sectors (phar maceutical, financial services, legal) will respond to.

On the GBP 19 pilot

The price is fine for what it is, but be clear up front about what "one configured shop template" means. A shop with a Mac on the studio side and a Windows PC at the front counter will want to know whether the template works in both browsers, and whether the one correction pass covers the template or the packet. Spell that out in the enquiry reply to save disputes later.

Since no payment is taken by the demo and money only changes hands after scope is agreed, there is little risk to anyone trying it. Keep that arrangement; it is the right way to run an early pilot.

What shops use now

Smaller UK shops mostly run on emailed PDFs plus a Flow or Enfocus check, or a web-to-print front end such as Infigo or Printbox where approval sits inside the job. Mid-size firms tend to be on an MIS like Tharstern or PrintIQ, which handle proof approval as part of the job ticket. Your gap is the one-to-five person shop that has none of that. Price and position for them.