Approval, Dots, Etc.
Approval, Dots, Etc.
- Subject: Approval, Dots, Etc.
- From: Dan Goodenow <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 08:47:01 -0500
I can't stand watching this one anymore without throwing in my $.02...
First of all whether or not a particular proofing system is "good" or not is
completely application specific. Anyone who has spent any time doing high
end prepress work for apparel, automotive, appliance (i.e. ovens,
microwaves, etc.), etc. would never argue with the value of an accurate dot
proofing system. It doesn't have anything to do with being "old school", it
doesn't even necessarily have to do with color - it has to do with
mechanical integrity. Dot structure, dot shape, angle, etc. all effect
things like how a grill on the front of a Cadillac, the mesh on the glass
panel of a microwave, the herringbone pattern of a golf shirt, etc. is going
to look "mechanically" when actually printed on a press sheet. By
"mechanically" I mean whether or not a grill line will sawtooth, whether a
herringbone will moire, whether a drop shadow will break smoothly or
arbruptly, etc... Ask any prepress manager who deals with this type of work
if he/she wants to be standing along side a press with the web screaming
along and an irate art director trying to explain why their job looks wrong
while holding an Epson proof.
I'll admit that these types of issues don't apply in every case - for a lot
of commercial work less accurate ink jet proofs are fine. I would just
please ask that people don't make these sweeping generalizations like, "dot
proofs are useless - they're for 200 year old companies that still haven't
gone digital". They confuse people who may actually need a dot proof and
make it difficult for their prepress provider. Like I said earlier it's case
specific.
Ironically, a lot of people who do need a "dot accurate" proof are having
their proof imaged using on type of screening and their plates imaged using
another kind of screening thus defeating everything I just talked about.
That's a whole different issue...
The other thing that I always harp on regarding proofing systems is
repeatability. I can't speak to the repeatability of the lower end inkjet
systems, but I have put an Approval through it's paces with some of the most
miserable scans I could think of (light tan leather, medium neutral leather,
grey fabric, etc.) and can tell you that the repeatability is excellent. I
had Kodak knock out 30 proofs of the same file and put them all next to each
other and would challenge anyone to find a difference. These are the kind of
shots where misregistering a conventional proof by a 1/3 of a row of dots
shows a noticeable perceptual difference. I have talked to other people who
have CreoScitex Spectrum proofers and they tell me they get similar
repeatability. That's one of the things you are paying for in a proof of
this nature. Again - this kind of tolerance isn't needed in every situation
but there are real cases where it is.
Finally, as a purely theoretical thing, I believe you could use Recipe
Colors on an Approval to contaminate the pure primaries and accurately
simulate just about any proof in the world and still have dot integrity. The
primaries in the Approval donors are very clean so you could contaminate
them "down" to match just about any other proofs primaries. Because the
Recipe Color software lays the dots exactly on top of each other you could
match your primaries via contamination accurately and still have dot
integrity. The only problem is it would take forever and I don't know if the
repeatability would be there.
Maybe that was more like $.10
Dan Goodenow
Digital 66
email@hidden
(734) 657-0294