Re: Approval, Dots, Etc. Oops! I did it again!
Re: Approval, Dots, Etc. Oops! I did it again!
- Subject: Re: Approval, Dots, Etc. Oops! I did it again!
- From: "joe borne" <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 17:23:31 -0500
Dan Goodenow wrote:
>
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".
I have to assume this was in response to my comment about dealing with the
200 year old printing industry here in Cincinnati. My original statement is
below and I did not intend it as a sweeping generalization or derogatory
comment towards said industry.
I wrote on Nov 11:
>
>I am glad you are having success in this workflow. I am sure though that
>
>your clients are not dot percentage fanatics. Here in the Cincinnati area
>
>we have a 200 year old printing industry and the clients to go with it. As a
>
>result I am constantly up against the old world dot structure mentality. I
>
>am speaking from experience when I say that these types of clients will go
>
>bezerk when they find dots on plate that bear no relation to the "dot proof"
>
>you showed them.
Instead, my intention was to illustrate that some clients are fanatics about
dot structure. Some are for very good reasons as Dan pointed out.
Appliances, fabrics and patterned products are just a few of his good
examples. But, some clients adhere to the dot proof out of familiarity and
comfort even if their work doesn't really demand it.
Dan also wrote:
>
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...
Actually, its close to the exact issue I was trying to underscore. The
variation of color percentages in individual channels caused by ICC profile
color re-mixing will result in a proof that defeats the purpose of the
Approval on _dot_critical_work_.
The ironic thing is that we all seem to be in consensus of meaning. I guess
my response to some earlier posts espousing ICC profiles on Approvals was
somewhat over intense. (Those who know me are now clucking "Who Joe?
no-never!) I simply wanted to make sure that those attempting this mix of
dot and ICC be aware of the dangers involved.
--
Joe Borne
Color & Graphic Technology Consultant
(859) 282-0393
-- "The worst thing to do is nothing" --