Re: Documentation & Proofing Systems
Re: Documentation & Proofing Systems
- Subject: Re: Documentation & Proofing Systems
- From: Ray Maxwell <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 23:21:46 -0700
Hi Ken,
There is a digital proofer that makes plates and proofs using the the
same laser imaging system and RIP for both plates and proofs. The unit
is called the Creo Spectrum proofer. This system makes a dot for dot
proof. For every dot on the proof the same dot exists on the plate. If
the dot gain of the press is not the same as the dot gain of the
proofing material then the size of the dot will be slightly different to
correct for this.
Note that this system can do stochastic screening as well.
At one point in time you could make Kodak Approval Type II, Imation
Matchprint, Fujiproofs, and Dupont Waterproofs using the Spectrum
proofer. The system had to be setup for each type of media. It was not
possible to quickly switch from one to another. The proofs cost about
the same as film based laminate proof.
Ray
Ken Fleisher wrote:
I feel the need to jump in and say what no one has really said
explicitly yet. Proofs are not just for color. To varying degrees,
some people have mentioned some of the reasons that printers prefer
dot proofs. Unless I've missed a post or two, everyone who talks about
dot proofs has talked about making Approvals, or some other electronic
simulation of a dot proof and the pros and cons of simulations.
I would argue that dot proofs, made directly from the same film that
the printer will print from (i.e. analog dot proofs, not digital),
still have intrinsic value in predicting behavior on the press and are
able to provide confidence about certain things that no digital proof
can currently provide.
Until there is a reliable way to guarantee (emphasize "guarantee")
that the RIP that created the digital proof (continuous tone inkjet,
Approval, or whatever it may be) and the RIP that is on the press
(whether CTP or simply the printer's RIP to make the film), will
produce the exact same output, analog dot proofs still hold value.
Even if you are providing both the digital proof AND the film, it is
still possible to overlook differences if the exact same RIP is not
used to make both. It's happened to me. The digital proof looked
great, but the film had a postscript issue where the RIP for the
imagesetter caused an error which was difficult to see in the film
without an analog proof. This went to press and was in stores before
it was caught (it was a packaging job).
Anyone who outputs to a RIP knows about the myriad of issues that must
be handled on a job-to-job basis and the many potential pitfalls. I
think printers would more quickly embrace digital proofs, dots or
no-dots, if there could be some guarantee about the consistency
between the RIP that made the proof and the RIP that will send pages
to the press (CTP or imagesetter).
For the record, I'm not opposed to digital proofs. In fact, I prefer
this whenever possible. However, I still see value in analog dot
proofs--particularly when the RIP becomes an wildcard.
Ken Fleisher
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden