• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re-changing inks.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re-changing inks.


  • Subject: Re-changing inks.
  • From: "Michael Lithgow from Colourhead" <email@hidden>
  • Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 17:24:11 +1100
  • Importance: Normal
  • Organization: Kayell NSW (Victoria)

Marco

I have a client who would like to buy GMG Dotproof as he in turn has a
client for whom he provides banners. The client provides artwork with some
small type and when viewed in a contone proof looks great but as the
finished product will be printed with a 60 LPI screen the type breaks up. By
proofing in Dotproof he can show the client how the finished product will
really look. This is an on-going problem for him with a number of clients.
GMG Dotproof can proof from the ripped 1 bit data for the plate maker or can
simulate a dot if this data is not available. There are other reasons like
moiré for printing via Dotproof but I thought this was a practical example
of proofing with a dot.

Michael

Michael Lithgow
Digital Colour Integrator
Kayell Australia (Victoria)
email@hidden


Marco Ugolini wrote

"I am honestly straining to understand from as logical a point of view as
possible why it is so important for some clients to "see a dot" on the proof
(no, even better: not just a dot, but *the* dot! Ah!). Inertia has a lot to
do with it, probably, but doesn't explain it completely.

Let's see: the dot structure on the proof does not really exactly match that
on the final separation, does it? All that effort, and it may well end up
being different anyway: the start points might be slightly different (enough
so to create unreliable results); the screen angles themselves may not match
the final ones, for any of a number of reasons; the dot shape may not be the
same; etc.

This reverence for "the dot" borders on the irrational, and seems to me more
a sign of unfounded fear of the new than a valid position in today's
production environments.

The whole world seems to be going the way of *appearance* matches, not dot
matches, and it's doing so at a fast clip. It's far from the fad that the
"dotsters" would like to think it is: it is a proven way to get better
results while saving money. That combination by itself dooms the
competition. Who can hope to run against that tide and remain afloat?"




 _______________________________________________
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

  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: Re-changing inks.
      • From: Marco Ugolini <email@hidden>
  • Prev by Date: Re: Asian printing (was: rgb to cmyk conversions)
  • Next by Date: Re: Re-changing inks.
  • Previous by thread: Re: Asian printing (was: rgb to cmyk conversions)
  • Next by thread: Re: Re-changing inks.
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread