RE: Future Proofing Technologies
RE: Future Proofing Technologies
- Subject: RE: Future Proofing Technologies
- From: "Mike Eddington" <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 09:09:23 -0500
- Thread-topic: Future Proofing Technologies
>>I have in the past posted concerns about ink jet
>>proofing. I see there are others out there with
>>questions as well. But the fact remains that there are
>>still customers out there who still insist on high end
>>dot proofs. I believe that with the ink jets and Rip's
>>attached you can no doubt get much closer
>>colorimetrically speaking. But the sharpness is not
>>there.
>>
>>I also see many are suggesting stochastic printing to
>>solve this. But as mentioned as well, easier said than
>>done. Especially when you have been satisfying your
>>customers with current printing methods. The problems
>>are proofing. The thing of it is that even going to to
>>stochastic FM screening and printing, the same problem
>>exist in my mind. A 2400 dpi output plate going on
>>press verses a 720 simulated dpi ink jet. No matter
>>what you do, you are still going to have a softer
>>proof than print.
>>
>>This of course makes the press room look like champs
>>which is good, but the complaint by customers is that
>>they want to see and know that what they see on proof
>>is what they will get in the end.
>>
>>So my long drawn out question comes into play. Is
>>there anything in development out there that anyone
>>can point me to in regards to getting around this. The
>>powers that be at my company are also looking for some
>>type of verification that high end dot proof systems
>>are on the way out for good. If this is fact in the
>>industry at least we would be able to educate our
>>customers with the the facts. That eventually this is
>>something they must get over.
[]
I understand you concerns on sharpness. However, I might point out that
GMG (and perhaps some other inkjet Rips) has a means to add sharpness
(USM) to the final proof. I can say that with a slight adjustment, our
inkjet proofs at 720 dpi are actually slightly sharper than our Kodak
Approval proofs. It's a different means of achieving the sharpness yes
(USM versus dot structure), but visually (without the loupe) it's
comparable and can be made to emulate the final printing very well. You
also have the ability to add noise and patterns to simulate paper
grain/fibers, making for an even closer simulation. Not as good as using
the actual paper stock as a laminate proof can do, but pretty effective
all the same (There IS a company out there, whose name escapes me,
working on technology to coat most any stock to allow for printing
through an inkjet printer).
Even going this far though, with a better colorimetric (read visual)
match and effective sharpness on the inkjet proof, there are still
holdouts for dotproofs. In my opinion, the laminate dot proof is on its
way out for the vast majority of work though, as the quality is there
and you simply can't compete with the price of an inkjet proof . We have
effectively proven the quality of our inkjet proofs to the majority of
our clients. But niche markets do exist and there are still a few
clients that insist on a Kodak Approval. In some cases, they have a good
reason. Duotones for example. I have to admit that I cannot easily get a
good duotone proof out of an inkjet with our current workflow. I expect
this will be addressed by the Rip guys soon though.
Michael Eddington
North American Color, Inc.
www.nac-mi.com
_______________________________________________
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