 |
Re: Those Rail Mags
Author: Bruce Kelly
Date: 08-24-2014 - 10:14
Speed would not have been as much a factor in the print quality of R&R as file processing (GCR at their printer's end), color management, plating and line screen, screen angles, stochastic (FM) screening vs. Maxtone (AM) screening, along with the multitudes of adjustments on press related to plate packing, condition and thickness of blankets, pressures, fountain solution/water-to-etch ratio, press room temperature and humidity, ink density and quality, registration, etc. Here are just a few nuggets of related reading:
[www.idealliance.org]
[en.wikipedia.org]
[graphics.kodak.com]
[en.wikipedia.org]
[www.usink.com]
R&R was was plated and/or printed in a manner resulting in visibly coarse photo reproduction. Their previous printer (prior to recent changes) applied an aggressive GCR treatment, and then laid down too much black on press. GCR, when done properly, will not be visible to the naked eye on the printed page. But in the underlying make-up of grays, shadows, and other subtle colors, there is indeed a reduction of CMY taking place, with more K (black) being introduced. Again, not normally a problem, and in fact GCR is supposed to help achieve and maintain good color and dot gain on press, while also reducing the cost of printing since CMY inks are generally more expensive than black. But if the black unit has too much pressure or the black plates are packed too tightly (therefore squeezing and enlarging the size of the dot on the sheet), or there's slur (which drags and therefore elongates the black dot), the net result is that shadow areas that contained visible detail in both the original photo and the PDF page file are ultimately rendered as black puddles of mud on press. Anybody in the last decade or so who has had transparencies with vibrant green springtime scenery printed in R&R has probably wondered why it often showed up in the magazine looking dull, dark, and gray. Not to mention countless instances where shadow areas with plenty of detail in the original photo turned to virtually solid black when printed. R&R had very little control over any of this; the majority of it was the responsibility of their printer.
[www.idealliance.org]
[en.wikipedia.org]
[graphics.kodak.com]
[en.wikipedia.org]
[www.usink.com]
R&R was was plated and/or printed in a manner resulting in visibly coarse photo reproduction. Their previous printer (prior to recent changes) applied an aggressive GCR treatment, and then laid down too much black on press. GCR, when done properly, will not be visible to the naked eye on the printed page. But in the underlying make-up of grays, shadows, and other subtle colors, there is indeed a reduction of CMY taking place, with more K (black) being introduced. Again, not normally a problem, and in fact GCR is supposed to help achieve and maintain good color and dot gain on press, while also reducing the cost of printing since CMY inks are generally more expensive than black. But if the black unit has too much pressure or the black plates are packed too tightly (therefore squeezing and enlarging the size of the dot on the sheet), or there's slur (which drags and therefore elongates the black dot), the net result is that shadow areas that contained visible detail in both the original photo and the PDF page file are ultimately rendered as black puddles of mud on press. Anybody in the last decade or so who has had transparencies with vibrant green springtime scenery printed in R&R has probably wondered why it often showed up in the magazine looking dull, dark, and gray. Not to mention countless instances where shadow areas with plenty of detail in the original photo turned to virtually solid black when printed. R&R had very little control over any of this; the majority of it was the responsibility of their printer.
