Thanks Loris,
Sounds like this should work, but I don't know the details involved
with how an imagesetter works. Maybe someone else could comment. I
know they DO have expensive software to precisely generate screens...so
there must be a reason.
One time I tried printing out screens myself on Pictorico. Comparing
them to imagesetter output showed they are worlds apart. Under a lupe,
the inkjet output dots were much bleedier, fuzzy and imprecise.
Imagesetter output was crystalline. Maybe inkjet technology will
improve to this level someday, but it ain't there yet. We still need
some way to get good film output once all the imagesetters die off.
Keep in mind when talking with Copygraphics, there were two different
methods Peter Ellzy used to create my 1800 dpi screens two years ago.
One used a software called "Ice Fields" - some proprietary software
that created a stochastic image from a normal one. I didn't like the
results using that one as much as the one using the 'normal' approach
-- whatever that may have been -- maybe Photoshop, but I don't believe
it was. I spoke with Duane, the owner of Copygraphics yesterday and
made him aware people are interested in the 1800 dpi screen I use and
that, among the files in my folder on their computers from several
years ago, the one NOT made using Ice Fields was the one I personally
preferred and was recommending to people. He seemed to understand my
concerns and said he'd dig more into my old data and verify what was
going on. I'm hoping they find my old files and that they are able to
output them without the striation problems reported earlier.
Keep in mind, some people have reported that 1200 dpi stochastic works
fine for them and I guess that level of output is problem-free at
Copygraphics...
Jon
Loris Medici wrote:
Dear Susan and Christina (and all),
Why can't you make your own 1800 dpi 80% stochastic screen file
yourself in Photoshop (*1), save it in .eps format and give it to a
printshop running an imagesetter (whether they have the special software
or not) to print it directly (without applying rasterization in their
RIP)?
Steps for (*1):
1. Create an empty image (Mode: grayscale, resolution = 225 dpi, size =
according to your need)
2. Fill it with the appropiate gray tone (20% Luminosity)
3. Change the mode to bitmap (Output: 1800dpi, Method: Diffusion Dither)
4. Save it to an .eps file (they should open it at 1800dpi, size exactly
the same is in step 1)
See:
http://www.loris.medici.name/susanv_1800dpi_screen.jpg
Don't you think that the generated pattern looks like original aquatint
pattern? This is a 8x10" file that I processed as listed above (original
pixel dimensions: 1800x2250, bitmap pixel dimensions: 14400x18000). Left
side the original tone, right side the stochastic pattern at 100%
magnification. When you scale the file on the right to "print size", the
tone is identical to the left side...
If that works somehow, you won't have to be extra careful - to not
damage the screen - when printing; you're going to have your file
printed again if your aquating screen gets damaged (somehow).
What do you think? Am I talking nonsense - or do you think this is worth
to try? (I can send you a sample negative if you like - here in
Istanbul, imagesetter printing fees are very very low...)
Regards,
Loris.
-----Original Message-----
From: Christina Z. Anderson [mailto:zphoto@montana.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 4:03 PM
To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
Subject: Re: solarplate images up on my website
I second this, Susan,
Yesterday I called all around. No one has imagesetters anymore. One
place
has one up in northern Montana, but the other problem is the software
capable of doing stochastic is $50,000. He can do a stochastic right to
PLATE but not to film. But what do we do when the last imagesetter goes
out
of biz? I mean, would it be the same if we did a digital one and
projected/enlarged it onto film ourselves, I wonder...
Also, the notes I have on screens so far: 1800 dpi, 80% density; from
Ross
20 or 40 microns and that stochastic is 2 different diameter dot sizes
of
diamond shape. I don't even know what all this means, what a micron
is--I
assume the 20 micron is a finer dot...
I printed out Jon's entire website and keep referring to it. Especially
the
little jpg of the different exposures and dots--very helpful, Jon. Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "SusanV" <susanvoss3@gmail.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 6:45 AM
Subject: Re: solarplate images up on my website
Dear gravure folks... I got an email last night from Copygraphics, and
they believe they have the problem with the stochastic screens sorted
out. Yay!
I have tried to find someone around here to make me one (a stochastic
screen), and came up empty. it seems that even long established
printing shops have gone digital. One place told me he gave his
imagesetter away a few months ago! (and those things are lot of $$$$$
) Another problem is that they aren't used to making stochastic
screens... that's a random dot pattern rendered by special software
that not all places even have available.
so... I highly advise getting a screen now from copygraphics and
taking good care of it.
susan
gravure blog http://susanvossgravures.blogspot.com
www.dalyvoss.com
|
