U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: solarplate stochastic screen - Clarification

Re: solarplate stochastic screen - Clarification



Asking for a NON "Ice Field" made screen from CopyGraphics has put a kink in me getting a screen - that request is apparently causing them some kinks. Would anyone mind helping me understand what the Ice Field does and why I don't want that - if indeed its enough of a conceren for me to look elswhere for a screen.
Thank you for helping me over my ignorance bumps/mountains...
Robert Newcomb

---- Original message ----
>Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:09:51 -0500 (EST)
>From: Ender100@aol.com  
>Subject: Re: solarplate stochastic screen - Clarification  
>To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
>
>   Jon,
>
>   I worked with Peter some years ago on generating
>   negatives with their imagesetter.  Ice Fields was
>   used for image negatives because they were able to
>   use it to reduce some of the artifacts in the
>   negatives produced with it.  It wouldn't surprise me
>   that you had better luck with a screen that didn't
>   utilize Ice Fields to rasterize the screen, since an
>   80% screen wouldn't be printing the tones where the
>   artifacts occurred.
>
>   I would suggest that anyone using a screen first
>   examine it closely on a light table and watch for
>   striping or moire patterns in the screen.  I found
>   imagesetters to be somewhat unpredictable from one
>   day to the next in generating an artifact free
>   negative.  Good luck!
>
>   By the way, Chris has a good point about aquatint
>   screens.  Once the legacy imagesetters all bite the
>   dust, what technology will be used to create
>   screens?  The newer technology that creates plates
>   goes direct from computer to plate with no
>   intervening screen needed.  These new machines
>   provide full color screens using a stochastic output
>   at a high resolution up around 500 pixels per inch,
>   though the dots per inch that the machine is using
>   to render this is much higher, Creo makes a
>   PlateSetter that produces 10,000 dots per inch,
>   which could probably go up to 625 pixels per inch
>   when reproducing a Photoshop image.  I'm not sure
>   what sort of plate they use to hold that kind of
>   resolution.
>
>   Best Wishes,
>   Mark Nelson
>
>   Precision Digital Negatives - The System
>   PDNPrint Forum at Yahoo Groups
>   www.MarkINelsonPhoto.com
>
>   In a message dated 2/22/07 3:28:45 PM,
>   jon@terabear.com writes:
>
>     If you do order it from Copygraphics, please
>     clarify whether or not it
>     was rendered using "Ice Fields".  Duane said they
>     quickly found a file
>     in my folder on their computers from 2 years ago
>     -- among many -- and
>     that it printed fine in a recent test swatch,
>     without the striations --
>     but that's not the file from the version of the
>     screen I wound up using!
>
>     When I spoke with him yesterday he said he would
>     look further into it.  
>     Again, there were 2 different methods Peter used
>     to create the screen,
>     and I didn't prefer the one using Ice Fields for
>     some reason.  If you
>     can get a quality version of the 1800 dpi screen
>     that didn't use Ice
>     Fields, that's what I recommend going with.
>
>     Just a point of clarification so there's no
>     misunderstandings.
>
>     Thanks,
>     Jon
>
>   **************************************
>   AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more
>   about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.