Re: Toyobo KM152 exposure
- Eric's comment is correct. This is the manner in which different elements SHOULD be exposed on one plate. This has been a common practice in the printing industries for many years (and long before photopolymer). I'd recommend the use of Rubylith (or Amberlith) masking film though rather than cardboard (to prevent UV leakage).
Not many photopolymer plate processors will do this for the client anymore though and to some extent it is the client's fault. They want their plates as cheap as possible AND today.
--- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, "Eric" <Megalonyx@...> wrote:
> --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, "hersomwally" <cwhersom@> wrote:
> > Often I will have a solid with fine reverses and free standing fine type or lines on the same plate. So, I guess I need to find a middle ground exposure that will work for both.
> I would give each different image type the specific exposure it needs by masking and making multiple exposures. It doesn't need pin registration, just place pieces of cardboard cut to size on top of the crene. If the only underexposed element in a given plate is the crop marks, try giving them a double exposure. Just watch out that when removing the masking material you are not leaving debris that will interfere with exposure.
> --Eric Holub, SF
- --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, "Gerald Lange" <Bieler@...> wrote:
>The reason I suggested cardboard (I actually use scraps of binder's board) is that it won't curl up under the heat of the lamps like normal masking materials might when placed loosely over the crene. Maybe this is more of a concern for me since what little Rubylith and Amberlith I have left are coming off a roll and curled is its normal state.
> . . . I'd recommend the use of Rubylith (or Amberlith) masking film though rather than cardboard (to prevent UV leakage).
--Eric Holub, SF