Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Problem with plate outline showing up on deep impression

Expand Messages
  • Gerald Lange
    Karen, Peter I d agree that the way to go for deep impression is via photomechanical engravings rather than photopolymer, preferably with copper though
    Message 1 of 6 , Apr 8, 2007
      Karen, Peter

      I'd agree that the way to go for "deep impression" is via
      photomechanical engravings rather than photopolymer, preferably with
      copper though rather than magnesium - better relief, sharper
      definition, longer lasting...

      I think it more than client education though; these days it's fast
      becoming printer education. I just use different terminology with
      clients and students to steer them. Words like elegant, delicate,
      refined... and contrast these with heavy, bold, squished, brutal...
      This seems to work for the most part, or at least, it puts the idea of
      appropriateness in mind, especially if deep impression can be
      demonstrated to contribute negatively to the intent of the design.

      In old printer terminology (Moxon) presswork was deemed negatively
      either as "beat fat" or "beat lean." No apparent word for appropriate
      presswork. Probably no need.

      Gerald
      http://BielerPress.blogspot.com


      >
      > Hi Karen,
      >
      > Why not just all it what it is ;-)!
      > Client education is always appropriate!
      >
      > In traditional engravings, there's always a plate-mark, since the
      paper and plate are run through the rollers together.
      >
      > Otherwise, you may need a deep-engraved mag plate instead of PP...
      > Just my first thoughts...
      >
      > I do feel somewhat concerned for your C&P. How much coverage on that
      plate? (Just a few lines, I'm sure it's fine...)
      >
      > PF
      >
      >
      > >I am printing with my C & P 10x15 on 4-ply museum board usuing
      photopolymer plates. The client wants a very deep impression but when
      I woud get the impression she wanted, the outline of the plate would
      make an impression as well. I know this paper is particularly thick
      and squishy.
      > >
      > >Any suggestions?
      > >
      > >Many thanks!
      > >
      > >Karen
      >
    • nagraph1
      I d agree with Peter, but magnesium doesn t have a clean etch on the sidewalls of the letters like photopolymer, so zinc would be better, and copper would be
      Message 2 of 6 , Apr 8, 2007
        I'd agree with Peter, but magnesium doesn't have a clean etch on the
        sidewalls of the letters like photopolymer, so zinc would be better,
        and copper would be best. It is easily sourced from Owosso or Metal
        Magic in Phoenix. The best engraving, and avoiding the almost always
        inaccurate wood bases, is to use quarter inch thick dies mounted on
        a base using toggle hooks. Bases are made by Sterling. The same
        files used for photopolymer can be used for traditional
        photoengravings--photopolymer is not the answer for all letterpress
        printing situations.

        I would disagree with Peter on steel die engraving work, like on
        business cards and letterheads, that the plate or die mark is never
        seen unless done by an inexperienced press operator. Plate marks are
        seen on etchings and the like, but not on commercial engraving.

        Fritz

        >> Why not just all it what it is ;-)!
        > Client education is always appropriate!
        >
        > In traditional engravings, there's always a plate-mark, since the
        paper and plate are run through the rollers together.
        >
        > Otherwise, you may need a deep-engraved mag plate instead of PP...
        > Just my first thoughts...
        >
        > I do feel somewhat concerned for your C&P. How much coverage on
        that plate? (Just a few lines, I'm sure it's fine...)
        >
        > PF
        >
        > At 8:54 AM -0700 9 07 07, Karen Mortenson wrote:
        > >Hello All,
        > >
        > >I am printing with my C & P 10x15 on 4-ply museum board usuing
        photopolymer plates. The client wants a very deep impression but
        when I woud get the impression she wanted, the outline of the plate
        would make an impression as well. I know this paper is particularly
        thick and squishy.
        > >Karen
      • Kayle Simon
        Karen, Deep magnesium plates might help. And, if you are getting not just impressions where you don t want them, but ink there as well, your rollers are
        Message 3 of 6 , Apr 8, 2007
          Karen,

          Deep magnesium plates might help.

          And, if you are getting not just impressions where you don't want
          them, but ink there
          as well, your rollers are running too close to the plate and you
          could try putting tape on the rails to raise the rollers a bit.

          I'm no expert but when I had a similar problem, those were my
          solutions. Raising the rails was the most important; mine were quite
          worn down, apparently.

          Kayle





          On Jul 9, 2007, at 11:54 AM, Karen Mortenson wrote:

          > Hello All,
          >
          > I am printing with my C & P 10x15 on 4-ply museum board usuing
          > photopolymer plates. The client wants a very deep impression but
          > when I woud get the impression she wanted, the outline of the plate
          > would make an impression as well. I know this paper is particularly
          > thick and squishy.
          >
          > Any suggestions?
          >
          > Many thanks!
          >
          > Karen
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          >



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Russell Maret
          HI Karen, I have done a lot of printing on 4-ply museum board and am familiar with the problem you are encountering. Assuming you are working for a client who
          Message 4 of 6 , Apr 9, 2007
            HI Karen,

            I have done a lot of printing on 4-ply museum board and am familiar
            with the problem you are encountering. Assuming you are working for a
            client who is not interested in being educated on the finer points of
            beat fat/beat lean (although it's hard to imagine such a person),
            here are some suggestions:

            1) Remove all the packing from the tympan, pull an impression and see
            if you are still getting a plate impression.

            1a) If you still see the plate without any packing, you will need to
            back off the platen prior to proceeding with the steps below.

            2) If without any packing you are NOT getting a plate impression,
            progressively build up the packing until you start to see the
            impression. Once you do reduce the packing by 2 mil.

            3) Trace an outline of your plate onto a sheet of packing material (I
            usually use 6 mil tympan paper) and cut it out just inside the line
            (ie. the packing should be slightly smaller than your plate so that
            the plate edge does not contact the paper).

            4) Due to possible shift in the packing, I would mount this packing
            directly onto the tympan using either a spray adhesive, or carefully
            positioned dots of pva. You can usually increase the packing within
            the perimeter of the plate by at least 8 mil before you will
            encounter the next problem which will be getting an impression of the
            packing material.

            Good Luck,
            Russell Maret
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.