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

Re: [PPLetterpress] Maximum 30,000 pixels?

Expand Messages
  • ANDREAS PRIVE
    ... Andreas Schweizer Ecomusée Voltaire Association Lettres et Images 25 rue du Vuache 1201 Genève- Switzerland T: + 41 22 340 44 10 F: + 41 22 340 44 21 P:
    Message 1 of 24 , Aug 11, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Le 12.8.2002 5:11, « Dan Franklin » <dan@...> a écrit :

      > Hi, Erik.
      >
      > For practical purposes, it is unnecessary to scan at a resolution
      > greater than 300 dpi for a halftone (shades of gray) image, or
      > greater than 1200 dpi for line art (and often 800 dpi, or even 600,
      > is sufficient for line art). This assumes that you are scanning to
      > the target size you contemplate in the printed piece.
      >
      > The final resolution of the output device is irrelevant here. Beyond
      > the resolutions stated above, you are wasting storage space on your
      > hard drive and slowing any scanning/image editing you perform--with
      > absolutely no improvement in image quality.
      >
      > Hi,
      >
      > 300 dpi for a halftone...
      >
      > I have the same problem as Erik,
      > I need a high scanning for continuous tone. (not halftone).
      > The aim is to generate CMYB films trought digital selection.
      > Printing a CMYB collotype print.
      >
      >

      Andreas Schweizer
      Ecomusée Voltaire
      Association Lettres et Images
      25 rue du Vuache
      1201 Genève- Switzerland
      T: + 41 22 340 44 10
      F: + 41 22 340 44 21
      P: + 41 79 304 14 64
      URL: http://www.letterpress.ch
      Work mail: andreas.schweizer@...
      Private mail: andreasschweizer@...




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Gerald Lange
      Mike When you generate the PDF you would need to create a custom PDF style rather than selecting the printer style. And choose document page setup instead
      Message 2 of 24 , Aug 12, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Mike

        When you generate the PDF you would need to create a custom PDF style rather
        than selecting the "printer style." And choose "document page setup" "instead
        of "same as current printer." Though as I recall you can set up a special
        Acrobat printer style for such purposes. Been a while since I've had to do this.

        I normally do not send PDFs to the service bureau. I'd be interested in
        hearing of the successes/failures that others have encountered in this regard.

        At the Adobe site there are some documents that describe setting up high
        resolution PDFs (for professional applications or something), though you do
        have to poke around a bit.

        Gerald


        Michael T Metz wrote:
        >
        > What if one is sending a pdf to the platemaker? a pdf produced
        > with Pagemaker? Does one still need to set the Document Setup
        > printer resolution so high?
        >
        > Mike
        >
        > Gerald wrote:
        >
        > Though the final imagesetter needs to read your Pagemaker or Quark
        > document at 2560 or higher, and you DO need to set this as your
        > printing resolution in the page layout program, any line art that is
        > imported into that document only needs to be at 1200dpi (camera ready
        > quality) to avoid the bitmap jaggies.
        > ...
        >
      • Mats Broberg
        ... Having worked for several years in the commercial graphic arts business, I have to disagree with this. A resolution of 600-1200 dpi is far from enough if
        Message 3 of 24 , Aug 12, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          > For practical purposes, it is unnecessary to scan at a resolution
          > greater than 300 dpi for a halftone (shades of gray) image, or
          > greater than 1200 dpi for line art (and often 800 dpi, or even 600,
          > is sufficient for line art). This assumes that you are scanning to
          > the target size you contemplate in the printed piece.

          Having worked for several years in the commercial graphic arts business,
          I have to disagree with this. A resolution of 600-1200 dpi is far from
          enough if you aim for the highest quality possible in lito offset or
          letterpress.

          Traditionally, the rule of thumb has been to scan line art at a
          resolution meeting or exceeding the output resolution of the
          imagesetter, which usually is 2540 dpi. When you are working with large
          format originals, and want to avoid very heavy files, a better
          alternative than scanning is to create the the negative in the darkroom
          (which - resolution-wise - exceeds 2540 dpi many times around).

          If heavy files don't scare you away, scan the original in smaller
          pieces, and mount them together to a complete piece in Adobe Photoshop.
          It is very easy to get perfect registration if you play around with
          transparency settings when aligning the different pieces.

          Regards,
          Mats Broberg
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          ARS IMPRIMIS PRESS
          Hauptvägen 102
          SE-123 58 Farsta — Sweden
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          Telephone: +46 8 604 59 81
          http://www.arsimprimispress.com
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        • Erik Desmyter
          I am only talking about line art (not halftones) and I want to create a TIFF file. I read for example on: http://www.boxcarpress.com/photopolymer-platesl.html
          Message 4 of 24 , Aug 12, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            I am only talking about line art (not halftones) and I want to create a TIFF
            file.

            I read for example on:
            http://www.boxcarpress.com/photopolymer-platesl.html
            Negatives: We can only guarantee results when using our negatives. We shoot
            camera-ready artwork or we output files at 2536 DPI (with resolutions up to
            3600 DPI available).

            Another example (magnesium or copper plates):
            http://www.owossographic.com/index2.htm
            Scanning poor copy with ragged edges will produce a file with, you guessed
            it, ragged edges. Printing it to your ink jet or laser printer may not tell
            you the whole story on the quality of the file. Here at OWOSSO, we send your
            files right to the imagesetter and spit out a film at 2400 dpi. It is not as
            forgiving as your printer. Every little jagged line will look like a jagged
            line.


            Why should a line art scan at 2400 dpi not give better results than one at
            1200 dpi? If these guys afterwards make a film at 2400 dpi why should we not
            scan immediately at 2400 dpi and clean up the file in 2400 dpi? I do not
            really care about the size of the file.

            I just do not understand why my scanner and all the softwares I have tried
            do not allow to make a TIFF file with one length longer than 2,400 dpi x
            12.5" = 30,000 dots (or pixels)??

            Erik

            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Dan Franklin" <dan@...>
            To: <PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 5:11 AM
            Subject: Re: [PPLetterpress] Maximum 30,000 pixels?


            Hi, Erik.

            >I am trying to scan a 10" x 16" document in line art at 2400dpi what
            >should give a file of 24000 pixels x 38400 pixels...

            For practical purposes, it is unnecessary to scan at a resolution
            greater than 300 dpi for a halftone (shades of gray) image, or
            greater than 1200 dpi for line art (and often 800 dpi, or even 600,
            is sufficient for line art). This assumes that you are scanning to
            the target size you contemplate in the printed piece.

            The final resolution of the output device is irrelevant here. Beyond
            the resolutions stated above, you are wasting storage space on your
            hard drive and slowing any scanning/image editing you perform--with
            absolutely no improvement in image quality.

            Dan


            . To respond to a post or post a message to the membership:
            PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com
            . Encountering problems? contact:
            PPLetterpress-owner@yahoogroups.com
            . To unsubscribe:
            PPLetterpress-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          • Erik Desmyter
            ... pieces, and mount them together to a complete piece in Adobe Photoshop. I have tried this already but Adobe Photoshop did not allow in a TIFF file to
            Message 5 of 24 , Aug 12, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Mats Broberg wrote:
              > If heavy files don't scare you away, scan the original in smaller
              pieces, and mount them together to a complete piece in Adobe Photoshop.

              I have tried this already but Adobe Photoshop did not allow in a TIFF file
              to increase length (or width) above 30,000 pixels (or 12.5" x 2400 dpi)

              Rgds,
              Erik
            • bielerpr
              ....Adobe Photoshop did not allow in a TIFF file to increase length (or width) above 30,000 pixels (or 12.5 x 2400 dpi) Erik I don t understand why this
              Message 6 of 24 , Aug 12, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                ....Adobe Photoshop did not allow in a TIFF file to increase length
                (or width) above 30,000 pixels (or 12.5" x 2400 dpi)

                Erik

                I don't understand why this should be so. I've worked with line art
                tiff files in Photoshop at 16 x 24 inches and 1200 dpi and have never
                encountered the limitations you are describing. I do a lot of image
                reconstruction for institutions and fine presses etc...

                If it helps: My usual procedure is to scan line art in grayscale at
                600 dpi. This scan is brought into Photoshop and I double the
                resolution to 1200dpi (you can do this once, and only once). Though
                grayscale does quadruple the memory requirement, the active memory
                that is required to manipulate a grayscale file is much less than
                that required for a b/w bitmap image. Only after I have cleaned up
                the scan to my satisfaction will I change it to a b/w bitmap and save
                as a tiff.

                It is often easier to work with a file in Photoshop if you save your
                scan as a Photoshop doc rather than as a tiff. Only the finished document
                needs to be saved as a tiff.

                Though the final imagesetter needs to read your Pagemaker or Quark
                document at 2560 or higher, and you DO need to set this as your
                printing resolution in the page layout program, any line art that is
                imported into that document only needs to be at 1200dpi (camera ready
                quality) to avoid the bitmap jaggies.

                Back to your initial concern. Is this perhaps a memory limitation?
                Have you considered boosting the memory of your scanning/image-
                editing/page layout programs as well as expanding and cleaning out
                the scratch disk for Photoshop? And, most importantly, do you have
                enough active RAM to handle this work? Also try working with these
                programs in stages (one at a time rather than having them all open at
                once), rebooting after each program is finished.

                Gerald
              • Katie Harper
                Gerald makes some good recommendations for working with large files. After reading this exchange, however, I m wondering if the point is not being missed
                Message 7 of 24 , Aug 12, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Gerald makes some good recommendations for working with large files. After
                  reading this exchange, however, I'm wondering if the point is not being
                  missed somewhere along the line. There are all kinds of rules of thumb for
                  scanning resolution and output resolution. What is not touched on is a) the
                  quality of the original; the quality of the scanner (many scanners will give
                  you "interpolated" resolution that sounds very high but in fact is not); and
                  finally, and most important, the quality of the final printed piece. If you
                  are going to make a plate for printing line art with letterpress, you have
                  to consider what paper you are printing on (coated v. uncoated, for
                  example); the state of the press, rollers, etc. In any printing process, all
                  such factors must be considered; because of them, and many others not
                  mentioned here, there is a point beyond which the naked eye will not be able
                  to notice the difference between 1200dpi and 2450dpi, for example, and any
                  effort to get "higher" quality will be a waste of time. My recommendation is
                  to do some tests with various resolutions (you might want to test a smaller
                  file) and print the results on your printing press or laser printer or
                  whatever output device you are planning on using, and see where the drop off
                  in quality happens. You might be surprised.


                  Katie Harper
                  Ars Brevis Press
                  Cincinnati, OH
                  513-233-9588
                  http://www.arsbrevispress.com





                  > From: "bielerpr" <bieler@...>
                  > Reply-To: PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com
                  > Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 21:16:31 -0000
                  > To: PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com
                  > Subject: [PPLetterpress] Re: Maximum 30,000 pixels?
                  >
                  > .....Adobe Photoshop did not allow in a TIFF file to increase length
                  > (or width) above 30,000 pixels (or 12.5" x 2400 dpi)
                  >
                  > Erik
                  >
                  > I don't understand why this should be so. I've worked with line art
                  > tiff files in Photoshop at 16 x 24 inches and 1200 dpi and have never
                  > encountered the limitations you are describing. I do a lot of image
                  > reconstruction for institutions and fine presses etc...
                  >
                  > If it helps: My usual procedure is to scan line art in grayscale at
                  > 600 dpi. This scan is brought into Photoshop and I double the
                  > resolution to 1200dpi (you can do this once, and only once). Though
                  > grayscale does quadruple the memory requirement, the active memory
                  > that is required to manipulate a grayscale file is much less than
                  > that required for a b/w bitmap image. Only after I have cleaned up
                  > the scan to my satisfaction will I change it to a b/w bitmap and save
                  > as a tiff.
                  >
                  > It is often easier to work with a file in Photoshop if you save your
                  > scan as a Photoshop doc rather than as a tiff. Only the finished document
                  > needs to be saved as a tiff.
                  >
                  > Though the final imagesetter needs to read your Pagemaker or Quark
                  > document at 2560 or higher, and you DO need to set this as your
                  > printing resolution in the page layout program, any line art that is
                  > imported into that document only needs to be at 1200dpi (camera ready
                  > quality) to avoid the bitmap jaggies.
                  >
                  > Back to your initial concern. Is this perhaps a memory limitation?
                  > Have you considered boosting the memory of your scanning/image-
                  > editing/page layout programs as well as expanding and cleaning out
                  > the scratch disk for Photoshop? And, most importantly, do you have
                  > enough active RAM to handle this work? Also try working with these
                  > programs in stages (one at a time rather than having them all open at
                  > once), rebooting after each program is finished.
                  >
                  > Gerald
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > • To respond to a post or post a message to the membership:
                  > PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com
                  > • Encountering problems? contact:
                  > PPLetterpress-owner@yahoogroups.com
                  > • To unsubscribe:
                  > PPLetterpress-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  >
                  >
                • Michael T Metz
                  What if one is sending a pdf to the platemaker? a pdf produced with Pagemaker? Does one still need to set the Document Setup printer resolution so high? Mike
                  Message 8 of 24 , Aug 12, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    What if one is sending a pdf to the platemaker? a pdf produced
                    with Pagemaker? Does one still need to set the Document Setup
                    printer resolution so high?

                    Mike


                    Gerald wrote:

                    Though the final imagesetter needs to read your Pagemaker or Quark
                    document at 2560 or higher, and you DO need to set this as your
                    printing resolution in the page layout program, any line art that is
                    imported into that document only needs to be at 1200dpi (camera ready
                    quality) to avoid the bitmap jaggies.
                    ...




                    • To respond to a post or post a message to the membership:
                    PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com
                    • Encountering problems? contact:
                    PPLetterpress-owner@yahoogroups.com
                    • To unsubscribe:
                    PPLetterpress-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  • Erik Desmyter
                    ... length (or width) above 30,000 pixels (or 12.5 x 2400 dpi) ... line art tiff files in Photoshop at 16 x 24 inches and 1200 dpi and have never encountered
                    Message 9 of 24 , Aug 13, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      >>....Adobe Photoshop did not allow in a TIFF file to increase
                      length (or width) above 30,000 pixels (or 12.5" x 2400 dpi)

                      >..........I don't understand why this should be so. I've worked with
                      line art tiff files in Photoshop at 16 x 24 inches and 1200 dpi and
                      have never encountered the limitations you are describing.

                      I would guess the reason is 24 inch x 1200 dpi = 28800 what is less than the
                      30000 pixels maximum that I encountered.

                      Erik
                    • Erik Desmyter
                      ... 600 dpi. This scan is brought into Photoshop and I double the resolution to 1200dpi I guess you also do this because your scanner has a maximal optical
                      Message 10 of 24 , Aug 13, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > My usual procedure is to scan line art in grayscale at
                        600 dpi. This scan is brought into Photoshop and I double the
                        resolution to 1200dpi

                        I guess you also do this because your scanner has a maximal optical
                        resolution of 600dpi?
                        I use an Epson 1640XL scanner that has an optical resolution of 1600dpi x
                        3200dpi with A3 paperformat (16.5"x11.7") and I scan in line art at such
                        high resolutions.

                        My experience is that a lineart scan at 2400 dpi gives a better result than
                        one at 1200 dpi that is afterwards doubled (or a 600 dpi x 4) in Photoshop.
                        I do agree with all the comments about memory space, avoiding bitmap
                        jaggies, won't see difference with the eye, losing more quality with all the
                        other steps too, etc... but if the imagesetters or films are made at
                        resolutions of 2400 or higher for quality reasons and you can go for that
                        immediately in the scanning step then you have one step in the process that
                        has nearly no loss of quality.

                        Erik
                      • bielerpr
                        ... Actually, no. I need to be able to work with the image, drop out page material (foxing, show-through, etc), correct ink spread and errant presswork, and
                        Message 11 of 24 , Aug 13, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In PPLetterpress@y..., "Erik Desmyter" <erik.desmyter@s...>
                          wrote:
                          > > My usual procedure is to scan line art in grayscale at
                          > 600 dpi. This scan is brought into Photoshop and I double the
                          > resolution to 1200dpi
                          >
                          > I guess you also do this because your scanner has a maximal optical
                          > resolution of 600dpi?
                          > I use an Epson 1640XL scanner that has an optical resolution of 1600dpi x
                          > 3200dpi with A3 paperformat (16.5"x11.7") and I scan in line art at such
                          > high resolutions.
                          >
                          > My experience is that a lineart scan at 2400 dpi gives a better result than
                          > one at 1200 dpi that is afterwards doubled (or a 600 dpi x 4) in Photoshop.
                          > I do agree with all the comments about memory space, avoiding bitmap
                          > jaggies, won't see difference with the eye, losing more quality with all the
                          > other steps too, etc... but if the imagesetters or films are made at
                          > resolutions of 2400 or higher for quality reasons and you can go for that
                          > immediately in the scanning step then you have one step in the process that
                          > has nearly no loss of quality.
                          >
                          > Erik

                          Actually, no. I need to be able to work with the image, drop out page
                          material (foxing, show-through, etc), correct ink spread and errant
                          presswork, and the like. In some cases, adjusting line widths to
                          match other similar images. So I need to work in grayscale. These
                          things are quite difficult to correct if you are working with a
                          bitmap (b/w line art) image.

                          The higher the resolution the more difficult it is to work with an
                          image, especially if you might later need to use it as a halftone
                          (which doesn't require much "information" at all ([2x lpi]). In most
                          cases, you really don't need all the "data" that a higher resolution
                          scan will bring in.

                          I'm not working with color though so perhaps then you might?

                          Perhaps because very few laser printers can run at 2400 there has
                          been felt no need for it (in terms of images, and proofing). I really
                          can't tell the difference between a 1200 and 2400 image at the
                          printing (letterpress) end, except for type, which is rendered quite
                          differently.

                          Gerald
                        • Mats Broberg
                          ... Well, whether or not the eye can see the difference or not is not the issue. The reason you d want to scan with a resolution as high as possible is due to
                          Message 12 of 24 , Aug 14, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > because of them, and many others not mentioned here, there is
                            > a point beyond which the naked eye will not be able to notice
                            > the difference between 1200dpi and 2450dpi, for example, and
                            > any effort to get "higher" quality will be a waste of time.

                            Well, whether or not the eye can see the difference or not is not the
                            issue. The reason you'd want to scan with a resolution as high as
                            possible is due to the issue of loss of quality between the generations
                            of the artwork - i.e. original artwork - scanning - imagesetting -
                            platemaking - impression etc.

                            Regards,
                            Mats Broberg
                            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                            ARS IMPRIMIS PRESS
                            Hauptvägen 102
                            SE-123 58 Farsta — Sweden
                            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                            Telephone: +46 8 604 59 81
                            http://www.arsimprimispress.com
                            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          • Mats Broberg
                            ... I always send high-end PDF files to the service bureau, and have had no problem whatsoever. However, it does require a custom *.joboptions file with no
                            Message 13 of 24 , Aug 14, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              > I normally do not send PDFs to the service bureau. I'd be
                              > interested in hearing of the successes/failures that others
                              > have encountered in this regard.

                              I always send high-end PDF files to the service bureau, and have had no
                              problem whatsoever.

                              However, it does require a custom *.joboptions file with no compression
                              and complete inclusion of all typefaces.

                              Regards,
                              Mats Broberg
                              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                              ARS IMPRIMIS PRESS
                              Hauptvägen 102
                              SE-123 58 Farsta — Sweden
                              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                              Telephone: +46 8 604 59 81
                              http://www.arsimprimispress.com
                              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                            • Mats Broberg
                              ... By re-sampling the resolution? Beware! Resampling the resolution in Photoshop - or any other software - is nothing else than having these software guess
                              Message 14 of 24 , Aug 14, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                > > My usual procedure is to scan line art in grayscale at
                                > 600 dpi. This scan is brought into Photoshop and I double the
                                > resolution to 1200dpi

                                By re-sampling the resolution? Beware! Resampling the resolution in
                                Photoshop - or any other software - is nothing else than having these
                                software guess the statistically most plausible distribution of pixels.

                                It is one thing to scan with an optical resolution of 600 dpi and then
                                double the resolution in Photoshop to 1200 dpi, and a completely
                                different thing to scan with an optical resolution of 1200 dpi in the
                                first place.

                                Regards,
                                Mats Broberg
                                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                ARS IMPRIMIS PRESS
                                Hauptvägen 102
                                SE-123 58 Farsta — Sweden
                                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                Telephone: +46 8 604 59 81
                                http://www.arsimprimispress.com
                                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                              • bielerpr
                                ... Mats I d certainly agree with what you have to say here, however, I believe Katie s point in making this statement is quite valid. It is the letterpress
                                Message 15 of 24 , Aug 14, 2002
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In PPLetterpress@y..., "Mats Broberg" <mats.broberg@a...> wrote:
                                  > > because of them, and many others not mentioned here, there is
                                  > > a point beyond which the naked eye will not be able to notice
                                  > > the difference between 1200dpi and 2450dpi, for example, and
                                  > > any effort to get "higher" quality will be a waste of time.
                                  >
                                  > Well, whether or not the eye can see the difference or not is not the
                                  > issue. The reason you'd want to scan with a resolution as high as
                                  > possible is due to the issue of loss of quality between the generations
                                  > of the artwork - i.e. original artwork - scanning - imagesetting -
                                  > platemaking - impression etc.
                                  >
                                  > Regards,
                                  > Mats Broberg

                                  Mats

                                  I'd certainly agree with what you have to say here, however, I
                                  believe Katie's point in making this statement is quite valid. It is
                                  the letterpress printed page that must be kept in mind as we are
                                  working through this process. It has its own requirements that have
                                  nothing to do with digital technology. To completely rely on
                                  advancing technology does to some extent remove us from our purpose
                                  if we do not at the same time retain our focus. A 2400dpi image (and
                                  the ability to generate it) is not better than a 1200dpi image if it
                                  wrongly leads us to not consider other possibilities. It is not only
                                  useful to have the right tools (or, in the context of this thread,
                                  should I say best, or better than?), it is useful to know how to use
                                  tools.

                                  A friend of mine had to give a digital demonstration of page layout
                                  to a group and the system failed. She immediately dragged out pencil
                                  and paper and demonstrated page layout. Quite frankly, I doubt many
                                  graphic desigers today could do that.

                                  Gerald
                                • bielerpr
                                  ... Hi again I suspect you are quite right about this, and I d agree, but in regard to re-sampling, I have not discerned a loss of detail. Though I m not
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Aug 15, 2002
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In PPLetterpress@y..., "Mats Broberg" <mats.broberg@a...> wrote:
                                    > > > My usual procedure is to scan line art in grayscale at
                                    > > 600 dpi. This scan is brought into Photoshop and I double the
                                    > > resolution to 1200dpi
                                    >
                                    > By re-sampling the resolution? Beware! Resampling the resolution in
                                    > Photoshop - or any other software - is nothing else than having these
                                    > software guess the statistically most plausible distribution of pixels.
                                    >
                                    > It is one thing to scan with an optical resolution of 600 dpi and then
                                    > double the resolution in Photoshop to 1200 dpi, and a completely
                                    > different thing to scan with an optical resolution of 1200 dpi in the
                                    > first place.
                                    >
                                    > Regards,
                                    > Mats Broberg


                                    Hi again

                                    I suspect you are quite right about this, and I'd agree, but in
                                    regard to re-sampling, I have not discerned a loss of detail. Though
                                    I'm not certain,

                                    for the sake of argument,

                                    why we should trust (re: "Beware!") software at higher dpi than we would
                                    at lower dpi. Why should we trust, or not trust, any of it? Ten years from
                                    now should we have not trusted 2400dpi? I am really not trying to act the
                                    part of the Luddite here but quite frankly, digital technology went beyond
                                    our basic needs about a half a decade ago.

                                    Gerald
                                  • Mats Broberg
                                    ... Oh come on, Gerald! You spend hours in front of the monitor writing and posting e-mails about the most minuscule details of finer letterpress typography -
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Aug 15, 2002
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      > why we should trust (re: "Beware!") software at higher dpi
                                      > than we would
                                      > at lower dpi. Why should we trust, or not trust, any of it?
                                      > Ten years from
                                      > now should we have not trusted 2400dpi? I am really not
                                      > trying to act the
                                      > part of the Luddite here but quite frankly, digital
                                      > technology went beyond
                                      > our basic needs about a half a decade ago.

                                      Oh come on, Gerald!

                                      You spend hours in front of the monitor writing and posting e-mails
                                      about the most minuscule details of finer letterpress typography - such
                                      as ink traps and tweaking typefaces and artwork with regards to ink
                                      squeeze - and they you say that digital technology went BEYOND our basic
                                      needs 50 years ago?

                                      Regards,
                                      Mats Broberg
                                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                      ARS IMPRIMIS PRESS
                                      Hauptvägen 102
                                      SE-123 58 Farsta — Sweden
                                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                      Telephone: +46 8 604 59 81
                                      http://www.arsimprimispress.com
                                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                    • bielerpr
                                      ... Mats A decade is a period of ten years. Gerald
                                      Message 18 of 24 , Aug 15, 2002
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In PPLetterpress@y..., "Mats Broberg" <mats.broberg@a...> wrote:
                                        > > why we should trust (re: "Beware!") software at higher dpi
                                        > > than we would
                                        > > at lower dpi. Why should we trust, or not trust, any of it?
                                        > > Ten years from
                                        > > now should we have not trusted 2400dpi? I am really not
                                        > > trying to act the
                                        > > part of the Luddite here but quite frankly, digital
                                        > > technology went beyond
                                        > > our basic needs about a half a decade ago.
                                        >
                                        > Oh come on, Gerald!
                                        >
                                        > You spend hours in front of the monitor writing and posting e-mails
                                        > about the most minuscule details of finer letterpress typography - such
                                        > as ink traps and tweaking typefaces and artwork with regards to ink
                                        > squeeze - and they you say that digital technology went BEYOND our basic
                                        > needs 50 years ago?
                                        >
                                        > Regards,
                                        > Mats Broberg


                                        Mats

                                        A decade is a period of ten years.

                                        Gerald
                                      • ANDREAS PRIVE
                                        ... http://www.danburkholder.com/Pages/misc_pages/digital_neg_faq.htm#GeneralNeg Questions Andreas Schweizer 8, rue de la Puiserande 1205 Genève- Switzerland
                                        Message 19 of 24 , Sep 22 4:32 AM
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Le 12.8.2002 19:15, « Gerald Lange » <bieler@...> a écrit :

                                          > Mike
                                          >
                                          > When you generate the PDF you would need to create a custom PDF style rather
                                          > than selecting the "printer style." And choose "document page setup" "instead
                                          > of "same as current printer." Though as I recall you can set up a special
                                          > Acrobat printer style for such purposes. Been a while since I've had to do
                                          > this.
                                          >
                                          > I normally do not send PDFs to the service bureau. I'd be interested in
                                          > hearing of the successes/failures that others have encountered in this regard.
                                          >
                                          > At the Adobe site there are some documents that describe setting up high
                                          > resolution PDFs (for professional applications or something), though you do
                                          > have to poke around a bit.
                                          >
                                          > Gerald
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Here an information about 30¹000 Photoshop limitation
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > What Happened to Icefields Software?
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Many have written about the disappearance of Isis Corporation and their
                                          > wonderful Icefields stochastic screening software. One of Icefields¹
                                          > advantages was it¹s ability to bypass Photoshop¹s 30,000 pixel limit (in
                                          > either width or height) that can become an issue when converting grayscale
                                          > images to bitmaps at 1,200 or more pixels/inch. Isis hopes to rise like the
                                          > Phoenix in the future so they don¹t want older versions of their software
                                          > distributed for free.
                                          >
                                          > In the mean time, you might investigate Rastus Software as a stochastic
                                          > screening alternative:
                                          http://www.danburkholder.com/Pages/misc_pages/digital_neg_faq.htm#GeneralNeg
                                          Questions

                                          Andreas Schweizer
                                          8, rue de la Puiserande
                                          1205 Genève- Switzerland
                                          T: + 41 22 320 56 28
                                          F: + 41 22 320 56 28
                                          P: + 41 79 304 14 64
                                          URL: http://www.letterpress.ch
                                          Work mail: andreas.schweizer@...
                                          Private mail: andreasschweizer@...




                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • Gerald Lange
                                          ... Andreas Thanks for this. Someone had mentioned Icefields early on and I used it for a just a short while but then I had a horrible system crash and it did
                                          Message 20 of 24 , Sep 22 11:19 PM
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            > >
                                            > > What Happened to Icefields Software?
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > > Many have written about the disappearance of Isis Corporation and their
                                            > > wonderful Icefields stochastic screening software. One of Icefields1
                                            > > advantages was it1s ability to bypass Photoshop1s 30,000 pixel limit (in
                                            > > either width or height) that can become an issue when converting grayscale
                                            > > images to bitmaps at 1,200 or more pixels/inch. Isis hopes to rise like the
                                            > > Phoenix in the future so they don1t want older versions of their software
                                            > > distributed for free.
                                            > >
                                            > > In the mean time, you might investigate Rastus Software as a stochastic
                                            > > screening alternative:
                                            > http://www.danburkholder.com/Pages/misc_pages/digital_neg_faq.htm#GeneralNeg
                                            > Questions
                                            >
                                            > Andreas Schweizer

                                            Andreas

                                            Thanks for this. Someone had mentioned Icefields early on and I used
                                            it for a just a short while but then I had a horrible system crash
                                            and it did not survive. Even when reinstalled. Just sort of sits
                                            there upon opening. Some remnant bugger in the the system file gone
                                            bad, won't copy over, and I just have't been able to identify it.
                                            Have the same problem with Ofoto scanning software. That was great
                                            stuff, and I dearly miss it. Another company long gone.

                                            I'll check out the Rastus.

                                            All best

                                            Gerald
                                          • The Indian Hill Press
                                            I downloaded the Rastus Demo yesterday and gave it a quick try. It s easy to use, but my cursory tests yielded an odd moire-like pattern in the dots, a subtle
                                            Message 21 of 24 , Sep 23 5:43 AM
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              I downloaded the Rastus Demo yesterday and gave it a quick try.

                                              It's easy to use, but my cursory tests yielded an odd moire-like
                                              pattern in the dots, a subtle but noticeable succession of
                                              checker-like dark and light areas throughout the image, most evident
                                              at high resolutions or when viewed from a distance. I'd be curious to
                                              know if anyone else has tried this, and what their experience has
                                              been.

                                              As an alternative, does anyone have a favorite "mezzotint" plug-in
                                              for Photoshop?

                                              Dan Waters
                                              Indian Hill Press

                                              > > >
                                              > > > What Happened to Icefields Software?
                                              > > >
                                              > > >
                                              > > > Many have written about the disappearance of Isis Corporation and their
                                              > > > wonderful Icefields stochastic screening software. One of Icefields1
                                              > > > advantages was it1s ability to bypass Photoshop1s 30,000 pixel limit (in
                                              > > > either width or height) that can become an issue when
                                              >converting grayscale
                                              > > > images to bitmaps at 1,200 or more pixels/inch. Isis hopes to
                                              >rise like the
                                              > > > Phoenix in the future so they don1t want older versions of their software
                                              > > > distributed for free.
                                              > > >
                                              > > > In the mean time, you might investigate Rastus Software as a stochastic
                                              > > > screening alternative:
                                              > >
                                              >http://www.danburkholder.com/Pages/misc_pages/digital_neg_faq.htm#Gene
                                              >ralNeg
                                              > > Questions
                                              > >
                                              > > Andreas Schweizer
                                              >
                                              >Andreas
                                              >
                                              >Thanks for this. Someone had mentioned Icefields early on and I used
                                              >it for a just a short while but then I had a horrible system crash
                                              >and it did not survive. Even when reinstalled. Just sort of sits
                                              >there upon opening. Some remnant bugger in the the system file gone
                                              >bad, won't copy over, and I just have't been able to identify it.
                                              >Have the same problem with Ofoto scanning software. That was great
                                              >stuff, and I dearly miss it. Another company long gone.
                                              >
                                              >I'll check out the Rastus.
                                              >
                                              >All best
                                              >
                                              >Gerald
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >• To respond to a post or post a message to the membership:
                                              >PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com
                                              >• Encountering problems? contact:
                                              >PPLetterpress-owner@yahoogroups.com
                                              >• To unsubscribe:
                                              >PPLetterpress-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                              >
                                              >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.