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

Re: [PPLetterpress] Re: Maximum 30,000 pixels?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.
      > ...
      >
    • 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 of 24 , Sep 22, 2002
                                  • 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 17 of 24 , Sep 22, 2002
                                    • 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 18 of 24 , Sep 23, 2002
                                      • 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.