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

Direct to Film Printer

Expand Messages
  • slovenlyme
    Howdy all. I teach letterpress at a university. We have a photopolymer exposure unit and are now thinking of investing in some sort of printer to make
    Message 1 of 21 , Jul 18, 2008
      Howdy all. I teach letterpress at a university. We have a photopolymer exposure unit and are
      now thinking of investing in some sort of printer to make negatives. What are the
      alternatives? Is there an affordable film printer out there with the right density of black? Right
      now we're just using a regular laser printer and ganging up the negatives, guerilla style.
      Thanks so much for any advice you can give.
    • Lamsland
      Fuji or Kodak used to make a dry film material. Was supposed to be as good as rapid access film. Might try and contact a rep and see what they say. Matthew
      Message 2 of 21 , Jul 18, 2008
        Fuji or Kodak used to make a dry film material. Was supposed to be as
        good as rapid access film. Might try and contact a rep and see what
        they say.


        Matthew "LAMMY" Lamoureux
        Full Metal Press - Operis servo a specialis nundinae

        On Jul 18, 2008, at 2:18 PM, slovenlyme wrote:

        > Howdy all. I teach letterpress at a university. We have a
        > photopolymer exposure unit and are
        > now thinking of investing in some sort of printer to make
        > negatives. What are the
        > alternatives? Is there an affordable film printer out there with
        > the right density of black? Right
        > now we're just using a regular laser printer and ganging up the
        > negatives, guerilla style.
        > Thanks so much for any advice you can give.
        >
        >
        >



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Scott Rubel
        You can contact Xante for information. I believe Kelly paper resells their machines, but Tracy is a real nice saleswoman and not high-pressure. Previous
        Message 3 of 21 , Jul 18, 2008
          You can contact Xante for information. I believe Kelly paper resells
          their machines, but Tracy is a real nice saleswoman and not high-pressure.

          Previous messages indicate that this may not be the answer, but they may
          have improved something in the past year: --Scott
          -----

          Question to group, 11/29/07:
          I've been thinking seriously of finding a way to make negatives without
          the messy A & B Developer.
          I'm sure that there are, but one way I know of is with an expensive
          Xante Printer, but I wasn't terribly happy with the sample that was sent
          to me. The very smallest print was virtually covered over with that
          darkening treatment and does not compare well to my usual way of making
          negatives using contact film which did a better job of showing the
          really small print. But maybe that doesn't matter so much, because the
          tweeny weeny type that I used would probably wash away like the pinholes
          do anyway whether I use the matte negative or an expensive printer.
          I just want to get smart with the ways of negative making without the
          messy developer, so I can eliminate a step. Anyone with knowledge &
          experience with the non-messy way of making plates?
          That would be really helpful.
          Richard Meneely

          Tracy Buchanan
          Territory Sales Manager
          Xanté Corporation
          www.xante.com <http://www.xante.com/>
          1-800-926-8839 ext. 4266
          tbuchanan@... <mailto:tbuchanan@...>

          Lamsland wrote:
          > Fuji or Kodak used to make a dry film material. Was supposed to be as
          > good as rapid access film. Might try and contact a rep and see what
          > they say.
          >
          >
          > Matthew "LAMMY" Lamoureux
          > Full Metal Press - Operis servo a specialis nundinae
          >
          > On Jul 18, 2008, at 2:18 PM, slovenlyme wrote:
          >
          >
          >> Howdy all. I teach letterpress at a university. We have a
          >> photopolymer exposure unit and are
          >> now thinking of investing in some sort of printer to make
          >> negatives. What are the
          >> alternatives? Is there an affordable film printer out there with
          >> the right density of black? Right
          >> now we're just using a regular laser printer and ganging up the
          >> negatives, guerilla style.
          >> Thanks so much for any advice you can give.
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Gerald Lange
          There really isn t a satisfactorily toner-based delivery system available. There have been a number of discussions of the Xante and its film system (search the
          Message 4 of 21 , Jul 19, 2008
            There really isn't a satisfactorily toner-based delivery system
            available. There have been a number of discussions of the Xante and
            its film system (search the archives). We use one at an institution I
            teach at, but it is barely to spec, in terms of letterpress, at least
            in terms of typographic rendering. There are technical reasons for the
            limitation. At $15 for an 8.5 by 11 inch silver-based
            imagesetter-generated negative, hardly seems worth the expenditure to
            invest in a toner-based machine, no matter how high-end. And the Xante
            is a mother in terms of repair, supplies, upgrades. It will suck your
            wallet dry and not provide much in return. Might be best to support,
            passionately, your local service bureau before he/she just throws in
            the towel, and leaves you high and dry.

            Gerald
            http://BielerPress.blogspot.com


            --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, "slovenlyme"
            <rebeccachilders@...> wrote:
            >
            > Howdy all. I teach letterpress at a university. We have a
            photopolymer exposure unit and are
            > now thinking of investing in some sort of printer to make negatives.
            What are the
            > alternatives? Is there an affordable film printer out there with the
            right density of black? Right
            > now we're just using a regular laser printer and ganging up the
            negatives, guerilla style.
            > Thanks so much for any advice you can give.
            >
          • Ed Inman
            This is something of an old argument, but the real issue is what you consider affordable, and to what extent your students are willing to admit that not
            Message 5 of 21 , Jul 19, 2008
              This is something of an old argument, but the real issue is what you consider "affordable," and to what extent your students are willing to admit that not everything is done best with computers.

              As most offset printers have gone direct-to-plate, computer generated negative makers have become increasingly rare and notoriously expensive to maintain. I have a friend in the printing business who has an Agfa model--it makes great negs (when it works) but every time he turns around something has burned out requiring a $1000 or so fix.

              Buy an old fashioned process camera and teach your students how to develop silver-based ortho lith film instead. They are fool-proof, they almost never break down, film and chemicals are readily available, and the units rarely go for more than $100 on ebay. They can also often be found for free from neighborhood quick printers who no longer use them.

              Oh, and by the way, the 8 x 10 film at www.freestyle.biz costs about 49 cents a sheet and will work every bit as good as paying $15 a sheet to get the same thing out of some digital gizmo.

              Ed

              >--- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, "slovenlyme"
              ><rebeccachilders@...> wrote:
              >>
              >> Howdy all. I teach letterpress at a university. We have a
              >photopolymer exposure unit and are
              >> now thinking of investing in some sort of printer to make negatives.
              >What are the
              >> alternatives? Is there an affordable film printer out there with the
              >right density of black? Right
              >> now we're just using a regular laser printer and ganging up the
              >negatives, guerilla style.
              >> Thanks so much for any advice you can give.
            • Ed Inman
              Sorry, the correct link is: www.freestylephoto.biz Ed
              Message 6 of 21 , Jul 19, 2008
                Sorry, the correct link is: www.freestylephoto.biz
                Ed

                -----Original Message-----
                >From: Ed Inman <edinman@...>
                >>Oh, and by the way, the 8 x 10 film at ...
              • Peter Fraterdeus
                ... Hi Ed! Uh... So the students are going to hand-set type to then shoot in the camera? The problem with your solution is that there s very little decent type
                Message 7 of 21 , Jul 19, 2008
                  On 19 Jul 2008, at 11:06 AM, Ed Inman wrote:

                  > This is something of an old argument, but the real issue is what you
                  > consider "affordable," and to what extent your students are willing
                  > to admit that not everything is done best with computers.
                  > ...
                  > Buy an old fashioned process camera and teach your students how to
                  > develop silver-based ortho lith film instead. They are fool-proof,
                  > they almost never break down, film and chemicals are readily
                  > available, and the units rarely go for more than $100 on ebay. They
                  > can also often be found for free from neighborhood quick printers
                  > who no longer use them.
                  > ...

                  Hi Ed!

                  Uh... So the students are going to hand-set type to then shoot in the
                  camera?
                  The problem with your solution is that there's very little decent type
                  left. Not discounting the heroic efforts of the remaining foundries,
                  but how many of them are producing faces designed in the past 30 years?

                  Letterpress as a craft would be dead as last week's Ludlow headline
                  without photopolymer, and that includes digital type design. There's
                  no reason letterpress printing should look like it was done in the
                  1950s... at least typographically. In fact, there are plenty of
                  excellent typefaces available only in digital which make much of the
                  output of hot-metal Linotype, Monotype et al look pretty darned
                  stodgy, if not simply outdated ;-)

                  I think Gerald's advice on supporting your local service bureau makes
                  the most sense. Of course, there are fewer every day.

                  I'm fortunate to have a good offset shop a few blocks away here in
                  Dubuque. They've got a full pre-press department and will do good RREU
                  high-density film if I specify it (offset presses use "right reading
                  emulsion down", not UP!, also they expose for less than a minute on
                  their plates versus six minutes on photopolymer, so I need to be sure
                  they don't give me thin negs - they will change the chemistry if I
                  request new ones!)

                  They also do pretty nice printing.

                  Here's a very recent piece (http://slowprint.com/) which I had them do
                  the offset part (brush lettering never looks right except right on the
                  surface), and then I did the letterpress typography and the blind
                  emboss of the 'badge'.

                  These are keepsakes for the 2008 Int'l Conference of Lettering Arts (http://chicagocalligraphy2008.org
                  )

                  Peter Fraterdeus
                  Exquisite Letterpress
                  http://slowprint.com
                • Ed Inman
                  Of course not. I didn t say that computers were not valuable in creating layouts (the relative value of metal type and service bureaus notwithstanding). The
                  Message 8 of 21 , Jul 19, 2008
                    Of course not. I didn't say that computers were not valuable in creating layouts (the relative value of metal type and "service bureaus" notwithstanding).

                    The specific question raised is how to create the highest quality, most affordable negatives from computer files for exposing photopolymer.

                    For that I stand by my conviction that a good laser printout exposed on an old fashioned process camera with silver-based ortho lith film remains by far the most inexpensive and practical method, even if it is not "trendy."

                    Ed


                    -----Original Message-----
                    >From: Peter Fraterdeus <peterf@...>
                    >Hi Ed!
                    >
                    >Uh... So the students are going to hand-set type to then shoot in the
                    >camera?
                    >
                  • Peter Fraterdeus
                    Hi Ed ... Ah, right, sorry, I misunderstood your point... ... However, the spacing and clarity of type printed on a laser printer will never be good enough for
                    Message 9 of 21 , Jul 19, 2008
                      Hi Ed

                      On 19 Jul 2008, at 1:09 PM, Ed Inman wrote:

                      > Of course not. I didn't say that computers were not valuable in
                      > creating layouts (the relative value of metal type and "service
                      > bureaus" notwithstanding).

                      Ah, right, sorry, I misunderstood your point...

                      > The specific question raised is how to create the highest quality,
                      > most affordable negatives from computer files for exposing
                      > photopolymer.
                      >
                      > For that I stand by my conviction that a good laser printout exposed
                      > on an old fashioned process camera with silver-based ortho lith film
                      > remains by far the most inexpensive and practical method, even if it
                      > is not "trendy."

                      However, the spacing and clarity of type printed on a laser printer
                      will never be good enough for prime time in text sizes. Display, sure,
                      but 14 point or smaller, not so great.

                      Due to pixel aliasing at 1200dpi and less (not to mention the
                      physical characteristics of laser toner), the stems and terminals of
                      fonts set at smaller sizes will inevitably be inconsistent -- and not
                      in a 'good' way ;-)

                      for example, six point type at 1200 dpi is 100 pixels high. A typical
                      Cap Stem (say of a sans 'I') might be 10% of the height, or 10 pixels.
                      If this happens to sit on a pixel boundary, it could end up either 9
                      or 11 pixels wide, a difference of a full 10 % of the width.

                      While modern fonts use "hinting" to keep the stems consistent in
                      weight, the difference will be made up in the space between the letters.

                      At 2400 on film, the six point type is 200pixels high so the error in
                      widths is halved, and the smoothness of curves is enhanced by having 3
                      times as many pixels. (as the dp inch increases, the dp square inch
                      increases exponentially)

                      I would love to have a way to make film in house, but a laser printer
                      and a process camera are not going to give me type I can use at six
                      points, or even 12. I rather doubt that the Xante et al will do any
                      better as far as resolution.

                      Sorry for the long winded technical font stuff.
                      I used to do this for a living ;-) (still do sometimes!)

                      Cheers
                      P

                      >

                      Peter Fraterdeus
                      Exquisite Letterpress
                      http://slowprint.com
                    • Ed Inman
                      LOL...which is why I still have a linotype. cheers back at ya, Ed
                      Message 10 of 21 , Jul 19, 2008
                        LOL...which is why I still have a linotype.
                        cheers back at ya,
                        Ed

                        -----Original Message-----
                        >From: Peter Fraterdeus <peterf@...>
                        >I would love to have a way to make film in house, but a laser printer
                        >and a process camera are not going to give me type I can use at six
                        >points...
                      • Ed Inman
                        One further possible idea: If your concern is that your laser printer will not produce type sharp enough at 12 points or smaller, simply print out your image
                        Message 11 of 21 , Jul 19, 2008
                          One further possible idea: If your concern is that your laser printer will not produce type sharp enough at 12 points or smaller, simply print out your image at 200 percent (i.e. 24 point) then shoot in the camera at 50 percent to reduce.
                        • Peter Fraterdeus
                          Hi Ed. Linotype can be excellent indeed ;-) Nothing quite like perfect new metal for every job! And it s recycled! However, Linotype, foundry, and good digital
                          Message 12 of 21 , Jul 19, 2008
                            Hi Ed.

                            Linotype can be excellent indeed ;-)
                            Nothing quite like perfect new metal for every job! And it's recycled!

                            However, Linotype, foundry, and good digital type as well, will have
                            optical adjustments for the type size, so your idea of reducing 24
                            point to 12 doesn't really work visually. (ref: 'caption' vs text' vs
                            'titling/display' versions of the same family)

                            Although, yes, it will certainly be sharper ;-)

                            ciao!
                            peter


                            On 19 Jul 2008, at 3:38 PM, Ed Inman wrote:

                            > One further possible idea: If your concern is that your laser
                            > printer will not produce type sharp enough at 12 points or smaller,
                            > simply print out your image at 200 percent (i.e. 24 point) then
                            > shoot in the camera at 50 percent to reduce.
                            >

                            Peter Fraterdeus
                            Exquisite Letterpress
                            http://slowprint.com
                          • parallel_imp
                            ... With optical scaling, 12 point type at 200% output is still 12 point type, even if it measures 24 point. Like Ed, I also shoot reduced camera negatives
                            Message 13 of 21 , Jul 19, 2008
                              --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, Peter Fraterdeus <peterf@...> wrote:

                              > However, Linotype, foundry, and good digital type as well, will have
                              > optical adjustments for the type size, so your idea of reducing 24
                              > point to 12 doesn't really work visually. (ref: 'caption' vs text' vs
                              > 'titling/display' versions of the same family)

                              With optical scaling, 12 point type at 200% output is still 12 point type, even if it measures 24 point.
                              Like Ed, I also shoot reduced camera negatives from enlarged laser output. It is passable for small-format ordinary work, but for work of larger size or of higher quality or fine detail, imageset negatives really are needed.
                              I use a tabloid 600 dpi laser printer (LW8500), and the geometry of the output is imperfect. Lines are not parallel from top to bottom, so splicing together sheets for larger areas of text does not work well.
                              You also need to use film that develops with a hard image edge. Regular lith or halftone film may produce soft edges. I preferred the discontinued Ultratec; now I use Pressline HD film which has a hard edge and a long-life developer. Rapid Access film has never given me film of adequate density when tray developed.
                              --Eric Holub, SF
                            • Ed Inman
                              Oh, I totally agree with that. If it is a high-end job such as wedding invitations I typically have the designer work directly with a photoengraver of their
                              Message 14 of 21 , Jul 19, 2008
                                Oh, I totally agree with that. If it is a high-end job such as wedding invitations I typically have the designer work directly with a photoengraver of their choice and make certain they are happy with the proofs before the plates ever hit my press.

                                That's just not a luxury I can afford for every Joe walking into the door needing a business card or some notepads or whatever, which is where my DIY photopolymer method saves me a ton of money and time.

                                Ed

                                -----Original Message-----
                                >From: parallel_imp <Megalonyx@...>
                                > Like Ed, I also shoot reduced camera negatives from enlarged laser output. It is passable for small-format ordinary work, but for work of larger size or of higher quality or fine detail, imageset negatives really are needed.
                                >--Eric Holub, SF
                              • Mel
                                I am not sure where you are located but I have a nice 20 x 24 Berkey-Omega camera I will give you if you are close enough to collect it yourself. It s a
                                Message 15 of 21 , Jul 20, 2008
                                  I am not sure where you are located but I have a nice 20" x 24"
                                  Berkey-Omega camera I will give you if you are close enough to collect
                                  it yourself. It's a horizontal camera and takes quite a bit of space
                                  but it's nice.




                                  --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, Ed Inman <edinman@...> wrote:
                                  > Buy an old fashioned process camera and teach your students how to
                                  develop silver-based ortho lith film instead. They are fool-proof,
                                  they almost never break down, film and chemicals are readily
                                  available, and the units rarely go for more than $100 on ebay. They
                                  can also often be found for free from neighborhood quick printers who
                                  no longer use them.
                                • John G. Henry
                                  One of the difficulties with camera-produced negatives is that they are RRED as Gerald indicated, we need RREU for letterpress use. There were cameras produced
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Jul 21, 2008
                                    One of the difficulties with camera-produced negatives is that they are
                                    RRED as Gerald indicated, we need RREU for letterpress use. There were
                                    cameras produced "in the day" which had mirrors built in to give RREU
                                    negs directly from right-reading copy (produced by Klimpsch), but not
                                    seen in the offset shop trying to dump a process camera. You can expose
                                    the film through the base, but the base is coated with an anti-halation
                                    layer to prevent reflected exposure from the vacuum film holder, so
                                    this layer can diffuse the image a bit and require even longer
                                    exposures.

                                    One way around this is to output your hardcopy laterally reversed
                                    (wrong reading) so that it is the correct orientation on the film. This
                                    is a bit difficult for drawings or hand-lettered work, however.

                                    Another work-around is to use duplicating film via contact which adds
                                    time and expense to the effort, and also is another generation away
                                    from the original.

                                    I'd have to agree with Ed that a process camera is a good option given
                                    the proper care, but a service bureau may be the most practical in most
                                    cases. You must remember to factor in the cost of chemicals for the
                                    occasional user. I have a process camera, but have not fired it up in
                                    ages.

                                    > -----Original Message-----
                                    > >From: parallel_imp <Megalonyx@...>
                                    > > Like Ed, I also shoot reduced camera negatives from enlarged
                                    laser output. It is passable for small-format ordinary work, but for
                                    work of larger size or of higher quality or fine detail, imageset
                                    negatives really are needed.
                                    > >--Eric Holub, SF
                                    >
                                  • Aaron
                                    I had a nice small letterpress printing business. We had a Intertype, ludlow, hand type, and two letterpress presses. My brother I had could control the cost
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Jul 21, 2008
                                      I had a nice small letterpress printing business. We had a Intertype,
                                      ludlow, hand type, and two letterpress presses. My brother I had could
                                      control the cost of printing a job. One day, my brother talked me
                                      into purchase a camera and etc. The cost of printing went up three
                                      times (3X). The waste was twice to four times of the letterpress
                                      presses. We had a letterpress shop for four years and an offset shop
                                      for less thana year.
                                      If you can purchase the camera work from a service company DO IT!
                                      We will thank me for it.
                                      Aaron Poscovsky
                                      --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, "John G. Henry" <JohnH@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > One of the difficulties with camera-produced negatives is that they are
                                      > RRED as Gerald indicated, we need RREU for letterpress use. There were
                                      > cameras produced "in the day" which had mirrors built in to give RREU
                                      > negs directly from right-reading copy (produced by Klimpsch), but not
                                      > seen in the offset shop trying to dump a process camera. You can expose
                                      > the film through the base, but the base is coated with an anti-halation
                                      > layer to prevent reflected exposure from the vacuum film holder, so
                                      > this layer can diffuse the image a bit and require even longer
                                      > exposures.
                                      >
                                      > One way around this is to output your hardcopy laterally reversed
                                      > (wrong reading) so that it is the correct orientation on the film. This
                                      > is a bit difficult for drawings or hand-lettered work, however.
                                      >
                                      > Another work-around is to use duplicating film via contact which adds
                                      > time and expense to the effort, and also is another generation away
                                      > from the original.
                                      >
                                      > I'd have to agree with Ed that a process camera is a good option given
                                      > the proper care, but a service bureau may be the most practical in most
                                      > cases. You must remember to factor in the cost of chemicals for the
                                      > occasional user. I have a process camera, but have not fired it up in
                                      > ages.
                                      >
                                      > > -----Original Message-----
                                      > > >From: parallel_imp <Megalonyx@>
                                      > > > Like Ed, I also shoot reduced camera negatives from enlarged
                                      > laser output. It is passable for small-format ordinary work, but for
                                      > work of larger size or of higher quality or fine detail, imageset
                                      > negatives really are needed.
                                      > > >--Eric Holub, SF
                                      > >
                                      >
                                    • Lamsland
                                      I could make you film at 3600 dpi. That out to make for some real pretty letters ;) Matthew LAMMY Lamoureux Full Metal Press - Operis servo a specialis
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Jul 21, 2008
                                        I could make you film at 3600 dpi. That out to make for some real
                                        pretty letters ;)

                                        Matthew "LAMMY" Lamoureux
                                        Full Metal Press - Operis servo a specialis nundinae

                                        On Jul 19, 2008, at 2:52 PM, Peter Fraterdeus wrote:
                                        > At 2400 on film, the six point type is 200pixels high so the error in
                                        > widths is halved, and the smoothness of curves is enhanced by having 3
                                        > times as many pixels. (as the dp inch increases, the dp square inch
                                        > increases exponentially)
                                        >
                                        > I would love to have a way to make film in house, but a laser printer
                                        > and a process camera are not going to give me type I can use at six
                                        > points, or even 12. I rather doubt that the Xante et al will do any
                                        > better as far as resolution.
                                      • Lamsland
                                        ... Not just the cost of chemicals, there is also the cost to dispose of them properly. There s are not things you want to be dumping down the drain. Matthew
                                        Message 19 of 21 , Jul 21, 2008
                                          On Jul 21, 2008, at 9:07 AM, John G. Henry wrote:
                                          >
                                          > I'd have to agree with Ed that a process camera is a good option given
                                          > the proper care, but a service bureau may be the most practical in
                                          > most
                                          > cases. You must remember to factor in the cost of chemicals for the
                                          > occasional user. I have a process camera, but have not fired it up in
                                          > ages.
                                          >

                                          Not just the cost of chemicals, there is also the cost to dispose of
                                          them properly. There's are not things you want to be dumping down the
                                          drain.

                                          Matthew "LAMMY" Lamoureux
                                          Full Metal Press - Operis servo a specialis nundinae
                                        • Ed Inman
                                          RRED vs. RREU is not really a difficulty. Yes, unlike offset printers I expose my film *base* side toward the lens for photopolymer use, and yes, the
                                          Message 20 of 21 , Jul 21, 2008
                                            "RRED" vs. "RREU" is not really a "difficulty."

                                            Yes, unlike offset printers I expose my film *base* side toward the lens for photopolymer use, and yes, the exposure times are somewhat increased. I do not believe most ortho lith films have an anti-halation layer (as do some motion picture films). And I'm not going to argue at great lengths over whether exposure through the clear mylar base could theoretically slightly diffuse the final image.

                                            For all the long-winded arguments against this time-tested and utterly simple process, all I can say is it works for me.

                                            I have nothing against "imagesetter" negatives or "service bureaus" for those who want to pay for them--and I do use professional photoengravers when the job warrants it. But neither do I think I have some inherent Biblical obligation to utilize them when all I'm trying to do is create a simple business card for a customer who wanted it yesterday.

                                            Keep in mind, this whole thread began with the question of finding an affordable way of creating reasonably good negatives in house--and that the person asking the question was at the time trying to expose photopolymer with overhead projector transparencies run through a laser printer.

                                            I believe that from where the question was coming from, my method at the very least represents a logical step in the right direction.

                                            Ed


                                            -----Original Message-----
                                            >From: "John G. Henry" <JohnH@...>
                                            >One of the difficulties with camera-produced negatives is that they are
                                            >RRED as Gerald indicated, we need RREU for letterpress use. There were
                                            >cameras produced "in the day" which had mirrors built in to give RREU
                                            >negs directly from right-reading copy (produced by Klimpsch), but not
                                            >seen in the offset shop trying to dump a process camera. You can expose
                                            >the film through the base, but the base is coated with an anti-halation
                                            >layer to prevent reflected exposure from the vacuum film holder, so
                                            >this layer can diffuse the image a bit and require even longer
                                            >exposures.
                                            >
                                          • Lamsland
                                            Shooting copy on a camera was a standard for a VERY long time in the print industry. Right between then end of metal type and the age of laser image setters.
                                            Message 21 of 21 , Jul 21, 2008
                                              Shooting copy on a camera was a standard for a VERY long time in the
                                              print industry. Right between then end of metal type and the age of
                                              laser image setters. If it worked then there ain't no reason it can't
                                              work now.

                                              Matthew "LAMMY" Lamoureux
                                              Full Metal Press - Operis servo a specialis nundinae

                                              On Jul 21, 2008, at 10:35 AM, Ed Inman wrote:

                                              > "RRED" vs. "RREU" is not really a "difficulty."
                                              >
                                              > Yes, unlike offset printers I expose my film *base* side toward the
                                              > lens for photopolymer use, and yes, the exposure times are somewhat
                                              > increased. I do not believe most ortho lith films have an anti-
                                              > halation layer (as do some motion picture films). And I'm not going
                                              > to argue at great lengths over whether exposure through the clear
                                              > mylar base could theoretically slightly diffuse the final image.
                                              >
                                              > For all the long-winded arguments against this time-tested and
                                              > utterly simple process, all I can say is it works for me.
                                              >
                                              > I have nothing against "imagesetter" negatives or "service bureaus"
                                              > for those who want to pay for them--and I do use professional
                                              > photoengravers when the job warrants it. But neither do I think I
                                              > have some inherent Biblical obligation to utilize them when all I'm
                                              > trying to do is create a simple business card for a customer who
                                              > wanted it yesterday.
                                              >
                                              > Keep in mind, this whole thread began with the question of finding
                                              > an affordable way of creating reasonably good negatives in house--
                                              > and that the person asking the question was at the time trying to
                                              > expose photopolymer with overhead projector transparencies run
                                              > through a laser printer.
                                              >
                                              > I believe that from where the question was coming from, my method
                                              > at the very least represents a logical step in the right direction.
                                              >
                                              > Ed
                                              >
                                              > -----Original Message-----
                                              > >From: "John G. Henry" <JohnH@...>
                                              > >One of the difficulties with camera-produced negatives is that
                                              > they are
                                              > >RRED as Gerald indicated, we need RREU for letterpress use. There
                                              > were
                                              > >cameras produced "in the day" which had mirrors built in to give RREU
                                              > >negs directly from right-reading copy (produced by Klimpsch), but not
                                              > >seen in the offset shop trying to dump a process camera. You can
                                              > expose
                                              > >the film through the base, but the base is coated with an anti-
                                              > halation
                                              > >layer to prevent reflected exposure from the vacuum film holder, so
                                              > >this layer can diffuse the image a bit and require even longer
                                              > >exposures.
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              >



                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.