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

Re: [PPLetterpress] Re: Direct to Film Printer

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 21 , Jul 21 7:35 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      "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 2 of 21 , Jul 21 7:51 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        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.