First of all, i must say i have high regards for you and your opinions.
AIDO (http://www.aido.es/en) is a technical institute is Spain, highly regarded are top experts in Graphic Arts. In the offset quality section, they do everything, from chemical analysis of ink, to ISO 12647 certifications.
Here is a guide they provide freely on their website (after registration, which is also free): http://www.gestiondecolor.com/guia-buenas-practicas-de-offset
For your convinience can get it here:http://rapidshare.com/files/423017603/guia-buenas-practicas-iso12647-baja.pdf
In pag 21, where is says Ensayo 1, second point, it says " Producir las planchas del ensayo lineales, calibrando cuidadosamente el CtP", which translates to: Make the the testing plates linear by carefully calibrating the CtP.
This is just to show that, in the same way that i don't agree with you, and think that 2 curves is a best system, the "authorities" don't agree with each other either.
Best regards
Tiago
Ps. Sorry for my bad english, it's not my main language. :)
Thank you for your comment. Yes, authorities can disagree. That is why they need to provide solid, testable, reasons why they are recommending one method over another. It is not enough to say "Do it this way because I say it should be done that way." It is not enough for you to say that you don't agree with me, and think that 2 curves is the best system unless you can explain exactly why I am wrong and you are right. If you cannot then it is just your opinion and without evidence to back it up it is not a credible opinion.
This is what I am trying to do with these posts. Although it is possible that a two curve system is the best, every time I look at the workflow and at the examples that people give me I cannot explain why a two curve system is better.
I think that AIDO's recommendation to linearize the plates is based on the old film workflow as shown in the table of dot gains on page 15. It is based on film workflow thinking. I was told very recently by an ISO expert that you cannot use FM screens for publications because the dot gains would be too high and therefore not meet the ISO standard.
It was hard for me not to laugh.
I have made changes to my post about "authorities" Thank you for pointing out that problem to me.
If you didn't find the answer you were looking for on my blog - email me your question ( pritchardgordon @ gmail (dot) com ) and I will try to answer you directly.
If you've arrived here via a Google search - well sometimes it gets confused and lands you on the wrong post so try a search within this blog or check out the topics below.
Translate my blog into your language (click on flag).
Formerly Print Quality Marketing Manager for eleven years at Creo/Kodak. Presented at print technical conferences, trained printers and buyers regarding print quality issues in Europe, N. America, and S.E. Asia. Articles published in trade journals, co-authored TAGA paper on halftone screening, authored BRIDG's guide to halftone screening. Previously Technical Director of Western Canada's largest commercial sheetfed shop. For several years Professor of Digital Graphic Design at Emily Carr University. Former Creative Director at McCann Ericksson Vancouver.
Currently looking for opportunities related to the subjects covered in this blog. Contact me at: pritchardgordon @ gmail (dot) com.
First of all, i must say i have high regards for you and your opinions.
ReplyDeleteAIDO (http://www.aido.es/en) is a technical institute is Spain, highly regarded are top experts in Graphic Arts. In the offset quality section, they do everything, from chemical analysis of ink, to ISO 12647 certifications.
Here is a guide they provide freely on their website (after registration, which is also free): http://www.gestiondecolor.com/guia-buenas-practicas-de-offset
For your convinience can get it here:http://rapidshare.com/files/423017603/guia-buenas-practicas-iso12647-baja.pdf
In pag 21, where is says Ensayo 1, second point, it says " Producir las planchas del ensayo lineales, calibrando cuidadosamente el CtP", which translates to: Make the the testing plates linear by carefully calibrating the CtP.
This is just to show that, in the same way that i don't agree with you, and think that 2 curves is a best system, the "authorities" don't agree with each other either.
Best regards
Tiago
Ps. Sorry for my bad english, it's not my main language. :)
@ Anonymous/Tiago
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment. Yes, authorities can disagree. That is why they need to provide solid, testable, reasons why they are recommending one method over another. It is not enough to say "Do it this way because I say it should be done that way." It is not enough for you to say that you don't agree with me, and think that 2 curves is the best system unless you can explain exactly why I am wrong and you are right. If you cannot then it is just your opinion and without evidence to back it up it is not a credible opinion.
This is what I am trying to do with these posts. Although it is possible that a two curve system is the best, every time I look at the workflow and at the examples that people give me I cannot explain why a two curve system is better.
I think that AIDO's recommendation to linearize the plates is based on the old film workflow as shown in the table of dot gains on page 15. It is based on film workflow thinking. I was told very recently by an ISO expert that you cannot use FM screens for publications because the dot gains would be too high and therefore not meet the ISO standard.
It was hard for me not to laugh.
I have made changes to my post about "authorities" Thank you for pointing out that problem to me.
best, gordon p