Re: Dots of gum?

From: Michael Koch-Schulte ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 02/12/05-12:57:56 PM Z
Message-id: <001c01c51134$c434e6a0$e700a8c0@Sweetwood>

Just a guess, but it probably has something to do with a) surface tension,
or b) the gum dries quicker/harder/thinner at a discreet edge.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Katharine Thayer" <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 3:41 AM
Subject: Dots of gum?

> Another thing I've been thinking about lately is this idea that gum
> sticks better in difficult situations, such as white on black or
> printing on glass, if one uses a half-tone or stochastic dot negative.
> Because the assertion was made recently that a negative that prints
> discrete dots will print better on glass, I grabbed one of my old laser
> printer negatives, which is very definitely made of discrete dots, to
> try when I was experimenting with printing on glass. I can't say that
> the dot negative printed better than an inkjet negative, or perhaps it
> would be more useful to say the inkjet negative didn't print any worse
> than the laser printer negative. I suppose as far as that goes they
> both use discrete dots, it's just that the laser printer dots are
> farther apart.
> But I realized that something isn't making sense to me about this. The
> argument has always run this way: somehow these discrete dots of gum
> that are laid down by halftone or stochastic dot negatives stick to the
> substrate better than gum that's not laid down this way. But here's the
> problem I have with this argument: since it's the negative that is made
> of discrete dots, what prints on the gum isn't the discrete dots. What
> prints is the space around the dots. So I don't get this argument; could
> someone make this work for me?
> Katharine
Received on Sat Feb 12 12:58:23 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 03/01/05-02:06:54 PM Z CST