Re: Dots of gum?

From: Katharine Thayer ^lt;>
Date: 02/19/05-02:57:21 AM Z
Message-id: <>

Ed Stander wrote:
> Having been out of the loop for a while, please allow me to restir the pot
> a bit. As mentioned in a previous missive, I use continuous tone negatives
> printed through a halftone screen. The result is a major improvement in the
> adhesion of the gum image and a greater range of tones (or steps if you
> wish) in the final print. I don't use halftone negatives. It's worth
> trying... E.

 Ed, are you printing on some unusual surface, or on paper? If on paper,
I'm curious why you would need "improvement in adhesion" of the image?
Without the screen, do your images fail to adhere to the paper?

I've only seen this effect once, the effect people describe of the gum
pulling off the gum next to it, and that wasn't with a continuous tone
negative but with a fairly low-resolution inkjet negative. And it wasn't
with tones that were subtly gradating, but with a tone that was the
same throughout. This was when I was printing a 2x3" patch of grey using
tricolor and CMYK separations to show how they treat the same grey. The
densities of the various separations were around 60%, give or take. I
found that some of the gum patches frilled a bit around the edges, which
was interesting to me, and like I said, was the first time I've ever
seen this on paper. Anyway that's not really here nor there about Ed's
contribution, but just more data to consider.

Back to Ed: I take it you get a better tonal range with the screen than
with the continuous tone negative that you're using the screen with.
This is interesting; I wish I could see a comparison so I could see what
you're talking about.
Received on Mon Feb 21 12:14:59 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 03/01/05-02:06:55 PM Z CST