Multiplying Pantones: effect during print

[monq]

You certainly did, and I certainly remember. I have modified all my current assets to avoid these issues, limiting everything to a much simpler approach. I am still not 100% sure how will this look printed (God - I wish they made portable offset printers, I have in my brain around 1000% tests that I'd like to run against a proper printer!!!) - but at least I know that when I separate in Acrobat, the output seems like it will definitely print as intended.

In my type of work I cannot play much,to be fair - I work on pharmaceutical packaging, meaning that I prefer simplicity / readability / safety than fanciful but unpredictable design...

So thanks, lesson learnt!

[gordo]

[SNIP]I am still not 100% sure how will this look printed (God - I wish they made portable offset printers, I have in my brain around 1000% tests that I'd like to run against a proper printer!!!) - but at least I know that when I separate in Acrobat, the output seems like it will definitely print as intended.

Two thoughts:
1 - You don't need a printer - you need a RIP.
2 - Since it's a one color job there is nothing to separate.

I've attached an image to this post. On the left is your preview. On the right is the PMS plate as viewed in Acrobat. I.e. what the printing plate will look like. Big difference.


IMHO you need to find a different, simpler, way of creating your art. A method that does not depend on multiply type blend modes.

best, gordo

[monq]

Thanks Gordo. One of the things that I am getting quite clearly in the last few days is that simpler is better. I have achieved a pretty similar approach by changing the layer positions (so the gradient is the base colour), while the text and other elements are simply on top.

It does not look so stricking - but it looks good enough for what I am after, and that's good. By the way - for a second there I thought that you were trying to kill me, with references to RIP et al!

I just read a definition of RIP: "raster image processing". Is it correct to assume that this RIP is more or less what you see when I use output preview like you did in Acrobat? Aka: killing all plates and only showing Pantone 431 C?

Regards, and thanks!

[gordo]

Thanks Gordo. One of the things that I am getting quite clearly in the last few days is that simpler is better. I have achieved a pretty similar approach by changing the layer positions (so the gradient is the base colour), while the text and other elements are simply on top.

There are no layers in a one color job. You've got to find a way to see the final result after all the layers have been flattened. I.e. the file that will be imaged on plate.

I just read a definition of RIP: "raster image processing". Is it correct to assume that this RIP is more or less what you see when I use output preview like you did in Acrobat? Aka: killing all plates and only showing Pantone 431 C?

Pretty much yes. It takes all of the graphic instructions in your document and converts it into a raster - a bitmap image which will then be imaged on the printing plate. The problem is that different RIPs may interpret the file differently when you use layers and blending modes. I looked at just the one PMS color in your PDF and posted what I saw. That is what will likely happen when your file goes through the printer's RIP. On the other hand, PhotoShop is a very basic RIP and if you open your PDF using PShop as a greyscale image you will get an image that looks right but will be incorrect for printing (e.g. what should be 100% is now 80%). If you open the same file in Preview (on a MAC) you'll get yet a different interpretation (the gradient disappears.

best, gordo

[monq]

Thanks again for your in-depth clarification. Sorry - I mean layers when I am in the design process / everything gets flattened. I think that by simply keeping it simple, avoiding blends, and have a look at the colour in Adobe Acrobat I will get a quite clear idea of the final output.

But of course, whenever I get a chance, I will try various of these designs in real print. I agree with you that I can get a fair idea with the RIP, but of course there are quite a few other elements, like dot gain, how very small detail does not appear like it appears on screen, and probably quite a few dozens of other thinks that escape my understanding, but would be clarified with a proper wet-proof...

Thanks