Default line screen & dot shape

[Chris Halt]

Do you have a "default"? And what is the range of work that you produce?

We are a large commercial printer that encounters the gamut of offset print jobs.

• Everything from plastics and #1 sheets to what my Father called "birdcage liner"

• Conventional and UV inks

• Dimensions from postcards to POP displays… you name it

Consequently, we image plates at various line screens and dot shapes.

Our "default" settings are conventional round dot and (what I consider) a coarse 150 line screen.

I would run everything stochastic if I could but fear getting fragged by our pressmen.

So, how about you…?

Cheers…

 

[mwc]

We are a sheet-fed shop doing general commercial printing.
Defaulting at - 175-Line screen for coated sheets, 133 for uncoated.
Rampage RCS screening (a euclidean dot)

 

[gordo]

Our "default" settings are conventional round dot and (what I consider) a coarse 150 line screen.

I would run everything stochastic if I could but fear getting fragged by our pressmen.

The choice of halftone screening is a business decision. Your press operators should not be running your business.

 

[mazengh]

The choice of halftone screening is a business decision. Your press operators should not be running your business.

but then what happens when pressmen start complaining about not being able to print properly and not having enough dot gain tolerance on press with stochastic for example?

 

[gordo]

but then what happens when pressmen start complaining about not being able to print properly and not having enough dot gain tolerance on press with stochastic for example?

Press operators can print as "properly" with stochastic as they can with conventional.
The key to success with any change being made in production is education and buy-in by the people affected. Stochastic reacts differently on press when solid ink densities vary - but the same thing would be true if all incoming files would be reseparated for ink optimization.
You cannot parachute a change into the shop and expect success. In my experience once press operators understand how stochastic reacts on press and what its lithographic benefits are compared with conventional screening they tend to be very happy about the switch.

 

[mazengh]

Press operators can print as "properly" with stochastic as they can with conventional.
The key to success with any change being made in production is education and buy-in by the people affected. Stochastic reacts differently on press when solid ink densities vary - but the same thing would be true if all incoming files would be reseparated for ink optimization.
You cannot parachute a change into the shop and expect success. In my experience once press operators understand how stochastic reacts on press and what its lithographic benefits are compared with conventional screening they tend to be very happy about the switch.

Reseparated for ink optimization could mean that a CMYK area of 80 cyan, 45 magenta, 60 yellow, 10 black (iso coated 300 profile) will turn into 60 cyan, 24 magenta, 43 yellow, 24 black (PSO coated 300% NPscreen profile) which might look considerably different from what the designer expects..

 

[gordo]

Reseparated for ink optimization could mean that a CMYK area of 80 cyan, 45 magenta, 60 yellow, 10 black (iso coated 300 profile) will turn into 60 cyan, 24 magenta, 43 yellow, 24 black (PSO coated 300% NPscreen profile) which might look considerably different from what the designer expects..

Any thing is possible, however the IPA Ink Optimization RoundUP (Ink Optimization RoundUP - 2010 Results Report | IDEAlliance) showed that ink optimization systems did a very good job at preserving color appearance while reducing the volume of ink needed. The presswork did not look considerably different from what the original files would have delivered.
But that is a different topic.

 

[bean66]

Our default for sheetfed jobs is 175 lpi and on our web presses its 150 lpi and Eliptical on all jobs