Multiplying Pantones: effect during print

[monq]

Hello,

I am creating some shapes using a solid Pantone colour in Illustrator. On top of these shapes, I am adding another object with the same size and the sane Pantone colour, using the "Multiply" setting.

This is all very nice and good (I get a darker output in the multiplied area) - but I cannot really understand how this would translate to the world of inks and offset printing. Surely, the maximum that can be achieved with a single plate is 100% of colour, and the only way in which I could have anything stronger than this would be if I had the same ink in another plate?

Or in other words: I am wasting my time using these multiply effects. Could you guys please confirm?

Thanks!

 

[BillJ]

You are better off not doing it. Pantone inks pigments wouldn't multiply on press in an predictable manner. Also the results would change from ink to ink and stock to stock.

 

[chevalier]

Design what you want it to look like and carefully review the proofs and make sure whoever generates the proofs/final printing is utilizing software that will accurately proof such effects. Pretty much every job I deal with has spot colors overlapping, overprinting, screens intersecting with effects.

If you can generate a PDF of what you are working on - OR create something similar (to protect your client) and attach it to a reply and I might be able to guide you further.

 

[CHM]

Don't worry about that, the normal preview in Illustrator is twisted, if you look in overprint preview you will see what you will get in reality.

 

[monq]

CHM, BillJ - thanks for your feedback! I am still trying to see what would be the output anyway, I like to test / learn about anything until doors are definitely closed...

Chevalier - I have updated a test file here:

www.monq.co.uk/tmp/TESTFILE.PDF

It is not pretty, but it shows clearly what I am after:
- base layer is a solid PMS 431 C background
- layer 2 above is some text in PMS 431 C with a tint of 60%
- layer 3 (top of everything else) is a gradient that contains values between 100% and 20% of 431 C, with transparency set up to "Multiply".

Now - on screen this would look darker than the expected "screen" values of 431 C. My concern is how this would export to the real world of inks and plates. I am somehow assuming that a 100% coverage of ink is the maximum that can be achieved by using a single plate, meaning that anything darker than this would simply be discarded (or can only be implemented by adding more ink with another plate - a bit like the concept behind rich blacks etc)...

I am sure I am missing something here - but I am really, an absolute noob!

Thanks

 

[chevalier]

Looks like it will work as intended to me. My only suggestion is to design lighter than you intend for it to be output. Dot gain (explained here in detail) will occur in printing and few (if any) printers are going to have a dot gain correction curve specific to Pantone 431. Some printers use a dot gain compensation curve for a process ink (Cyan, magenta, yellow, black) for spot ink plates and some just generate them linearly. If you read the materials I linked to and are still fuzzy what dot-gain and dot-gain compensation are let me know and I will try to break it down on a more fundamental level.

Simply stated:
If you want a 50% screen achieved with Pantone 431 when printed you should probably design that element with a fill of something in the 35 - 40% range.

 

[monq]

Chevalier - thank you very much for your feedback on this. I will print the whole link and have a proper read - then ask again if I am lost. I have already learn lots from Gordo's post, but of course / lots of the info there is a bit above my ability... mainly just because I am not the cleverest of people I've met...

Cheers, and thanks again!

 

[rich apollo]

This will not print the way you're thinking with a single plate. The background gradient will disappear as you can't exceed 100% of a color. A solid is a solid. The attached screen grab shows something like what you will get.

Turn on your separations preview in Illustrator, or the Output Preview in Acrobat. From there you'll be able to check screen percentages.

 

[monq]

Ah- that's what I thought originally. When I tried to run the output in Acrobat, and by simply using Output Preview, all data that was darker than the original 431 was discarded.

Which means that, of course, what I need to do is to use a tinted version of 431 as a background (actually, a gradient with various tints) - which will never go over 100% coverage. Also having in mind the dot gain / which I am reading about...

A bit when mastering a music track - anything over 0 gets discarded!

Thanks a bunch rich apollo!

 

[Stephen Marsh]

Ah- that's what I thought originally. When I tried to run the output in Acrobat, and by simply using Output Preview, all data that was darker than the original 431 was discarded.

Which means that, of course, what I need to do is to use a tinted version of 431 as a background (actually, a gradient with various tints) - which will never go over 100% coverage. Also having in mind the dot gain / which I am reading about...

A bit when mastering a music track - anything over 0 gets discarded!

Thanks a bunch rich apollo!

Monq do you remember in another topic thread that you raised on a similar issue - I told you that I was oldschool and that I preferred to use the overprint setting on spots, rather than blending modes/opacity? While others said not to worry, simply use multiply blend mode and that it was the same?

Stephen Marsh

 

[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