Need feedback from other printshops...

Alith7

Well-known member
In May, we are having a brand new Ryobi 700 press installed. And my boss comes to me and informs me that he would like to start running 300 lpi as our standard for coated text and cover. We currently run 200 lpi as our standard, a bit higher than industry standard, but we like the quality better. now, my boss claims that more and more printers are listing 300lpi as their standard screening. So, here's the question(s):

What is the standard Line screen you use in your shop? And what do you think about the 300lpi?

We are not running Stochastic, just conventional screening.
 

EZPower

Well-known member
It reminds me of Spinal Tap. Nigel Tufnel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and... Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. Where can you go from there? Where?
 

Fatboysmart

Well-known member
300 lpi is high, just give it a try and you will probably see that it won't improve the quality.
We usually run anywhere between 175 to 200 lpi.
 
Last edited:

gordo

Well-known member
In May, we are having a brand new Ryobi 700 press installed. And my boss comes to me and informs me that he would like to start running 300 lpi as our standard for coated text and cover. We currently run 200 lpi as our standard, a bit higher than industry standard, but we like the quality better. now, my boss claims that more and more printers are listing 300lpi as their standard screening. So, here's the question(s):

What is the standard Line screen you use in your shop? And what do you think about the 300lpi?

We are not running Stochastic, just conventional screening.

Why bother using an AM screen. Go stochastic and get rid of rosettes, screen angles, graininess, etc. and deliver presswork that looks contone - just like your proofs.
 

Alith7

Well-known member
Why bother using an AM screen. Go stochastic and get rid of rosettes, screen angles, graininess, etc. and deliver presswork that looks contone - just like your proofs.

I would love to, maybe eventually, but I'm not sure I want to open that can of worms right now. I'm still trying to break my pressmen of the habit of running to me any time they're not matching the Epsons. They have developed this REALLY bad habit of not checking the press to see if there are any press problems, because it's easier for them to make it my problem. I would never get anything done if we were running stochastic.

Plus, I've heard that stochastic is great for light coverage and mid-tones, but can get pretty pluggy on darker areas. Not sure how much truth there is in that.
 

bky

Member
300 is high for a standard: you'd need to have a good #1 sheet as your house stock to do that daily. I don't know about your marketplace, but every area I've worked in has a low #2 or high #3 grade sheet as the house stock. I worked in a shop that ran 275 lpi on any #1 grade sheet, and it was a lot of process control work. Even then, the results weren't often worthwhile because of poor photography.

175-200 is pretty common and easy to achieve on #2 grade sheets with modern CTP. If you want higher quality, I'd talk to your customers and salespeople about what they are looking for. Are they asking for 300 lpi? Or is it just your boss? Going to high line screens can aggravate mottling in large areas of screens, and provide little or no benefit to many designs. Your process controls will need to be top-notch for 300 lpi daily, and that just increases costs along with requiring better paper.
 

bky

Member
I would love to, maybe eventually, but I'm not sure I want to open that can of worms right now. I'm still trying to break my pressmen of the habit of running to me any time they're not matching the Epsons. They have developed this REALLY bad habit of not checking the press to see if there are any press problems, because it's easier for them to make it my problem. I would never get anything done if we were running stochastic.

Plus, I've heard that stochastic is great for light coverage and mid-tones, but can get pretty pluggy on darker areas. Not sure how much truth there is in that.

I've run high line screen (350-400) work before, along with using stochastics for many years. Both require extensive process control procedures throughout the shop. I've been where you are: in prepress, trying to solve process control issues out in the pressroom. It's hard work, but if you run the prepress department right, you can stop the blame game in the pressroom.

Stochastics have big advantages in the light and mid-tones, especially skin tones. Dark areas can be a challenge, but most screening methods have something to make that work (like Kodak's Staccato screening).

If you have a pressroom already playing the blame-the-proof issue, then 300 line is going to be a nightmare.
 

akalaray

Well-known member
200 line in offset - 175 line digital

In May, we are having a brand new Ryobi 700 press installed. And my boss comes to me and informs me that he would like to start running 300 lpi as our standard for coated text and cover. We currently run 200 lpi as our standard, a bit higher than industry standard, but we like the quality better. now, my boss claims that more and more printers are listing 300lpi as their standard screening. So, here's the question(s):

What is the standard Line screen you use in your shop? And what do you think about the 300lpi?

We are not running Stochastic, just conventional screening.
 

tmiller_iluvprinting

Well-known member
I would investigate Auraia-II DM screening before I would print 300lpi. Auraia-II DM will print the equivalent to 400-500lpi, moire free, hilite to .01%, shadow to 99.99%, extremely smooth vignettes and flat tints, and retain image detail of 600-800dpi, just to name some of the benefits. No, I am not a salesman, I work for a printer, but if it were my call........
Regards,
Todd
 

gordo

Well-known member
I would love to, maybe eventually, but I'm not sure I want to open that can of worms right now. I'm still trying to break my pressmen of the habit of running to me any time they're not matching the Epsons. They have developed this REALLY bad habit of not checking the press to see if there are any press problems, because it's easier for them to make it my problem. I would never get anything done if we were running stochastic.

Plus, I've heard that stochastic is great for light coverage and mid-tones, but can get pretty pluggy on darker areas. Not sure how much truth there is in that.

No truth to what you've heard...but I've only been doing FM for forty years so what do I know. :)
Going ti a higher frequency, whether high LPI AM or FM, will reduce your system's tolerance if there is a lack of process control in the shop. At typical viewing distances 300lpi AM will look pretty much the same as a 300 lpi AM screen. But, the AM screen will be a compromised AM screen and will have all the issues of any standard AM screen. If I were you I would do a deep dive with management into what they are trying to achieve instead of just throwing (lpi) numbers about. Take out a loupe and examine the Sunday flyers in your newspaper. More than likely the majority will be FM. Look at the detail rendering. Do you intend to deliver presswork at least as good as Sunday paper fishwrap? If you do a proper comparison between 300 lpi AM and a good FM screen like Auraia DM I think you'll choose the FM everytime.

Gordo
 

rich apollo

Well-known member
I would love to, maybe eventually, but I'm not sure I want to open that can of worms right now.

At 300 lpi, someone is opening it for you.

20 micron stochastic really isn't that tough. You would have the same challenges you would have with 300 lpi.
 

Sev

Well-known member
Our standard is 175 lpi, sometimes 200, but the 175 gives us good consistent results. We are known in this area for our quality, and we obtain the quality level we desire with 175.

-Sev
 

Alith7

Well-known member
At 300 lpi, someone is opening it for you.

20 micron stochastic really isn't that tough. You would have the same challenges you would have with 300 lpi.

I didn't say "I" wanted to go to this.... ;)

for amusement's sake...I did find out where my boss was getting that all these other printers were doing 300 Line screen...
he was looking at their artwork submission instructions that said minimum resolution should be 300 dpi... We then had a quick lesson in dpi Vs. lpi.

We have pretty extensive color management, and have good consistency at 200lpi. We do this because we print a lot of multi-media and design pieces with high-detail, high-res photos and art. We get a finer level of detail that a lot of our clients really appreciate. We have produced a few pieces at 300lpi in the past. They were super high-detail pieces, one was for Photoshop filters, the other was for a clothing designer. The clothing line was using a lot of tweeds, plaids, and pinstripes and we got all the details beautifully. Just for fun afterwards, we took one of the photos of the tweed piece and put it on a different run at 175lpi to see what it looked like. The moire patterns gave me a headache.

I know the hybrid and stochastic screens are better for this, but we don't have that feature on our RIP, and my boss doesn't want to pay for it.
 
Last edited:

gordo

Well-known member
Our standard is 175 lpi, sometimes 200, but the 175 gives us good consistent results. We are known in this area for our quality, and we obtain the quality level we desire with 175.

-Sev

You are fortunate that your competitors who do FM screening are lousy marketeers.
 

Alith7

Well-known member
You are fortunate that your competitors who do FM screening are lousy marketeers.

as far as I know, in my immediate area, there are only 1 or 2 shops that have FM screening. Our niche is short run, small product packaging, we really don't have much for competition.
 

gordo

Well-known member
as far as I know, in my immediate area, there are only 1 or 2 shops that have FM screening. Our niche is short run, small product packaging, we really don't have much for competition.

My original post was directed to Sev. In your case, I don't know your specific situation, and I don't know what you mean by "short run", however, there are printers doing product packaging, who combine FM screening with spot color simulation to enable not only cost effective short runs (in the hundreds offset) but also localized labeling. There are hundreds of thousands of labels and product packaging is done this way every week.
 
D

Deleted member 16349

Guest
My original post was directed to Sev. In your case, I don't know your specific situation, and I don't know what you mean by "short run", however, there are printers doing product packaging, who combine FM screening with spot color simulation to enable not only cost effective short runs (in the hundreds offset) but also localized labeling. There are hundreds of thousands of labels and product packaging is done this way every week.

Gordon, I am assuming that the benefit of FM with short runs is due to the consistency and predictability of the FM print that is more or less independent of the SID being run. Is that the case?
 

gordo

Well-known member
Gordon, I am assuming that the benefit of FM with short runs is due to the consistency and predictability of the FM print that is more or less independent of the SID being run. Is that the case?

That's part of it. But the really important thing is the printer extracting the value out of their technology rather than expecting that the technology itself has any actual customer appreciated intrinsic value.
 
Last edited:

Alith7

Well-known member
My original post was directed to Sev. In your case, I don't know your specific situation, and I don't know what you mean by "short run", however, there are printers doing product packaging, who combine FM screening with spot color simulation to enable not only cost effective short runs (in the hundreds offset) but also localized labeling. There are hundreds of thousands of labels and product packaging is done this way every week.

I know there are a lot of packaging producers out there. In the Milwaukee area however, there are really only the big boys, and us. We have also established ourselves as problem solving custom packaging designers. I'm not saying we don't have ANY competition, but we don't have much locally. We don't have much interest in national accounts, we're a small shop that only runs one shift. we work with local customers and like it this way.
 

What About Profitability?

Canon
What about Profitability?
Offset yields new advantages

Read All About It

   
Top