Screen Angles

[Farabomb]

I'm pretty sure that's a direct quote from Joe's pressman.

I know I've heard shit like that before.

[born2print]

here's screen angels @ 150 lpkm

[Ear]

 

[Holsinger60]

Alright. Guess I just assumed the angle changed or something. My bad. So, since the image is on a different imposition the dots will fall in position differently? Not saying it's a press problem either, but there was a big difference on the screened text. Thanks for the help. This is not really my area of expertise obviously.

[Joe]

Alright. Guess I just assumed the angle changed or something. My bad. So, since the image is on a different imposition the dots will fall in position differently? Not saying it's a press problem either, but there was a big difference on the screened text. Thanks for the help. This is not really my area of expertise obviously.

Are you talking about seeing a big difference in the screened text in your screen grabs you posted or in the printed piece? Because I'm not seeing a big difference in your screen grabs.

[Holsinger60]

The printed piece. I just noticed that dots building what are the letters were different in my rendered view. Wasn't sure if that was the problem or what. Guess I just never realized that if the images were positioned differently on the imposition that the dot structure would change in the text like that. Always figured it geared off the document. But if you're saying this is normal, then that's good enough for me. Thanks.

[Joe]

No I'm not saying it is normal. I'm saying it isn't a big enough difference in the plate screening to cause a big shift in the way it looks on the printed piece.

[Holsinger60]

I had to up the screen density like 10% to get it close enough that they'd sign off on running it. Which brings right back around to what I was attempting to ask from the get go...why are those dots positioned differently when building the text?

[Joe]

Is the image size of the imposed flat generated by XMF a different size in overall dimensions. My guess is that it is a different size and XMF could be off a smidgen in the way it images but the position of the dots is not going to cause a difference in the percentages as you describe. I'm guessing you have a pressmen who says they are running it perfectly but the difference is at the press. Not in the plate.

[Holsinger60]

Right on. The previous run looked like it was ran pretty frickin' heavy. Dots almost looked reversed out. I'll chalk it up to different pressmen running different machines differently and go about my life. Was just scrambling to find an answer since the higher ups were asking me questions I couldn't answer. Thank you for help and have a great weekend.

[born2print]

Problem now is you have 2 totally different files (and counting) for the exact rerun. We avoid this like the plague. It only gets worse and worse.
Of course, sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do, and in this case it's logical that you will use the new (adjusted heavier) file from now on with the idea of matching the original run that was too heavy/smashedblanket/whatever.
Cheers!

[frailer]

but the difference is at the press. Not in the plate.

Re-prints "matched to a previous run"... bwahahaha... my eyes just rotate for a minute and then finally slow down. Primal scream stuff. Arthur Janov rolling in his grave, (shit, he may still be alive, sorry Art...).

[Lyzan]

Only thing that changed was what press it was running on.

which gave you different dot gain, thus the color difference.

//Lyzan