Print reproduction of the Diagonal Line pattern?

[hothousegraphix]

Just got back from printer cards done for a client:

http://www.hothousegraphix.com/Clien...mJackson1.html

Notice the diagonal line pattern used as part of the BG. IMO this has reproduced poorly. It seems as if an optical illusion is creating a secondary pattern due to the inconsistency in the reproduction of the line. I was wondering if anyone else has attempted to have this type of line pattern printed, if so, was it reproduced successfully? I'm wondering if there might be any tricks to using patterns of this type?

Any thoughts?

Thanks!

[hothousegraphix]

Anyone has some expertise with print production?

If so...can you help out?

[hothousegraphix]

Anybody out here has some advice...???

Here's a little back ground info about the file used -
The image was created in Illustrator which presented one obstacle right off the bat - in an effort to prevent banding from occurring (common to gradients created in Illustrator); the background was created in PShop and imported into Illustrator. Included with the gradient is the diagonal line pattern as well - wondering if this might be it? Maybe I should have kept the line elements vector based. That said, I've used other printers who have had no problem reproducing fine lines of this type, though not placed at a 45 degrees. Also, it appears that the BG lines located behind the center vector based graphic reproduced cleaner then the areas of those lines that do not interact with vector information (hope that makes some sense).

I'm a bit confused. I wonder if anybody has some rules they follow when taking Illustrator files to print; such as always including font files with the .ai document rather than converting text to "outlines" (objects) because this step tends to fatten up the text and on occasion (especially with smaller point sizes) create undesired results.

Anyone else have some tips?

[hothousegraphix]

Is GrafX Munk-e out there, I gathered from a few earlier posts of his that he works for a printhouse...maybe he'll have an opinion.

Anyone else...care to jump in...I'm seeking opinions!

[GrafX Munk-e]

Hi;

First off, I want to say this is a "hot" buisness card. I really like it. The denim effect of the diagnal lines and the gradient is what does it for me. Well, that.. and the choice of fonts... and the basic colors... OK.. the whole thing works for me.


Anyways...
From the looks of it, it seems to be just 2 colors. Black and Orange, correct? How is this being printed (type of press)? If it hasn't been dones already, you may want to separate the solid black, from the screen blacks. This way they can have more control over the dot gain with that gradient. The lines seem to be a constant percentage so there shouldn't be any problems with those. What point size are you making those lines and what percentages of black are you working with. Good call in making the gradient in PS. Illustrator does tend to have fall off when you cross over from 20% to 15!. Almost everytime, there will be a harsh line somewhere in that range. Same goes for 10%-2%... just the way Illustrator translates that action. There have been times when even Photoshop can't get the job done, and I've had to apply noise to the gradient to get an even dot. The card looks simple, though, and I can't see anything that would be a terribly big problem. This is a standard 2x3.5 card, correct? Something else you may want to try is changing stocks. Different stocks absorb and hold inks in different matters, as well as there being dozens of different types of inks. There are also card stocks with textures on them, so it is possible to get that denim effect simply by changing the stock make and weight. An opticle illusion, if you will. Just keep in mind, with everything man made.... if you have the $$$$$ you can do anything. Some processes just cost more than others.

I hope this was of some help;
Good luck

Ken

[hothousegraphix]

Wow...thank you!

I Should've provided some of the info you're requesting. First, this is offset printing, and yes, this is a standard business card (2" x 3.5"). The lines are set at a width of 1px and I'm working with 10% of black for depth of color.

I should say that the pattern was also produced in Photoshop, then imported into Illustrator < I'm guessing this is the problem, I probably should've produced the lines in Illustrator as vector information rather that using the bitmap pattern produced in Photoshop. This is what the printer is suggesting...and it does make sense; however, I've produced quite a few images with fine lines of this type in Photoshop and then had them printed with no problems at all. In fact, I've attached an example of an old card of mine. This was reproduced wonderfully and it was all done in PShop.

What's weird here is that the lines that lay directly underneath the center logo are pretty clear. The drop shadow I've used was applied in Illustrator, so it's a vector object. It looks as if the background lines that object sits above are clear of any inconsistency, though the surrounding BG lines are not (they look crappy - a nice technical term). Let me be clear here, I'm being picky, some people may not even notice, however as you suggested I'm experiencing an optical illusion created by this inconsistency.

Maybe I will try a different stock.

[hothousegraphix]

HOTHOUSEGRAPHIX - It looks as if the background lines that object sits above are clear of any inconsistency...

Would it actually stand to reason that any visual information layered below a vector object converts to vector? I've never heard of this...just wondering why I'm seeing this?

[GrafX Munk-e]

Were the blacks separated? The reason I ask is because some printers smash the plates alittle more to give the solid blacks more pop. If your screen is on the same plate, then it is going to get some really inconsistant gains. By separating the screens from the solids, you can have more control over the gain on the screens, which result in a smoother transition from light to dark. Plus with those lines in there, there will be less filling between large and small dots. As for the solids, you have a separate plate to bang on to insure you have a good clean press without any light spots that would be cause by trying to maintain an even gradiant in the background.

I'm not good with conversion, but 1 pixel in PS is pretty darn thin (@ 300dpi). For flexo printing we print at 2540dpi (Illustrator resolution. PS images are good at 300dpi for color, 600dpi for B/W), and can hold a good .35 point wide line (measured in Illustrator). Our presses can go down to a .15 point line, but the material our plates are made from, tends to be fragile or too flexible, and the straight lines start to skew or even break off from being so thin. I would suggest going with a vector type line, rather than bitmapped. You can save a great image as a 2540 resolution bit map, but ultimately, you are still dealing with a group of dots to create the image, rather than smooth vector art as is created in Illustrator. Our rule of thumb here is if you can re-create it in Illustrator, make it. It wil give you the best results that way. Photoshop is really only needed if you are dealing with a 4 color image, or some sort of crazy B/W scan. But like I said, I deal soley with flexographic printing, and can only give you advise on what I use, and have heard. Most offset printers use metal plates that tend to hold better registration and a finer dot. If your printer is good (and if he made this other card successfully, he has to be) he should be able to work with you on how to get this job done right. You may end up having to make those lines slightly larger.

[GrafX Munk-e]

Originally posted by hothousegraphix

Would it actually stand to reason that any visual information layered below a vector object converts to vector? I've never heard of this...just wondering why I'm seeing this?

This would be saying that Illustrator converts the bitmap into vector art, if there is existing vector art layered above it? No, Illustrator is not THAT cool. I can't see why only the center of the card is printing well. Unless there is uneven pressure being applied to the printing plate. It is possible that the printer is just using a bad plate. With those lines being so thin, it is possible that the plate itself is filling in and causing a bad press.

[hothousegraphix]

Yeah...I didn't think that theory "held any water" so to speak.

I'll probably have to re-run this job because of this situation. I do think I'll go ahead and convert the line to vector info.

Just wondering - what line weight setting (in Illustrator) do you think will adequately achieve the look shown in the link I provided above?

[GrafX Munk-e]

I would call the printer and ask him/her what is the smallest point size they can hold. If you were working with a 1 pixel line, you'll want the smallest they can work with. If, for some unholy reason, they do not know... try a .25 point line at first, or just go with a whole different printer entirely. The guessing game just gets expensive, and besides, that is just something they HAVE to know.

Edit:
If you end up using these guys on a permanent basis, some good things to know about them are:

Perfered OS
Perfered design program (Illustrator, Quark, Freehand)
Minimum point size (line width)
Minimum dot size (color value... i.e. we can hold a 2% Black)
Dot gain percentage (i.e.... our 2% black will actually gain to a 5% black due to plate pressure)

Some of this may be common knowledge to ask, but you would be surprised at how many designers have 0 clue.

Good luck;
Ken

[hothousegraphix]

Thanks for the advice...I do appreciate your expertise - you've been
exceptionally helpful.

PEACE!

[GrafX Munk-e]

N/P

Let me know how they come out.

Ken

[hothousegraphix]

Will do!