Need Quick Advice on Digital Image --> Print (offset lithography)

Jon Noring

unread,

Feb 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/17/97

to

Hello,

I am generating ultra-high resolution digital images (of fractal art, mine
as well as those of many other fractal artists) and am currently having them
rendered onto 8x10 Ektachrome 64T transparencies using a Kodak LVT, which
I've been told is state-of-the-art for this purpose. The pixel resolution of
these digital images is a whopping 18432x13824, so the rendered results onto
8x10's are, to say the least, spectacular. Photographic reversal prints made
directly from these 8x10's are very sharp and crisp even for enlargements of
30x40" and greater.

As some of you may have seen my prior posts, I am trying to get an
understanding of the various options to make gallery-quality, archival or
semi-archival prints from these digital images. Of course, the photographic
print approach from 8x10 transparencies (or negatives) is one option as I
just mentioned above (e.g., semi-archival and excellent image quality
photographic prints can be made directly from transparencies using
Cibachrome/Ilfochrome.)

There's also new photographic print processes being marketed which can go
directly from the digital file to the final photographic print (e.g., Durst's
Lambda process). Note that I am flexible in what resolution I generate the
fractal images at, that is, I'm not stuck with the 18432x13824 figure given
above, though I'm close to the limit of what I can currently handle in terms
of resolution.

I've also explored some of the newer "digital" ink-jet and pigment transfer
processes such as Iris (Cone's version which supposedly uses very light
resistant, semi-archival inks) and EverColor, which is a "digital" pigment
transfer process. Suffice to say that the Cone Iris prints and EverColor
prints are *very* expensive (with the EverColor bordering on prohibitive),
but they seem to give what I'm searching for.

But what I have not adequately explored, and am having difficulty getting
good "consumer" information, are the more traditional non-photographic print
processes, such as offset lithography. I sense that because of the huge
number of companies out there that offer this service, and the many approaches
to doing this, that if I don't choose right I could get screwed bigtime.

Thus, I have the following questions. There are very few people who know it
all, so whatever question or questions you can answer would be most
appreciated. It should be clear from my questions that I know very little
about the subject, so forgive my naivete' and please do try to extrapolate
your response past these questions, if you can.

1) In the world of lithography (offset and other types), what types of
processes should I consider, and which to avoid? Remember, image quality
is very important, something which would compare favorable to photographic
reproduction. Should I consider the true hand-printing processes (which
I know would be expensive because of the art-skill involved), or don't
they deliver the high resolution image quality my fractal images need for
best effect?

2) I would assume that there's companies who specialize in fine art prints,
which I also assume is what I'm looking for. Are there companies that
supposedly use fade-resistant inks/dyes (if they even exist) and archival-
quality papers? Any specific recommendations? Who do the more well-
known artists go through?

3) What kind of costs am I looking at? Do I have to get 1000 or more prints
made to get the per-print costs down to a reasonable amount? Or can
fine-art print companies deal with small runs and still keep costs
reasonable (my comparative frame of reference is Cibachrome prints, which
are essentially made one-at-a-time and usually have about the same unit
price for runs of 5 or more.)

4) What type of source material can be used? I'm in the flexible position
that I can either submit digital image files, or high quality 8x10"
transparencies (or negatives). What does the current print industry
prefer? Would I see any differnce in final quality between the two ways
of submitting the images for companies that accept both?

5) MARKETING. Of course, the biggie will always be marketing, so I'd like
a quick tutorial on marketing prints of my images. Should I hire a broker
or agent to do the foot-work? Where do I find such a person? Any
specific recommendations? The many images I have access to are absolutely
beautiful and when generated and printed properly, *will* sell very well,
in my opinion. One market, of course, is corporate art for high-tech
companies. But a few of my images have been compared to some of the
finer art seen in modern-art museums -- it's that good.

I'm sure there's other questions I could ask, but don't know enough to even
think of them! So feel free to share any comments that come to mind.

Thanks, and I'm certain your reply will be of benefit to many others like
myself who are also perplexed by the world of offset printing (and related
processes) for fine art reproduction and display, especially from digital
sources.

Jon Noring

--
OmniMedia Electronic Books | URL: http://www.awa.com/library/omnimedia
9671 S. 1600 West St. | Anonymous FTP:
South Jordan, UT 84095 | ftp.awa.com /pub/softlock/pc/products/OmniMedia
801-253-4037 | E-mail: omni...@netcom.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------
misc.industry.printing is a moderated newsgroup. Postings
are archived and available from PrinterNet at
http://www.printer.net
-------------------------------------------------------------

Johan Daniels

unread,

Feb 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/20/97

to

My name is Johan Daniels and are from Sweden. I am a engineering student
of the printing industry technologies. Since no one yet answerd your
questions I'll give it a try.

> 1) In the world of lithography (offset and other types), what types of
> processes should I consider, and which to avoid? Remember, image quality
> is very important, something which would compare favorable to
photographic
> reproduction.

My guess is that you should look for someone using waterless (Toray)
offset and that uses the possibilities this techniqe gives with higher
resolution. In short it's the same techniqe as standard offset printing
but you don't use water, you use silicone to designate printing/none
printing areas instead. This gives you an opportunity to print a smaller
dot and with a better contrast. It's ofcours quite expensive if you only
need a couple prints, as in standard offset. Maybe you can find a
prepress company with a high resolution plotter for the really low
quantities. Otherwise you might try someone with a Heidelberg DI-46 or
equivalent, it can produce prints at around 170 lines/inch (maybe
higher) and is competing in the range between 50-1000 copies.

> Should I consider the true hand-printing processes (which
> I know would be expensive because of the art-skill involved), or don't
> they deliver the high resolution image quality my fractal images need for
> best effect?

I have a hard time believing that they can print in that high
resolution.
>
> 2) I would assume that there's companies who...
No answer! :)

>
> 3) What kind of costs am I looking at? Do I have to get 1000 or more prints
> made to get the per-print costs down to a reasonable amount? Or can
> fine-art print companies deal with small runs and still keep costs
> reasonable (my comparative frame of reference is Cibachrome prints, which
> are essentially made one-at-a-time and usually have about the same unit
> price for runs of 5 or more.)

Hmm... I can only refer you to answer 1).

> 4) What type of source material can be used? I'm in the flexible position
> that I can either submit digital image files, or high quality 8x10"
> transparencies (or negatives). What does the current print industry
> prefer?

Ask the person you give the work to, but digital image files can
sometimes create problems if you don't know exactly what you are doing.

> Would I see any differnce in final quality between the two ways
> of submitting the images for companies that accept both?

Unfortunately that can often be the case, however using a serious
prepress company that has an engineer or two with knowledge of diffrent
color spaces and color proofing is a good start. If you get a differens
in the final quality and they can't explain why, you should try another
company.

>
> 5) MARKETING. Of course, the biggie will always be marketing, so I'd like

> a quick tutorial on marketing ...
No answer! :)

> I'm sure there's other questions I could ask, but don't know enough to even
> think of them! So feel free to share any comments that come to mind.

I know the feeling. :)

J. Daniels
ig4...@griffin.got.kth.se

Jon Noring

unread,

Feb 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/20/97

to

guest)
References:
<5eaa7v$n...@nexus.netconcepts.com><5ehv85$g...@nexus.netconcepts.com>
Sender: owner-p...@printer.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: prin...@printer.net

In article Johan Daniels <ig4...@griffin.got.kth.se> writes:

Much thanks to Johan for answering my newbie post. Some comments and new
information below.

>> 1) In the world of lithography (offset and other types), what types of
>> processes should I consider, and which to avoid? Remember, image quality
>> is very important, something which would compare favorable to
photographic
>> reproduction.

>My guess is that you should look for someone using waterless (Toray)
>offset and that uses the possibilities this techniqe gives with higher
>resolution. In short it's the same techniqe as standard offset printing
>but you don't use water, you use silicone to designate printing/none
>printing areas instead. This gives you an opportunity to print a smaller
>dot and with a better contrast. It's ofcours quite expensive if you only
>need a couple prints, as in standard offset. Maybe you can find a
>prepress company with a high resolution plotter for the really low
>quantities. Otherwise you might try someone with a Heidelberg DI-46 or
>equivalent, it can produce prints at around 170 lines/inch (maybe
>higher) and is competing in the range between 50-1000 copies.

Thanks for the feedback here. Any other comments by others?

>> Should I consider the true hand-printing processes (which
>> I know would be expensive because of the art-skill involved), or don't
>> they deliver the high resolution image quality my fractal images need
for
>> best effect?

>I have a hard time believing that they can print in that high resolution.

Probably true since hi-rez usually requires machines to achieve, which
definitely falls outside the realm of "hand made".

>> 4) What type of source material can be used? I'm in the flexible position
>> that I can either submit digital image files, or high quality 8x10"
>> transparencies (or negatives). What does the current print industry
>> prefer?

>Ask the person you give the work to, but digital image files can
>sometimes create problems if you don't know exactly what you are doing.

>> Would I see any differnce in final quality between the two ways
>> of submitting the images for companies that accept both?

>Unfortunately that can often be the case, however using a serious
>prepress company that has an engineer or two with knowledge of diffrent
>color spaces and color proofing is a good start. If you get a differens
>in the final quality and they can't explain why, you should try another
>company.

Regarding the above comments by Johan, and being a newbie to the world of
printing, I finally learned something all printers intimately know about,
the CMYK versus RGB issue (don't laugh).

The reason is simple, all fractal artists work in the RGB world of monitors,
and in that world develop some absolutely beautiful fractals which
unfortunately don't translate well into the CMYK world of offset and other
printing methods. An Iris test print yesterday of one of my fractal images
by a company that is very competent at using the Iris and does art work for
many local artists, showed me how limited 4-color dyes are. And the Iris
inks are supposedly even better than traditional 4-color offset inks with
respect to color gamut.

Unfortunately, original digital images such as mine (not images taken from
original art works on paper which typically have a lower color gamut than
RGB monitor colors), I gather are probably the most difficult images to
accurately reproduce in 4-color printing. And complicating matters is that
fractal artists don't want to limit their color maps from the start to use
standard CMYK colors -- we don't want to compromise if we can help it -- we
want to duplicate what we see on the screen as best as we can, especially
with color gamut (color brightness dynamic range is a tougher thing to
reproduce and there we probably have to compromise).

This tells me that if I ever do offset prints, I would probably have to go
with the 6-color or 7-color CMYRGBK (or something similar) techniques, which
I've been told are very expensive (are the high-quality offset reproductions
of fine art usually done 6/7 color?). After investigating into the RGB
versus CMYK issue, I doubt that any 4-color CMYK process can ever reproduce
my fractals to my satisfaction. For this reason, I'm leaning towards the
8x10" Ektachrome --> Cibachrome print approach (which I described in my
previous post) for low print runs, which I believe has a much wider color
gamut and color saturation than 4-color CMYK approaches. That is, it's the
best *archival* way to reproduce RGB digital images.

Comments?

Jon Noring

--
OmniMedia Electronic Books | URL: http://www.awa.com/library/omnimedia
9671 S. 1600 West St. | Anonymous FTP:
South Jordan, UT 84095 | ftp.awa.com /pub/softlock/pc/products/OmniMedia
801-253-4037 | E-mail: omni...@netcom.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---

Join the Electronic Books Mailing List (EBOOK-List) Today! Just send e-mail
to majo...@aros.net, and put the following line in the body of the message:
subscribe ebook-list

JosephALVISAlexander Snow

unread,

Mar 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/10/97

to

In article <5eaa7v$n...@nexus.netconcepts.com>, nor...@netcom.com (Jon
Noring) wrote:
>
> 1) what types of
> processes should I, image quality

> is very important, something which would compare favorable to
photographic
> reproduction.

I have recently examined a sample titled "Heidelberg News 2/95" which has
a sample of a 7 color hifi process job inside back cover. Screen frequency
is so fine that you must study the image very very closely, and for a long
time before you can begin to think that you are seeing the dot pattern.
Rather, it seems to have more clearly rendered what appears to be film
grain (or simulated) at a higher resolution than the line screen
frequency.

I would suggest lookin into a dry offset 6 or 7 color hi fi or hexachrome
repro at 175 lpi+, perhaps w 1 or 2x uv-protective (aueous?) coating; but
I am just supposing to you, as I am but a humble student of the graphic
arts; and all of my knowledge is academic.

Alvis

Donald Carli

unread,

Mar 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/11/97

to

To: JosephALVISAlexander Snow <ial...@mindspring.com>

There are various HiFi Color process options available. Unfortunately,
it's not a one size fits all world. I can give you some suggestions if
you could provide details regarding:

The characteristics of the original images in terms of their format,
subject matter, media type, color gamut, dynamic range, detail,
contrast, size, etc.

Your output expectations and/or constraints with regard to size,
quantity, end use, budget, deadline, color fidelity, tonal fidelity,
screening appearance, match colors, light fastness, substrate, etc.

Don Carli
Principal
Nima Hunter Inc.
Visual Communication Advisory Services

(Co-founder of the Davis Inc. HiFi Color Research Project)