Adrian Turner wrote: Subject: [PRODIG] Printers
"We've recently shot a national mail campaign for a household name.Initially my client - a design group - was reluctant to shoot digitally as he's had poor results in the past,he tells me.I shot tests, film & digital (I use an Imacon back on an RZ).Fine.We shot digitally.The shoot went well.
I've just seen the printed result.It's shite,it really is.No colour,especially no black.Flat.Horrible."
I am certain that you will get better technical help from the list, but my background in publications printing leads me to this practical solution.
In the "old days," as you said, you gave the client/color separator/printer a print or transparency that served as the standard by which the final printed piece was measured (as was the PMS swatchbook, etc.). I suggest that, today, during the industry transition to digital, we submit (in addition to the digital file) a physical print to indicate the standard by which the final printed piece will be measured.
Yes, I know it is not as convenient as sending files attached to email. But it eliminates all the B.S. that Adrian is being subjected to. Alternately (ideally, in addition), ask the printer to send a proof to you, which indicates what the printer thinks the file should look like.
The rule that used to hang in all printing shops was:
"We can print good, cheap, and fast. Pick two."
Digital imaging can cultivate a tendency to want everything quickly, easily, and cheaply. Quality will suffer if we are not careful and vigilant.
=============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
