frailer
06-26-2006, 11:20 AM
Just wondering if anyone else is encountering this problem. Lately seem to be getting more PS files with a highlight background which has, say, a splotchy texture in the 5% ballpark, but fading to, say one side, to zero dot. Talking CMY...K doesn't seem to figure much in these scenarios.
What we end up with, quite often, is a series of "steps"; (picture one of those isobar weather maps, but filled with 5%, 4%,....to an area of zero.
These are virtually invisible onscreen when viewing the PS file, barely visible on our press-quality proofing output (BlackMagic/epson7600), but horribly obvious when it hits press. Fortunately we're still in film, so it hits the eye before it gets to press. Fix seems to be Dr. Gauss's blur +/- Noise. If we're lucky.
Here's my hunch. In the olden days (5-6 years ago), a halfway decent scan would have been done, and this wouldn't have eventuated. These days someone is in possession of a digital camera, which they think is up to the job, but...pixel depth/resolution...something's happening and it's not nice. The time consumed on a couple of these lately is pretty annoying.
What we end up with, quite often, is a series of "steps"; (picture one of those isobar weather maps, but filled with 5%, 4%,....to an area of zero.
These are virtually invisible onscreen when viewing the PS file, barely visible on our press-quality proofing output (BlackMagic/epson7600), but horribly obvious when it hits press. Fortunately we're still in film, so it hits the eye before it gets to press. Fix seems to be Dr. Gauss's blur +/- Noise. If we're lucky.
Here's my hunch. In the olden days (5-6 years ago), a halfway decent scan would have been done, and this wouldn't have eventuated. These days someone is in possession of a digital camera, which they think is up to the job, but...pixel depth/resolution...something's happening and it's not nice. The time consumed on a couple of these lately is pretty annoying.