Chris Mohler wrote:
>>> I would
>>> also manually "choke" the white plate - this means making the white
>>> areas a point or two smaller than the colored areas, thereby
>>> preventing the white from poking out at the edges of the colored
>>> areas.
>>
>> this looks like trapping to me. is there a difference?
>> trapping set-up for each plate would be in the projection set-up.
>
> A "choke" is a trap of negative amount. This is probably just jargon
> - I suspect that it should in fact be called a negative trap.
> Automatic trapping (and overprinting) has never lived up to my
> expectations - I would love to hear from anyone who has used
> auto-trapping software with acceptable results though.
would you call setting for each plate the amount (in points or
micrometers,
etc) of choking or trapping to be automatic or manual?
>>> Icing on the cake would be a mechanism to
>>> combine/subtract plates using the available blending modes.
>>
>> to generate plates from channels/layers that is needed, but
>> generating plates from plates? sounds like a creative kind
>> of workflow to me.
>
> I remember one specific instance: printing two blue colors - one
> light, one medium - on very dark blue. We originally placed the light
> blue color behind the medium blue color (overprint). The client
> changed their mind, and I needed to remove the overprint. Merging
> the (inverted) contents of med blue into the contents of lt blue
> removed the overprint in one step. I basically masked one plate with
> another and applied the mask.
and now it looks like a plate set-up change
>>> During
>>> the process, it is fairly critical to have an ink density/opacity
>>> setting for each plate, to simulate (roughly) how the final print is
>>> going to look. EG, set the white plate at approx 90%, the colors at
>>> approx 70% - and you can see which portions of the colors are
>>> falling
>>> on the white underlay, and which portions are falling on the black
>>> shirt.
>>
>> hmmm, tricky that one. it is natural for the plate stack to work
>> sort-of like the layer stack. eye symbols to switch plates on/off.
>> then there is the opacity slider of the layer stack. coverage slider
>> for the plates? ay be does the dual purpose of previewing like you
>> need and absolute print balancing.
>
> Indeed - the stack of plates should function more or less like the
> layer stack. Yes - I envision a visibility toggle for each layer, and
> also an opacity slider. But here's another murky area (as if we
> needed more ;) - if I set a plate's opacity to 50%, does 100% black on
> that plate print out at 50% or 100%? I would expect 100% - but that's
> from past experience, and not very intuitive. Perhaps you are right
> that we need both a opacity and coverage control - that makes more
> sense to me, but I have never seen it implemented and may well prove
> confusing.
no it would have to be a slider with results, so it would really
scale the whole plate coverage. and similar to layer opacity today
you can use it in between to peek though a layer. that should be enough
>>> and to be able to add new layers that could
>>> later be applied to new or existing plates, but this could be worked
>>> around.
>>
>> add layers where, image side or press projection side?
>
> My guess is image-side. One possible scenario:
OK, all clear there.
> 1. Design artwork in GIMP - RGB, 3 colors, 1 color per layer - 3
> layers (or maybe 4 with a bg color)
> 2. Create print projection, map layers to plates
> 3. Done, hit print/export - OR
> 4. Go back to RGB, duplicate two layers, merge them, apply curves, etc
> - whatever needs adjustment
> 5. Manually apply the contents of the new layer to one or more of the
> plates in the projection
> 6. Done, print/export
>
> I guess to summarize: in addition to the initial layer(or color?) ->
> plate mapping, it should be possible to re-apply contents of one or
> more RGB layer to the plates without re-mapping the entire projection
> (if that makes sense).
well, if you want some layers to do something special to some plates
you will have to map them. this does not mean re-doing your mapping,
just updating it a bit.
> Things like overprints and trapping can get very complicated, esp if
> the colors are not solid and/or you are mixing spot colors. Often
> fine-tuning is required. I would love to see automatic trapping
> (complicated!), but not without being able to manually tune the
> results
for instance using the (perpetual) upcoming iWarp tool on the plate
would a cool way to do thet, no?
--ps
founder + principal interaction architect
man + machine interface works
http://mmiworks.net/blog : on interaction architecture
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
