On Sat, 24 Mar 2001 11:36:55 -0500 Gordon Tassi (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
> Rather than fight the
> repro house, I would suggest you use the Noritsu place to get the print from
> disk. However, I would try to work a deal with the lab to allow you to run
> on your disk to be able to determine the tweaks necessary to get the prints
> you want them to be. You may have to give them disks that have different
> and contrasts, etc. from what you would use if you were going to print them
> own printer. This way you would have a "methodology" that would provide the
> optimal Noritsu print.
I gave them a profiled 60Mb TIFF and what I got back was very good and very
close to the screen image, with no tweaking required at all. Colour purity,
density and sharpness were all perfectly fine for repro, and I would have been
very happy with it apart from this unfortunate tendency to posterise pale
graduated tones. Not nice on skin tones, which are a major consideration for
me. I discussed this with the lab, and they looked crestfallen and said it's a
disappointing limitation of this particular Noritsu machine which they are not
very happy about, since it just cost them 10K GBP. They were hoping for better.
They do Kodak dye-sub as well, which shows no posterisation but trashes image
sharpness, and isn't as accurate WRT colour.
There must be a more evolved output process out there somewhere, but I haven't
found it yet. I think I am very picky : even horribly expensive Iris prints
I've seen have been a big disappointment when I've looked closely, inferior to
a 300GBP Epson in most respects.
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info &