Digital BW, The Print

Thanks Roy. I guess I worded that badly. What I had in mind actually
was fixing the dot size at only one, usually the smallest, as an
option, rather than a set. Then would make up for lesser dot coverage
with multiple channels of K to get d'max and fill in. Am I wrong in
assuming that one could then put maximum ink down with 100% limits for
papers that soak it up, like uncoated ones, while still limiting other
channels and partitioning across the scale? Or would the mechanical
aspects of that smaller dot end up being the equivalent of reducing
limits anyway and counteract the effect?

Regards
Duane



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington"
<roy@...> wrote:
>
> 
> Duane,
> 
> The set of dotsizes applies for all the channels on a page, so there
is no variation
> per channel.  I really don't think you'd find much benefit messing
around with
> lots of different dotsizes.
> 
> Roy
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@...m, "dlruckus"
<dlruckus@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Roy.
> > Any chance selectable dot size per channel could be used with QTR in
> > that context? I've often thought that utilizing the multi BO concept
> > Paul is working with here could quite possibly be of use with uncoated
> > art papers. Perhaps a 2K approach could even be used with some of the
> > older machines.
> > 
> > Regards
> > Duane
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington"
> > <roy@> wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > I think one of the advantages of Paul's multi-eboni approach is that
> > he can keep the
> > > ink limits of the individual channels low enough to stay in the
> > small dot range but
> > > still get to dMax because he has multiple channels firing.
> > > 
> > > Roy
> > >
> >
>