[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: claycoat paper
- To: BOOK_ARTS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: claycoat paper
- From: Darryl Baird <rosebud@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 16:05:22 -0600
- Message-id: <199706212058.NAA15165@SUL-Server-2.Stanford.EDU>
- Organization: http://www.why.net/users/rosebud/
- Sender: "The Book Arts: binding, typography, collecting" <BOOK_ARTS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> the mags that used clay coated paper gave the best transfers.
The concept here is absorption (or not) of printing ink. The
higher-gloss, claycoated paper stocks don't soak up the ink as much,
leaving a clearer, crisper "edge" to the halftone dot and producing a
lighter "tone". (A concept also know as "dot gain") There are probably
many, many coated stocks available from suppliers to the printing trade.
I've found some of these papers good to print on when using lasers or
the Alps printer, but oddly enough they don't do that well with the
standard (I had an HP 560) ink-jet printers. The inks seem to run. I
suppose the paper needs a small amount of absorption to "hold" the inks.
Plus ink-jet ink seems to have a very low viscosity; it doesn't "puddle"
like printing ink.
Hammermill "LaserPrint" paper is a fine product; it lightly coated and
very smooth. These combined virtues leave extremely clean type and
images with better definition. It isn't, though, a very attractive book
paper. I'm working with a Mohawk "Superfine" stock right now, it seems
to be doing well in different uses.
Anyway, clay-coated stock "transfers" so well because the ink is
actually on top of the paper surface...easily tranferrable.