🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <88@sopwith.UUCP>, snoopy@sopwith.UUCP (Snoopy) writes:
> In article <10322@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes:

> |I'm getting real tired of seeing books, forms, and ad's in magazines
> |set with a laser printer instead of a phototypesetter.

> I don't think the laserprinters themselves are necessarily to blame for
> the cases of lowered quality.  Sometimes the software driving them doesn't
> take advantage of the resolution available.  Sometimes an advertiser will
> *want* an obviously low resolution output to make it look more "computery"
> to an audience used to associating very low resolution with computers.

Just having the choice or 300 dpi vs. 2650 dpi means you have to make
another decision.  We have been proofing our products (UNIX pocket
references) on a laser printer for about 3 years.  This is a real
improvement over our previous methods.  We still typeset all real
products but use other methods for advertising material, software
manuals and class notebooks.

For example, we just completed a new catalog.  It is printed on
fairly inexpensive paper (50# book) and the laser print looks fine
for most of it.  The only problem was with screens (gee, the original
subject that started this discussion).  Rather than typeset the whole
book on a Linotronic we just pasted in the screens (only 3) and
the overall quality is very good.

Some of our advertising material is set on the laser printer and
then reduced to make it look decent.  It is always a compromise
between cost, appearance and time invested (we send out the 
Linotronic work).
-- 
Phil Hughes, SSC, Inc. P.O. Box 55549, Seattle, WA 98155  (206)FOR-UNIX
    uw-beaver!tikal!ssc!fyl or uunet!pilchuck!ssc!fyl or attmail!ssc!fyl