🚀 go-pugleaf

Chuq wrote:
> I think an even more important problem is that the person using the printer
> and software doesn't pay any attention to the technological limits of what
> they're working with. I will posit that if you pay any attention at all, you
> can generate output on a laserprinter that is perfect acceptable in a
> commercial printing environment...

Even in low volumes, where you're reproducing with a photocopier, there are
things you can do to help or hurt.

Chuq mentioned not using tiny type, like 6 pt.  I'd say that if you even
try to use 10 pt the results are going to be marginal.  I've generally
encouraged people to use 11/13 for the body text of reports and such; that
lets them use 9/11 for footnotes.  (You can live with the 9 pt for small
amounts of text.)  Going up from 10 to 11 may jump at you at first, but
if you're generating the typical 6.5" line (8.5" paper with 1" margin), the
lines are too long at 10 pt anyway.

> >...A friend of mine has a 300dpi laserprinter
> >that generates beautiful output.  Run this through a photocopy machine,
> >(even a big Kodak one, which has been the best I've found) and it looks
> >pretty sad.

Then get the copier fixed!  In many cases, one step of photocopying will
actually *improve* the quality.  Reason: it tends to smooth out some of the
jaggies just a little bit and make them less noticeable, particularly on
italics (where you've got lots of sloping strokes).

Another thing you can do with a fancy copier is a modest reduction.  For
example, generate the output on regular 8.5x11 with 11 or 12 pt text, then
photo-reduce.  Reducing the 11" dimension to 8.5" (rotating as you copy) is
a 77% factor; it increases the effective dot spacing to almost 400 dpi; the
line length and type size fit better with one another; the result is easier
to handle.
-- 
Dick Dunn      UUCP: {ncar,nbires}!ico!rcd           (303)449-2870
   ...A friend of the devil is a friend of mine.