Trouble with screen shots?

[geoff-h -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA]

 Andrea Kenner wrote to express problems with rerpducing
 screenshots in her manuals: <<When we print the original
 copy of our manuals on our HP 4 printer (600 dpi), the
 screen shots look fine. The problem arises when we try to
 reproduce our manuals on a high-speed photocopier.  The
 screen shots in the resulting copies are barely readable.>>

 Is this the DocuTech curse I've heard about? <grin> Part of
 the problem is undoubtedly the fact that photocopiers
 almost always darken up the copies, and that can muddy up
 most types of images; lightening the images results in
 overly light text. (The reverse can also happen.) A good
 copier operator might still be able to correct the problem,
 but don't bet on it: the difference between the scanning
 resolution of the copier and the output resolution of the
 printer creates moires and other ghastly problems wherever
 you have shades of grey. You could possibly fix this by
 doing some tests and adjusting how you process the images
 in Paintshop, but that's a lot of work and won't guarantee
 success.

 A better solution may be to avoid the copier in the first
 place. Photocopying is only really economical for short
 print runs; for long runs, economics dictate the use of
 offset or web printing with metal printing plates. In
 between, most good printers offer the use of "paper"
 printing plates, which are substantially cheaper than metal
 plates, though of lower quality, and are often
 cost-competitive with photocopying. The actual break-even
 point will depend on your local printers and how the cost
 their jobs. If one printer can't do the job for you, shop
 around.

 Here's another trick that may work: output the print jobs
 to _disk_ (not to the printer) using a postscript printer
 driver, and send that file to a typesetting bureau to
 output for you at 1200 to 2400 dpi resolution; specify film
 if you want to go to offset printing, or "paper positives"
 if you still want to use the copier. That will require some
 troubleshooting and testing, but it works very well for
 many people. You can do something similar using Acrobat:
 some advertising agencies do all their color printing this
 way.

 <<...a printing vendor... advised us to convert our
 documents to PageMaker and then to a PostScript file that
 could be imported into their printing system.  However, ...
 one of us did a brief trial of PageMaker and found it quite
 difficult to use.>>

 _Any_ software that outputs good Postscript code will meet
 your needs. Quark is another common choice, but not for
 long technical manuals; Frame is yet another, and is
 particularly good for technical manuals. I've never heard
 anyone call PageMaker difficult to use, let alone "quite
 difficult"... I learned it in an hour and was "expert" in
 less than a week. Maybe you picked the wrong person to
 evaluate it? Maybe they didn't read the tutorial?

 <<Up until now, the printer has done the PageMaker
 conversion for us, and has made numerous last-minute
 changes to the final copy, at great cost to us.>>

 Yech. That's the most expensive way you could choose to do
 it, and is always a source of errors. (You may get lucky
 once or twice, but not often.) The whole purpose of desktop
 publishing is to avoid this specific problem... you do the
 proofing yourself. I'm not surprised you want to change.

 --Geoff Hart     @8^{)}     geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca
 Disclaimer: Speaking for myself, not FERIC.

 TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot-  Send commands
   to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
  Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/  or search and
browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html