in: Orienteering; General;
| # Posted 2008-06-13 20:00:52 | |
| DaveG: | The Manitoba Orienteering Association is looking at printing options for the next years COC maps. We would like to be able to print maps with an in house printer or use a print shop service rather than using offset printed maps. What has been the experience of others in the following areas:
Printer technology - inkjet vs laser Printer resolution - does this make a real difference? Print quality Paper type - to avoid bagging what kind of paper works best (teslin etc) I saw several discussions in the archives but most were several years old so it would be good to get an up to date picture of map printing. |
| # Posted 2008-06-14 18:51:26 | |
| simmo: | IOF still recommends offset printing for major events. COC sounds to me like Canadian Orienteering Champs, so you really should look at offset.
For club events, digital is ok provided you check proofs before approving the print run. Grey (ie bare rock) can be a problem with digital - you may need to use a darker shade. Here in Western Australia we use a print shop (Worldwide or Snap) for club events - maps are generally ok. Plastic paper types are still not perfect - especially with digital printing. We print on minimum 110gsm paper (usually the nearest they have in stock is 140gsm) and put the maps in ziplock bags (there's a range of standard sizes, but you can also get specific sizes produced at reasonable cost). Finally, we use Corpse course setting software, which produces the .eps files required by the print shop - one file per course. Corpse website is: http://www.o-ware.com/index.html If using offset printed maps, Corpse has a plotter function. (Condes may have all these features - I don't know - haven't used it for years). Check the Orienteering Australia mapping page for good advice: http://orienteering.asn.au/technical/mapping/print... Don't forget the colour blind people, and always use PMS Purple (Cyan 43, Magenta 91) for course overprinting rather than the default 100% magenta. Sometimes colour blind people can't distinguish between areas of yellow and green on digitally printed maps. Refer to the colour table on the OA page referenced above. |
| # Posted 2008-06-15 14:05:40 | |
| Hawkeye: | Orienteering Tasmania has purchased its own laser printer (Xerox C4350 A3), and we are very pleased with it (approx $A5000, with bonus set of toner cartridges included); most recently used to print the maps for the final Australian WOC selection trial (detailed granite area at 1:15000). The maps weren't quite as good as the offset version, but as we didn't have enough of the offset-printed maps left, they were certainly good enough to not consider an offset print run. If the area you have in mind does not have a lot of rock detail, then digital will almost certainly be adequate, especially at 1:10000. A good inkjet printer will be as good as the laser print, and with the right paper (e.g. Canon HR101N), the ink is effectively waterproof, but although the capital outlay compared to a laser is low, the cost of ink and suitable paper is quite high, and the throughput is low.
We use 110gsm paper ($A20/500 A4, $A35/500A3), compared to $A35/$A55/200 for the Canon inkjet paper). We have experimented with plastic paper (e.g. picofilm), with good results, and we'll look at the possibility of using it for our next major competition (Australian 3 Day in 2009). In my opinion, use of PMS purple disadvantages most for the possible benefit of a few. One of the options digital printing provides is to print maps specifically for colour blind competitors. We generally use Condes for our course printing, and mostly just print straight from the software, but for major events, publishing software (e.g. Adobe Indesign) offers some advantages if you want to tailor the map to the course (e.g. shorter courses may fit an A4 sheet, but longer courses might require A3). Other significant advantages of digitally printed maps are that you don't have to worry about registration and lead times for printing are much shorter. |
| # Posted 2008-06-15 18:11:02 | |
| simmo: | IOF Map Commission's Print Tech project has detailed explanations of the different processes - and reaffirms that for the present, IOF events must use offset printed maps.
http://lazarus.elte.hu/mc/print-tech/index.html So if you are hoping to make the Canadian Champs (or Oz Easter 09) a WRE event, you'd have to use offset. If not WRE, then digital can be used. |
| # Posted 2008-06-15 18:27:40 | |
| TheInvisibleLog: | Yes, and the IOF is dominated by the large participation countries. With most of Australia's ageing orienteering fraternity needing 1:10,000 maps for granite country, and IOF rules requiring 1:15,000 for long distance, offset printing and overprinting, and spot PMS colours, any Australian IOF sanctioned granite event can only mean a significant cross-subsidy from non-elite competitors to pay for offset printed maps for elites. This was even an issue at the 2008 JWOC. National League events outside IOF rules will almost always be forced to printing compromises... 1:10,000 scales, CMYK offset, laser printing. Tasmania's choice for the recent NOL and selection trials was inevitable. |
| # Posted 2008-06-15 19:27:34 | |
| jjcote: | In my opinion, use of PMS purple disadvantages most for the possible benefit of a few.
Please elaborate. Is there a different color that you feel would be a better choice for non-colorblind competitors? Do people with normal color vision have difficulty seeing PMS purple? Or is there some difficulty in using PMS purple that would be easier if a different color were used? |
| # Posted 2008-06-16 02:48:50 | |
| TheInvisibleLog: | This may be what was being suggested. On maps with significant areas of grey and green, it can be harder for normal sighted individuals to see PMS purple. I remember this being an issue once on an older map of terrain that is part of the 2009 WMOC map suite. I can't find an example OCAD file to check the numbers, but i seem to remember some examples of extra black being added to the CMYK colour mix when trying to simulate PMS purple. Perhaps this was because CMYK simulations of purple never fully succeed and this departure from closest match was believed to be preferable to an ersatz PMS purple. |
| # Posted 2008-06-16 03:45:21 | |
| cedarcreek: | As a normal-sighted person (color-wise), I can't stand CMYK purples. They're too dark, and seem to obscure a lot of the detail. I prefer 100% magenta for the "overprint" on CMYK maps. Simmo's objection to 100% magenta is the first I've seen related to color-blindness. |
| # Posted 2008-06-16 03:50:49 | |
| cedarcreek: | Here's three old threads related to this.
I see that J-J recommends a little black in the magenta. I didn't remember that. How much black? |
| # Posted 2008-06-16 04:05:56 | |
| TheInvisibleLog: | Maybe my memory was of black in magenta... That makes more sense. |
| # Posted 2008-06-16 05:08:16 | |
| Hawkeye: | We seem to be straying a little from DaveG's original question, but it is an interesting topic, especially as the IOF has just started a review of ISOM2000 with a view to a revision applicable from 2012.
As regards purple vs shades of magenta, different printers give different results; I guess the simplest option is to try a few combinations with competitors with normal colour vision and some with various forms of colour impairment and seek a compromise colour. One CMYK combination that looks OK is 30C 100M 15Y - not as good as straight magenta to my eyes, but maybe OK for colour blind competitors. The IOF mapping standard is not quite as prescriptive as Simmo suggests. ISOM2000 states "This method (i.e digital printing) will only be acceptable when line quality, legibility and colour appearance are of the same quality as the traditional spot colour printed map", although the IOF mapping commission takes a predictably hard line on the issue. I'm not sure that WREs are classed as IOF events in the same category as WOC/World Cup races, so the equivalent quality criterion could be applied for WREs (the Australian WOC trial I referred to was a WRE, and the IOF event adviser obviously had no problems with the quality of the map). For sure, offset-printed maps are marginally better than digitally printed maps, but in my opinion not so much better that they outweigh the advantages offered by digital printing. If the differences are only apparent under a magnifying glass in an office in Helsinki or Oslo, I suggest they are not quite as real as the mapping commission suggests. |
| # Posted 2008-06-16 07:11:01 | |
| mjd: | "Sometimes colour blind people can't distinguish between areas of yellow and green on digitally printed maps."
it's not just digitally printed maps: light green and light yellow can be very hard to read on a lot of maps. Hawkeye: What colour did you use for the overprinting of the Tas Sprint Champs? it looks very different to Pittwater the previous day, and different again to the saturday event! as a colourblind competitor i prefer the Stringy Bark or Pittwater overprinting. |
| # Posted 2008-06-16 08:23:15 | |
| jjcote: | As a colorblind competitor, I'll note that it's easier for me to distinguish between light green and light yellow when they are dot screens of full color ink (as with spot color offset printing) than with the essentially continuous field of lighter color ink that you typically get with inkjet/laser prints. In a sense, this is perverse: the limitations of spot color printing that necessitate the comparatively coarse dot screen make it easier. And it is important: I have had at least one memorable case of heading off across a rough field, and having it turn nasty on the other side. I was disgusted with the mapping until it was pointed out to me that the "other side of the field" was in fact an area of light green. The two colors, side by side, in broad daylight, were indistinguishable to me. (Not all laser printed maps have this problem, it depends on how the colors are tweaked.) |
| # Posted 2008-06-16 09:31:06 | |
| robplow: | Hawakeye's point about different printers is essential. It is not the numbers that matter but the colours that come out of the printer. The IOfF put out a (offset) test print a couple of years ago - I try to match the colours on that rather following prescriptions for CMYK settings. The purple on that is definitely not pure magenta. I never understood why IS(S)OM recommends 100% magenta - it is not a close approximation of PMS purple which is specified for offset. personally I prefer 100% magenta, but that is not the point. I am not colour blind.
A colour blind friend of mine suggests something like c10-20, m80-90 Also the contrast with the brown is important (at least on maps with lots of brown). I find the darker purples are harder to see in heavy brown so part of the problem is ensuring the brown is not too dark. In particular make sure there is not too much magenta in the brown (as this is the major component of the purple) - I tend to reduce the magenta and increase the black (but not too much) compared to the IOF recommendations for brown. But it varies markedly depending on the printer - I have to use very different settings for brown between my Epson and Canon printers. |
| # Posted 2008-06-16 17:40:16 | |
| simmo: | There's an interesting letter in the latest ACT newsletter from a very experienced orienteer (but one I suspect who has little interest in mapping), pointing out the deteriorating quality of orienteering maps. He thinks that both legibility and paper quality are getting worse. I have to agree with him. The trend towards virtually instant digital printing means that much less quality control takes place. When an organiser/setter gets their maps printed a few days before an event - and at the same time they are also worrying about a myriad of other details (SI, control descriptions, managing late entries, placing controls, event logistics, etc, etc) means they don't have time for careful proofing of the map. And many (probably a majority) setters and controllers are not mapping experts.
With offset, that's already been done for them by the mapper and/or their club/association's mapping expert - all they should have to worry about regarding the map is the course overprinting. |
| # Posted 2008-06-18 03:24:57 | |
| TheInvisibleLog: | With offset, after the first major event that can justify the map printing in offset, the terrain changes much faster than the existing map. New tracks appear. Vegetation changes (green on older maps has a new meaning after 7 years of drought). Mining companies resume land (on two of our maps). In rapidly changing areas around regional towns such as Bendigo, its much nicer to have the map updated and printed digitally than it is to keep using old offset maps. Sure they paper is not always the same quality. Sure the printing is not offset standard, but when done well, most won't notice the difference without a magnifying glass. But the detail on the map is more reliable. For areas that are moderately stable, our compromise if process offset print runs of about 800. But that is wasting money in rapidly changing areas. |
| # Posted 2008-06-18 07:45:50 | |
| gruver: | Can't remember when the last offset print was done in NZ. Possibly World Masters in 2000. Usual numbers for major events measured in hundreds not thousands, forests that go through the complete lifecycle in 25yrs, ability to print courses simultaneously, all dictate digital. Even for WREs. Don't know if this complies, many decisions seem to ignore the realities of small countries so perhaps they didn't notice... |
You must be logged in to add a message