The plan: using the digital scans of the “captures” from m13, soft proof the complete set.

A quick think about ontology, or: what is the relation between the “captures” and their configuration? Keeping it simple, something like m13s0, where the s refers to “set”, and 0 the instance of the set; the 0th instance means they are ordered as “captured”, and this this leave the door open to do other ordering (i.e. combinations/permutations). On a more practical level, this allows me to use this schema to keep track of the working files and make some sense of the inconsiderable accumulation of artifacts.

Comparing a digital plot with the “wets”, a few things come to mind. The “wets are highly saturated, the proof less so. A quick check of the “drys” and they are highly saturated — it wasn’t just the water bolstering the saturation. Some adjusting required if the digital soft proof is to be the same. Forgot to set the printer profile in the color management.

Dammit. Two digital images are wrong… they got swapped, somehow. Good that I took a photograph of the “wets” as a contingency against this happening. Fixed.

Yes, its a small and subtle change, but it keeps the integrity of the work.

Placing 36 images in Illustrator is tedious. But it was done. And it does give a quick impression of how this set looks as a whole in the digital world.

Apart from the two digitals that are swapped vis-à-vis the “wets”, the spacing is not quite right. Too much. Unbalanced.

If I want to do more with these in the digital, and also apply to other sets, some automation will be required. Therefore, a trip down the murky world of Illustrator scripting awaits… or I use another application to do something similar.

Note to self: when placing images, Illustrator will bloat as it embeds it (even through it is doing linking and not embedding) unless saving the Illustrator file and clearing the “Create PDF Compatible File” option.

comments powered by Disqus