Comments on: Inspired by TCFT: We are going to Mash it up; How did we print it? http://www.upsl.info/wp/2007/07/19/inspired-by-tcft-we-are-going-to-mash-it-up-how-did-we-print-it/ Prepress Service and Equipment Wed, 08 Sep 2010 08:15:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1 By: John Turner http://www.upsl.info/wp/2007/07/19/inspired-by-tcft-we-are-going-to-mash-it-up-how-did-we-print-it/#comment-4177 John Turner Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:26:43 +0000 http://www.upsl.info/wp/2007/07/19/inspired-by-tcft-we-are-going-to-mash-it-up-how-did-we-print-it/#comment-4177 I am a bit puzzled why your expensive and poorly-recyclable Pressure Sensitive Adhered, gloss-laminated cutsheet mostly becomes offcut on this project. Your 15 x 20 inch PSA cutsheet is 300 sq inches, yet your eight 3 x 5 inch labels use less than 120 sq inches from each sheet. It would seem that you could fit at least a 4x4 pattern of labels onto the sheet, doubling the utilization to sixteen labels per sheet. Your printshop could have guillotined the stacked sheets to produce 3x5 inch cuts directly (radiusing the corners then acheived by beltsanding the stacked cuts); or perhaps they could have made up a new 4x4 knifeboard for their cutting press (that could then be thriftily utilized for similar projects). Could it be that when contronted with a nonrecurring setup cost for a new knifeboard, you opted *not* to conserve over a hundred pounds of difficult-to-recycle paper? Truly your labels are a lesson in economics/ecology. PS Did your printshop get an ugliness on half the edge of each label from that self-sabotaging doodling between the ups? I am a bit puzzled why your expensive and poorly-recyclable Pressure Sensitive Adhered, gloss-laminated cutsheet mostly becomes offcut on this project.

Your 15 x 20 inch PSA cutsheet is 300 sq inches, yet your eight 3 x 5 inch labels use less than 120 sq inches from each sheet.

It would seem that you could fit at least a 4×4 pattern of labels onto the sheet, doubling the utilization to sixteen labels per sheet.

Your printshop could have guillotined the stacked sheets to produce 3×5 inch cuts directly (radiusing the corners then acheived by beltsanding the stacked cuts); or perhaps they could have made up a new 4×4 knifeboard for their cutting press (that could then be thriftily utilized for similar projects).

Could it be that when contronted with a nonrecurring setup cost for a new knifeboard, you opted *not* to conserve over a hundred pounds of difficult-to-recycle paper?

Truly your labels are a lesson in economics/ecology.

PS Did your printshop get an ugliness on half the edge of each label from that self-sabotaging doodling between the ups?

]]>