Ed #3 Stochastic / Conventional

In many applications, however, stochastic screens shine. They are typically the best way to print textiles and other materials that are plagued by moirés. FM screening may also be best for handling projects with more than four colors or a number of touchplates, and those that feature charts, fine rules and screened type. Tritones, quadtones (see Ed #2) and conventional duotones also can show to advantage because shadow areas tend to be more open and details more crisp. And once printing and prepress systems are brought up to the required standards, stochastic screens can produce the most consistent results, ensuring that the last piece in the run—or a reprint—looks exactly like the first piece off the press.

But while stochastic screens offer a number of advantages over conventional screens, at the moment at least, the differences can sometimes be difficult to see, especially when compared to 175 or 200-line screens. Most printers agree that stochastic stacks up best against 150-line screens, where there’s often a perceptible increase in quality. Beyond that point, top quality conventional printing can often look every bit as good as the newer technology, even when it comes to capturing fine lines and other high-resolution details.

There also are efforts to marry the two. Sometimes the yellow ink is printed using stochastic screens, which helps to reduce the risk of moirés and produce smoother green tones. Sometimes midtones may be printed using conventional plates, while highlights and shadow tones are printed using stochastic processes. In other cases, the line ruling of conventional screens is varied. The goal is to gain the benefits of stochastic screens without the time and expense associated with implementing fully stochastic processes or losing the advantage of conventional printing. Because the two types of screens behave differently on-press, however, controlling the color can be difficult, and changes in one area can have unintended consequences in another.

In the near future, there’s likely to be room for all three approaches— conventional, stochasstic, and hybrid. There’s not a single, undisputed champion. Instead of looking for a winner, it’s probably better to think in terms of having more tools to use, and new ways to achieve the results you’re after. We all win. And no matter what the future brings, it is certain to be more colorful and true-to-life than ever before.