« it's liza with a zee | Main | things in life that i completely fail to understand #3 »
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834516c0669e2010534cf2cff970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference this week, i have mostly been...:
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
So, you happen to be a coated man. I am not sure how to take that.
Posted by: Bruno | 26 September 2008 at 10:29 PM
at the risk of sounding like an utter dim wit, what's the difference between coated and uncoated pantones?
Posted by: Martin | 28 September 2008 at 09:40 PM
Good question, Martin. Actually, it's the paper (rather than the ink) that's either coated (glossy) or uncoated (matt). The same colour would look different according to the paper it's printed on, which is why Pantone numbers are always qualified - traditionally* - with the letters C or U.
(*I say traditionally, because there are lots more variations these days.)
Posted by: davidthedesigner | 29 September 2008 at 04:29 PM
I think there's a bit of PMS 304/309 'thing' going on in the world - I'm over in Sydney and have specified PMS 304C for an annual report only this morning!
Posted by: fishface | 30 September 2008 at 12:43 PM