Talk:Halftone

message: I think the article could be improved by clarifying that DPI refers to the resolution of the rendering of halftone dots and not to PPI or any other type of resolution. For instance I do not think that it is clear that Laser Printer 300DPI refers the fineness of the dots being drawn and not to the digital file being printed.
97.75.161.222 (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  dpi clarification

message: While I very much enjoy and benefit from the technical discussion, below, in my confusion I'd thought that this talk page's purpose was for writers to discuss the merits of the current wiki page.  This writer, for example, longs for a definition or three of "halftone," a definition that will precede the descriptions of "halftoning" that dominate the wiki page.
Walter Dufresne 20:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk pages can also be used for relevant general questions about the subject.  Such questions often help improve articles as much as pointed critiques, as they show the gaps in the article's current explanations. --jacobolus (t) 10:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  talk page purpose 

message: The page does a wonderful job of defining, at length and in detail, such compelling processes as "halftoning."  This seems good.  I miss reading any kind of definition of a slightly different thing, the "halftone" of the page's title.
What is a halftone?  How might we define such a thing?  Is it possible to write a working definition of "halftone"?  
Walter Dufresne 17:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - something is missed in this article. An actual definition of "halftone", the names derivation, the invention and history of the process. This article seems to be written backwards from the modern process and doesn't seem to dig very deep. Needs a little work. Fountains of Bryn Mawr 04:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  seeking a working definition of "halftone" 

message: I have just completed a missing title in the references, but I'm not sure it is correct:
Twyman, Michael. Printing 1770-1970: an illustrated history of its development and uses in England. Eyre & Spottiswoode, London 1970.
I noticed the title was missing. Library of Congress has only two titles by this author in the year of 1970; this one and Lithography, 1800-1850: the techniques of drawing on stone in England and France and their application in works of topography.
I made an educated guess (that section deals with printing, not litography), but I'm not sure this is correct. Could someone confirm?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miguel Vieira (talk • contribs) 21:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing title in references 

message: In Penrose Annual 1928 page 93, Stephen Horgan describes the "Shanty Town" as the first highlight halftone published in the Daily Graphic. Can some one confirm that Steinway Hall in Manhattan image is in fact a halftone and not perhaps some other process such as photogravure.
JHM  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnhenrymartin (talk • contribs) 10:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  image described as the first halftone 

message: Concerning the claim that the Steinway Hall in Manhattan was the 1st halftone photo published in a paper in 1873's NY Daily Graphic, is this from a reliable source. Every source I have ran into, other than LIFE's "100 Photographs That Changed the World", has said the first printing was the 1880 printing in the NY Daily Graphic of a "Shanty Town". Is there a way to get a better scan of that page to show the publishing date? Could it be that LIFE has propagated this entire claim, since every other source says the 1880 as the date, and the 7 year gap between the two seems suspicious? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.68.221.173 (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Relying on the 2003 text LIFE's "100 Photographs That Changed the World" is risky. Until a 'first' halftone is verified in more than one reliable authoritative source, the current illustration captioned "The first printed photo using a halftone in an American periodical, December 2, 1873" is misleading (is it actually a letterpress image?) and thus should be kept out of the article, and so what if it is the first 'American' halftone when Germany or Canada were first? The LIFE publications are a rehash of older magazine articles and are journalistic, US-centric, and not scholarly. After exhaustive searching I too can find no claim for a first letterpress halftone in the major texts on photo process and industrial printing other than for the Stephen Horgan's single-line halftone image, 'Shantytown', (cited in Meggs, but—be aware—it's a claim made by Horgon in his own Horgan, Stephen H (1913). Horgan's half-tone and photomechanical processes. Inland Printer Co, Chicago) which appeared in the New York Daily Graphic in 1880—it's reproduced in numbers of publications so why not replace the existing 'Steinway Hall' pic with that? It must be out of copyright. As to 'Steinway Hall' preceding it, Terresa McIntosh, 'W. A. Leggo and G. E. Desbarats: Canadian Pioneers in Photomechanical Reproduction'. In History of Photography, vol. 20, no. 2 (Summer 1996), p. 146 pushes for acceptance of the Leggo process as the first halftone in a newspaper, the Canadian Illustrated News, October 1869, though it was an intaglio print...see:  Notman, creator of the first halftone at Google Arts & Culture Jamesmcardle(talk) 03:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference issue with 1st printed halftone photo 

message: "Where continuous tone imagery contains an infinite range of colors or greys, the halftone process reduces visual reproductions to a binary image that is printed with only one color of ink. This binary reproduction relies on a basic optical illusion—that these tiny halftone dots are blended into smooth tones by the human eye. At a microscopic level, developed black and white photographic film also consists of only two colors, and not an infinite range of continuous tones. For details, see film grain."
I find this confusing and even self-contradictory. If one wants to get picky about it, even a "continuous-tone" image made from pigment or dye (eg, a Rembrandt) comprises discrete molecules of the coloring agent, and cannot be truly said to be "continuous". It simply looks continuous to the eye. If film grain is invisible to the eye, then the image is, for all practical purposes, "continuous".
And as for "one color of ink"... A fine-grain color photographic print appears "continuous", but is printed with only three ink colors, each a primary. 
"Just as color photography evolved with the addition of filters and film layers, color printing is made possible by repeating the halftone process for each subtractive color — most commonly using what is called the "CMYK color model". [2] The semi-opaque property of ink allows halftone dots of different colors to create another optical effect — full-color imagery.[1]"
Why does the writer use "semi-opaque"? I think he meant "The near-transparency of ink in thin layers allows the printing primaries to produce a wide range of colors." It also should be pointed out that color half-toning is generally design to minimize primary overlap, thus rendering the issue of transparency or opaqueness moot.
Regardless, these paragraphs need work. The writer has not properly thought through what he's trying to say. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Work on it, please.  And cite sources if you can.  Let us know here if you need help. Dicklyon (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Yep, sounds somewhere between misleading and wrong. Feel free to rewrite those paragraphs altogether if you can. –jacobolus (t) 21:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Do these items need rethinking and rewriting?

message: the example picture would not appear the same as the gradient beside it, this might be confusing
76.102.137.73 (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  poor picture 

message: The article explains what a halftone is but never explains how it is made except to vaguely cite that a screen is used.  An explanation of how the screen, which we can presume has holes of all equal size, creates dots of unequal size woudl be useful in this article.--23.119.205.88 (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Half tone process not explained

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Halftoningcolor.svg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 12, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-07-12. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Halftoningcolor.svg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Halftone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120223175031/http://www.drhalftone.com:80/Lau_Consulting_Inc./Halftoning/Halftoning.html to http://www.drhalftone.com/Lau_Consulting_Inc./Halftoning/Halftoning.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060918123740/http://www.engr.uky.edu/%7edllau/Halftone/index.html to http://www.engr.uky.edu/~dllau/Halftone/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the section Multiple screens and color halftoning, the measure of Screen Angle is defined as being "measured in degrees clockwise from a line running to the left (9 o'clock is zero degrees)", yet farther down (near the See also section) the picture shows angles measured counter-clockwise with 3 o'clock being zero. Which is correct??
Thanks! WesT (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification on differing definitions 

message: May I propose that this article, given its content, would be more correctly titled 'Photomechanical reproduction'  with a redirect from Halftone? 'Halftone' is too narrow, and really most of the article deals with the problem of the translation of photographs, whether emulsion or digital, to ink...i.e. photomechanical reproduction as it is broadly known. Such a change will give the article better scope and allay the frustration of finding that searching the common term photomechanical reproduction on Wikipedia currently leads down a weird but intriguing rabbit hole to Photomechanical effect. I'll of course hold off for a suitable duration for others' opinions before making such a move, but I feel strongly that it should be done. Thank you for considering this suggestion.  Jamesmcardle(talk) 01:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's start by making Photomechanical reproduction a redirect to Halftone.  When I do, your red links will turn blue.  Not sure how you got to Photomechanical effect; autocomplete in the search box?  Dicklyon (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you , that would be good to start with and save some frustrated searching. Yes finding Photomechanical effect was probably due to autocomplete in the search box.   Jamesmcardle(talk) 02:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at WP:AT, and if you still think that moving to the other title could be a win, use the process at WP:RM to propose it and make your case here.  I doubt that I could support it.  Dicklyon (talk) 02:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, 'Halftone' is a more common, 'everyday' term but it is a specific technology within 'photomechanical reproduction'. Maybe you'd support a 'photomechanical reproduction' article that is more encompassing of the big subject, with a link to the 'halftone' specifics? Jamesmcardle(talk) 03:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You could write a section such as ==Other photomechanical reproduction technologies== and then we can discuss how we like it and whether it merits a split or re-org/move. Dicklyon (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: An eminently sensible suggestion. Shall do. Jamesmcardle(talk) 06:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggesting 'Halftone' moves to 'Photomechanical reproduction'