Recommendations on grayscale percentages?

[nanshaw]

I'm not sure if this kind of question is allowed but I've scoured the internet and these forums for some guidance and haven't found any. 

Scenario:  I'm creating a planner for a professional printer (MIXAM).  I'm currently awaiting a proof copy but need to pre-order some before I get that proof.  My only concern is with the depth of saturation of the grayscale ink for this planner.  I've received a proof from the same printer on a previous version of this planner with a different size and it printed too dark for my liking.  I've since re-scaled that planner from a US Letter to an A5 and I've lowered all my grayscales.  I'm wondering if anybody has professional print experience with grayscale documents.  Very few images are used and are so small I'm not much concerned with that.  I'm looking specifically for swatch percentage for fill and stroke for text and for lines.  Here's what I've lowered it to:

Generally for all text fonts:  65% fill with 75% stroke at .2

Box outlines (remember this is a planner): 70% at .5 with .7 for header boxes

Inside box lines: 20% at .5

Lined pages: 30% at .5

Dot grid: 20% fill with no stroke

 

For those with experience designing for professional print are these swatches within what would be acceptable saturation levels for a grayscale document? Oh and I'm using CMYK. TIA 

[Old Bruce]

% of what? CMYK rich black or just the Black ink?

[thomaso]

For the lines and grays above 20% K I'd say it is a matter of taste, rather than of "acceptable". (For values under 20% K it might get risky, compare this thread about light grey in print)

For text I don't understand your idea that the applied stroke of 0.2 gets another gray then the text fill, especially for small text sizes like in a planer. (Maybe it's also a matter of 'special' taste?)

For the boxes / grid lines you might have more control if you differentiate brighter vs. darker lines with dashed lines of different settings and 100 K applied. This may have the advantage that their 100 K does not need to get rasterized for printing (which could be unpredictable especially for thin lines if you can't consider the used printing screen/grid).

[nanshaw]

I have it set to CMYK.  So that's rich black right?

[nanshaw]

8 minutes ago, thomaso said:

For text I don't understand your idea that the applied stroke of 0.2 gets another gray then the text fill, especially for small text sizes like in a planer. (Maybe it's also a matter of 'special' taste?)

I'm not sure why I originally designed it that way other than to get a crisper edge with a softer color in weird decorative fonts. So yeah, just a matter of taste in how it looked to me on screen.

[Oufti]

When you make a proof, you can also include in it some variations (e.g. one sample part probably a little too dark or too bold, another probably too light, and a third approximatively what you think is good). Thereafter, you can make an enlightened choice, depending on how each sample is rendered when printed… 

[thomaso]

1 hour ago, nanshaw said:

I'm currently awaiting a proof copy

6 minutes ago, Oufti said:

When you make a proof,

Note that a proof, depending on its technology, may not necessarily use any or the identical printing screen and/or paper as the final print production … and thus the proof might not be fully representative in particular for thin, gray (rasterized?) lines and their 'sensitive' visual impression.

[nanshaw]

12 minutes ago, Oufti said:

When you make a proof, you can also include in it some variations (e.g. one sample part probably a little too dark or too bold, another probably too light, and a third approximatively what you think is good). Thereafter, you can make an enlightened choice, depending on how each sample is rendered when printed… 

Oh that's an excellent idea moving forward.  Thanks for that!

[nanshaw]

Just now, thomaso said:

Note that a proof, depending on its technology, may not necessarily use any or the identical printing screen and/or paper as the final print production … and thus the proof might not be fully representative in particular for thin, gray (rasterized?) lines and their 'sensitive' visual impression.

This particular printer doesn't have "proofs" per-se.  Instead you can just order 1 copy at cost before bulk discounts.  They do say that they can't promise 100% consistency from a single print to a bulk print but that their goal is to be as consistent as possible in their processes.  So their recommendation is to order a single print and then order the bulk prints. I don't think they're changing their paper since it's technically not a "proof."  But I like the idea of doing different spreads in different variations to give me a better idea.