Why?

[Printficient]

I continue to see posts on certain methods being touted over other methods.  The question I have is is there a true understanding of what is trying to be accomplished and what is actually being accomplished?  I guess this has been on my mind for all of my career in this industry.  Product "X" works great for me.  No Product "X" sucks for me.  OK if I give you that premise that the same product works differently for 2 different people then my question is do they know why in either instance.  I have always felt that this industry has lacked education from vender to printer. 
A couple of good examples of this are "S" thread mesh and "One Hit" whites.  Also the myriad of coating methods that are out there. 
Is there a true benefit to one method over the other?  If so, what is it?  I have coated every way mentioned and some not mentioned.  I have run 5K pieces on a screen with one pass coat on the substrate side with no breakdown or pinholes.  Would I recommend this method?  Probably not.  It would depend on the knowledge base of the end user.
Sidebar:  When I say knowledge base I mean scientifically repeatable results with an understanding of the whole process of what is trying to be accomplished.
I have printed remarkable 4 color process on wood frames as well as roller frames.  On a Precision Oval as well as an MHM 4000.
I guess my point to this is I wish the industry would do a better job of educating to the "why"  It was the way I learned from the gurus I was lucky enough to have available to me.

[Frog]

I grew up with a similar complaint about "mechanics". The older they were, the more they tended to understand "cars" and internal combustion in general rather than merely the type they were mostly fixing. They understood more basic principles, and weren't thrown for a complete loss when something new popped up.

I still find that printers who started with the basics on a manual press usually have a better grasp of the entire printing process later on an automatic, and can usually much better troubleshoot a problem.

[Ross_S]

I don't think it's worth trying to figure out.  My opinion is there are multiple ways to achieve a desired result.  If you can print a one hit white and the customer is happy then so be it.  I say stick to what makes you money in the least amount of time with the least amount of headaches and call it a day.  That is why no 2 shops have the same results; we all do things differently and it's not worth trying to figure out other methods of madness when the one you currently use has made you successful.

[Homer]

as far as products, to me - a lot of it comes from salesmen tooting the horn of a product they themselves have never/ don't know how to use - or worse yet, a salesman that has never printed a single shirt or pulled a squeegie....hey young printer, struggling with getting ink to sheer? try a 110 mesh and see what happens...WOW sales guy, you know everything! thank you, sell me 20 more of these screens! and there you have an uneducated salesman molding a new print shop into a path that may not be the proper route...instead of trying to help solve the problem, they put a band aid on it....soon enough, this young print shop will develop their own ways of coating  too- round edge, 10 over 12, round edge, flip the screen 6 times, dry it twice then do the humpty-hump, bamn screens are coated....properly? prolly not, but screens are coated.


not directed at you sonny..I know you can print, sort of.

[GraphicDisorder]

If you want to be a different kind of sales person you certainly have that opportunity. You could set up a YouTube Channel and demo your X vs Y and explain why "you" think one is better than the other.

Trouble with most sales guys is they just want to get you on the phone and or come into your shop and pressure their way into a sale. You have the option to be different....

[3Deep]

Reading this post everyone is right and wrong in what they are saying, the right is it works in your shop for your customers, the wrong is telling some one else it will work in there shop with there customers.  We all try our best I'm sure to keep up with the forever changing technology in our industry spending lots of money on items that we didn't need long time ago and don't need now but just have to have it.  Sonny ask for the WHY? here is a simple answer to the why we do what we do, we see a very nice print from another shop and the first thing we all ask is how did you do that, what emulsion you use, what duro squeegee, what press,screen mesh, rollers/statics, inks, did you stand on one leg, did you hold your nuts in your left or right hand while you lined up screens etc because we all want our prints to look as best they can... that is your WHY in a nut shell

darryl

[blue moon]

I've brought this up before and am pretty confident here's what's going on.

If testing under the lab conditions, there is an absolute best method to get things done. This is a fact, not an opinion as it is so by definition. . .

Now the problem is, we are not running under the lab conditions so we have to deviate and will thus have a different best method. Think of it as a foundation. If it's slightly crooked, you'll have to adjust everything going on top of it to make the building straight. Taller you go, more chances of having problems.

Unfortunately many of us are not in ideal conditions so we jimmy and rig stuff to make it work. Great example is cold winter environment. Ppl find inks that work for them, they use coarser mesh and so on. These are workarounds that create a crooked foundation. Proper way is to get as close as possible to lab conditions which is what the inks are designed for. So if the ink description sheet says print at 72 degrees, warm up the platens and the ink so it is at the right temperature before printing. If it's too hot, find a way to keep the temp down. Yes I know this is expensive, but it's what the ink is designed to work at. If it's 120 in the shop and you are flashing, the ink temp might be 180 and it will gel in the screens and print different from what it's supposed to do. Controlling all the needed parameters is not cheap or easy, but for anybody putting in the effort to do so will find that once the foundation is right, adding pieces becomes much easier.

pierre

[mimosatexas]

I agree with the basic idea of this thread, but I have to disagree about there not being a best way to do something or objectively better tools to help you do it.  Sometimes some products really are objectively better in certain ways when the pros outweigh the cons.  I know as a manual printer S mesh is objectively better at getting ink through the screen with less effort (pressure etc) vs equivalent mesh counts of standard thickness mesh meaning I can print more detailed prints with less physical effort meaning I can print longer and get less tired and make more money.  The only con would be the relative fragility of the mesh, but that is something I can control for and the pros far outweigh this con.

I would say similar things about techniques and products like using a dip tank and a post exposure dunk tank and Glisten method coating and push stroke vs pull stroke and a host of other things.  I don't say these things because I randomly think they are better without having tried alternatives or considering that there may be multiple ways to skin a cat.  Objectively, their pros simply outweigh their cons based on my own testing and based on the conversations I have seen on this forum and others.  I think the "why" in these cases is obvious to anyone who has cared to look into them.

I also disagree wholly with what Ross said.  I think it is almost always worth the effort to become better at what you do, whether that means increasing efficiency or producing a better product.  If I was still printing the way I did even two years ago I would have quit simply due to the frustrations of being relatively shitty and slow at it.  Joining this forum and literally constantly testing out new methods has made both my process and final product MUCH better, and it is much more enjoyable to do as well, both because it is more efficient and because I have more pride in the final results.  I can see how someone who just buys all the fancy toys right out of the gate and gets workable results might not care much to improve for a while, but that isn't really a formula for success and I can't imagine how frustrating it would be to run a business that way when you would constantly be troubleshooting problems you didn't understand and having customers who were barely satisfied with whatever bandaided crap you sell them...

[Dottonedan]

In short, I'll give an example.  No manufacturer would suggest that 1 exposure time for all mesh coated all the same (1 side only), is "the best way" by far. But I have seen people do it and they have built a business up for over 15 years.  It works for them and it's a streamlined process. There are many reason not to do that, but those don't apply to these shops.

Some suppliers suggest you got to do x to get it to the optimum. But the (optimum needed) is based on something most don't do, such as 10-50,000 prints of one order/design in one production run. Negating the need for optimum or " proper".

[mimosatexas]

the exposure time questions always makes me roll my eyes.  I see answers like "2 minutes" as the whole response to that question ALL THE TIME on other forums.  I always try to post about the stouffer hard 7 exposure test and link to the strips: http://www.stouffer.net/using21step.htm. 

[Printficient]

These are all great responses.  Please note I am not asking about method but if the understanding of why what happened happened.  "S" thread to take an example is a good start.  "S" thread used as Mimosa uses it ie. high detail on a lower mesh count for ease of print (taking into account the emulsion's ability to bridge the open area and hold an edge) works due to the fact that the ink is deposited on the garment and detail opacity is easier to achieve.  The same "S" thread used on a lower mesh count to get a "one hit white" defeats the purpose as it allows too much ink down and what is thought to be none opacity is in actuality ink in the shirt not on the shirt.  Big areas of ink are hard to get opaque as the eye has more printed area to compare.
All I am saying is know the why something works in your shop.

[blue moon]

These are all great responses.  Please note I am not asking about method but if the understanding of why what happened happened.  "S" thread to take an example is a good start.  "S" thread used as Mimosa uses it ie. high detail on a lower mesh count for ease of print (taking into account the emulsion's ability to bridge the open area and hold an edge) works due to the fact that the ink is deposited on the garment and detail opacity is easier to achieve.  The same "S" thread used on a lower mesh count to get a "one hit white" defeats the purpose as it allows too much ink down and what is thought to be none opacity is in actuality ink in the shirt not on the shirt.  Big areas of ink are hard to get opaque as the eye has more printed area to compare.
All I am saying is know the why something works in your shop.

and the next question is, "How are you measuring that?"

pierre

[Printficient]

These are all great responses.  Please note I am not asking about method but if the understanding of why what happened happened.  "S" thread to take an example is a good start.  "S" thread used as Mimosa uses it ie. high detail on a lower mesh count for ease of print (taking into account the emulsion's ability to bridge the open area and hold an edge) works due to the fact that the ink is deposited on the garment and detail opacity is easier to achieve.  The same "S" thread used on a lower mesh count to get a "one hit white" defeats the purpose as it allows too much ink down and what is thought to be none opacity is in actuality ink in the shirt not on the shirt.  Big areas of ink are hard to get opaque as the eye has more printed area to compare.
All I am saying is know the why something works in your shop.

and the next question is, "How are you measuring that?"

pierre

Exactly!  Another question is "What" are you measuring?  Also, once again, "why" are you measuring?

[bimmridder]

Keep an eye open for an upcoming article by Joe Clarke. Much of it is overkill (I think he agrees with me on this) but some good info on HOW to measure some things.

[Printficient]

Keep an eye open for an upcoming article by Joe Clarke. Much of it is overkill (I think he agrees with me on this) but some good info on HOW to measure some things.

Great to hear.