"He who marches out of step hears another drum." ~ Ken Kesey
At this point I believe the alcohol does not remove the coating, but removes the oil and fingerprints that may be left on the coating that could interfere with the inks ability to adhere.On the few garments that it may actually remove the coating, I'd guess it would be on sport wear (think Columbia) with something like Nik Wax that you can re-apply--but if you were to do that as a service with printing, you'd likely want to charge much more than you do to print...Love to hear from someone who 'really knows' though.
Well, the quote from Printwear definitely says it removes some of the coating, not fingerprints and their related oils.
We are preparing some material for it right now.Just to make sure, I just did a few test just then.At first it seem it still is water-proof, but after all the alcohol or whatever we are using has been washed off. The water started to drip through.The photo shows the water is dripping through.
Are you sure that an untreated jacket of the same type wouldn't do the same?
Quote from: Frog on November 05, 2015, 11:42:18 PMAre you sure that an untreated jacket of the same type wouldn't do the same?Our non-water-proof fabric are too thin to stop the water penetrating the fabric.But for this project, we could not get our ink to stick onto the material after the scratch test. We later found out the customer requested water-proof fabric....Come to think about it, what inks do they use to print umbrellas? I would love to know.
I had actually meant checking another of your "waterproofed" jackets that you had not yet prepped with alcohol for comparison of how much protection was lost.The umbrellas that I have done were long ago, but were done with a catalyzed ink that was then air dried. Their shape, of course, did not permit a trip down the tunnel of heat to speed things up.
'did not read the posts, just wanted to let Frog know that his misspelling of repellent is killing me! It's in the title and keeps hanging on the front page as ppl answer. . . pierre