I’m shooting for information (for myself) as well as the benefit of other shop owners and screen room managers/operators.
Who here has a Laser to Screen now? How long? What are your pro’s and cons with it?
So far, over the years of CTS being in play, it started out as WAX and had been (with various brand names) being the sole type of output for a long time. Was came with some pretty heavy issues early on, but the’ve come a long way since then and have it down pretty well now. Then, M&R came in with their initial machines that were not all that great, using Epson print heads, so they quickly dump Epson and went with another that worked out exceptionally well for them. Since then, they have fine tuned the WET ink application and became a major player in CTS. Wax, then stepped up to the plate and had made some improvements and was gained some ground. Whats better WAX or WET INK still provides for good debate. Now comes along the LASER to screen.
Laser seems to be very promising...and I’m sure the WAX and the WET INK manufacturers are looking into how they can build and improve on their own LASER to screen. I mean, why not? It’s coming, I’m sure. I predict it here and now.
When I first saw that Laser to screen at the Show in Cali, It looked great. We all know there is far more to it that first look. We need the details. What’s it’s drawbacks? It’s +’s.
What do we know on the surface?
PRICE: Was pretty pricey initially and that price I think has come down now (competitively speaking) with WAX and WET INK machines.
SPEED: When I first saw it, my first thought was. SLOW. Not super slow. Remember how Epson film printers print? About the same.
QUALITY: From the start, they are off to the races with quality. I’ve seen under a loop the edge quality of the dots (at the show) at a quick glance. Off the top of my head, looked very well. Now keep in mind, I’ve seen really good (perfect) edges as a result of true imagesetter photo chemical film positives at 3000 dpi and higher. I’ve used those on a day to day basis. I have been to the mountain top and gazed upon the lands beneath me. This LASER edge was good. Closest to that Photo chemical processing as one can get digitally or with laser on screen as a reasonable speed. The better they reach, (the more resolution) the higher the cost of the laser. So there ya go. Pice versus quality limitations.
How does all of that balance out with WET INK AND WAX ink machines? Pretty well. Sure, the cost is now in a range that gives one pause. The quality is a leap above the other two.
That leaves production. Where does it fit? Do you really need 300-400 screens a day? One area where it really can compete (in terms of cost) with the I-Image and wet ink is the fact that It’s being exposed on the table during the imaging process, similar to the exposure after imaging for the I-Image on the table. That cuts time and increases speed. Something to consider.
Lastly, How much of an impact (in the end) when printed on the shirt does a 2540 resolution actually benefit the end result on the shirt? How much visible difference can we see? Does that affect the buyers decision? Interesting thought. Some of these improvements from a 600dpi printer, to a 1200 dpi printer to now a 2540 LPI (if that is even a coined phrase now as it applied to laser), may we benefit on press? I believe that these differences may more so benefit US in the shop more than it does benefit the customer and the image quality on the shirt. Maybe the detail and blending will be more easily translated onto the shirt? I’ve never been a believer that the “shape or quality”of the dots make that much of a difference in the end result. Not enough to justify the cost differences in extremes. Like if the Laser were 200k and the wax or wet ink were 80k. That would be too far of a gap. I am seeing that there are options for all three of these within a 5-10k difference. THAT, means little when you break that cost down over time.
glassless design with safety shutter, 128 laser arrays capable of 2540, 1693, 1270, 1016, or 847 DPI, Exposes all emulsions and stencil films, Easy to use software, compatible with many RIP programs, Utilizes 1-bit TIFF file format,
This tells me that there is another added cost to the LASER price if you do not already own a comparable RIP from having done films. If you are currently running a WET ink, or a WAX machine and decide not go Laser, it also indicated you may be able to use the same old RIP as previously used.
The WORK FLOW needs to be looked at closely as well. While it’s going to be better than film (FOR SURE), we don’t know how this one compares between WAX and WET INK work flow from art to screen to production.
THOUGHTS:
Something to note, is that all of these output using the same type of single bit tif file. While they are 1 bit, They are 1 bit at 600dpi for wax and wet ink...and I am assuming unlike with ink or wax (output resolution), 1 bit LASER is literally lasering at the output resolution of 2540, (unlike ink or wax) where the 1200x900 or a 900x600 is referring to inkjetting output capability. That needs some more clarity.
As Lon Winter mentioned in the recent Printavo interview, DOT GAIN control is more of a different challenge. You can still do control, but it’s done differently. That’s something to get used to.
Add to that, Dot gain “reading”on the printed shirt end, is another challenge. At every stage of output, there is gain. Some small amount of gain added here, added there. Like WAX or wet ink, (The type of) material used provides a different and measurable amount of gain...and can be compensated for right there in the RIP at output.
With Laser, I’m assuming there is no gain (at the output). At least no tangible amount found thus far. So that leaves gain after output.
Emulsion type, Emulsion thickness, stencil wash out time/pressure, Humidity in the storage room and amount of control in the room, and then time of day/ weather for that day, controllability in the shop, and seasons it’s being printed in. (A screen can gain or lose sim base don the moisture added or subtracted in the screen (just by sitting out in production, waiting to be printed). Then, once being used, you have gain base don the ink type/modification, mesh selection, off contact, pressure, stroke speed, squeegee duro and garment type. All of this combined, on press, can lead to gain in microns and as a result (in percentages).
As such, GAIN for LASER would more so be required to be controlled (based on the variables of the production order). Like saved settings in RIPS for specific LPI, there will be saved settings for various types of production scenarios. Mark Coudrey had mentioned this long ago. He had various saved settings for ripping for dot gain control (depending on the order).
I’m sure there will be methods created and this leads to a new world. One that I myself, am looking forward to. This would require many more shops to be a bit more savvy about gain, (More so on press). Similar to how CTS made screen rooms more savvy about the cleanliness of their screens in order to allow them to pass through the height sensors. It forced them to change things up and keep thing s clean, added humidity control (where it should have already been in the first place). Making more areas on par with where they should be to begin with.
If anyone is currently using LASER, Please chime in with your experiences.
Thanks
Dot-Tone-Dan
