screen printing > Screen Making
M&R iImage rocket launcher
TCT:
--- Quote from: Dottonedan on March 23, 2021, 10:38:39 AM ---It will be good to get Pierre’s feedback on the actual quality of the wax versus the ink.
--- End quote ---
I can give you mine. Now I am nowhere near as sophisticated or in depth as Pierre, but I do have him in the looks department...
I've had 2 different ink machines and 1 wax. The wax KILLS the ink machines in every aspect. Only hold out is when comparing the speed of the wax machine vs. the ST-III I had. But the wax is the same speed as a single head ink.
Dottonedan:
--- Quote from: TCT on March 23, 2021, 10:49:01 AM ---
--- Quote from: Dottonedan on March 23, 2021, 10:38:39 AM ---It will be good to get Pierre’s feedback on the actual quality of the wax versus the ink.
--- End quote ---
I can give you mine. Now I am nowhere near as sophisticated or in depth as Pierre, but I do have him in the looks department...
I've had 2 different ink machines and 1 wax. The wax KILLS the ink machines in every aspect. Only hold out is when comparing the speed of the wax machine vs. the ST-III I had. But the wax is the same speed as a single head ink.
--- End quote ---
Right. (Wax is now the same speed) as a single head. Cuz a wax can ONLY print at a 6 pass. This used to be, ONLY at the LOW speed and UNI directional. Now, (Newley improved Bi directional...and at a HIGH speed setting that enables it to now equal a wet ink machine. BUT, for fast paced production, would be for the more open printing such as a 45lpi or solid vector work. So the WAX, is only as fast as WET INK...if the WAX machine is at it’s lowest quality/fastest production setting.
If you need more quality out of the wax machine (such as a 65-85lpi), you should need to switch it to a higher wax output resolution, 6 pass (LOW speed), uni directional printing. In this case, wax would not be the same speed to the wet ink machine. Any of the wet ink machines.
I’m changing my comment to include the concept that (one can use a low speed fast production for even higher levels of printing such s 55-85lpi (but with poor results) that are subject to personal preferences. Gotta include the personal acceptance of quality levels in there.
In addition, Wet ink machines are more “versatile”in it’s output. It can print at HIGH SPEED or LOW SPEED, Bi Directional or Uni, and at 4, 6, 8, 12, 18, 24 speeds. All for various options and preferences of output. For example, “Layering the ink lay down” at a slower speed and in layers, (similar to an airbrush artist puts ink coverage down for blending). This allows for far more accurate placement of picoliter of spray. For this reason, the wet ink machines print higher lpi (more precisely), more well formed without having to adjust the dot gain curves in the output. The WAX, is so dense, it must be put down at 6 pass and to be dumped down more quickly (for the lack of a better word). This is a good thing for wax machines as they look more (faster paced). They can tend to fill in or gain too much at the shadow tones if they were to be switched to a 8-12 pass.
Now, lets look at what actually KILLS the wet ink machine in comparison "in every aspect”. I mean literally. Lets look a that. Because there is a lot of “surface talk”, but often missing the specifics...and I haven’t found one reason yet, as to where the WAX machines (process) is providing something that the WET ink machines cannot. The only areas where there is a clear difference and wax comes out ahead in a comparison, is with WAX not being susceptible to a poor or extreme environment. It works in extreme cold, extreme heat, extreme dryness and extreme moisture. Wet, requires to be within tolerances of a standard screen room environment such as 30-45% RH (give to take 5%) depending on location. To accommodate for that, you purchase a devise to control your RH.
There are plenty of people who will say “My wax is better” but how so? Is it really, or are you just happy with your current results and were not as happy previously?
I’m very interested to be proven mistaken. If there is evidence to bring forth that will prove me to be incorrect, then I am happy to accept that and will easily concede. This would also prove to be a good selling tool for the wax devices.
Please (in your own time and convenience), stop back and list all of the categories where a wax machine can beat a wet ink machine “in every aspect”. I then, can provide my feedback as well, as it relates to each category.
inkman996:
--- Quote from: Dottonedan on March 23, 2021, 02:01:05 PM ---
--- Quote from: TCT on March 23, 2021, 10:49:01 AM ---
--- Quote from: Dottonedan on March 23, 2021, 10:38:39 AM ---It will be good to get Pierre’s feedback on the actual quality of the wax versus the ink.
--- End quote ---
I can give you mine. Now I am nowhere near as sophisticated or in depth as Pierre, but I do have him in the looks department...
I've had 2 different ink machines and 1 wax. The wax KILLS the ink machines in every aspect. Only hold out is when comparing the speed of the wax machine vs. the ST-III I had. But the wax is the same speed as a single head ink.
--- End quote ---
Right. (Wax is now the same speed) as a single head. Cuz a wax can ONLY print at a 6 pass. This used to be, ONLY at the LOW speed and UNI directional. Now, (Newley improved Bi directional...and at a HIGH speed setting that enables it to now equal a wet ink machine. BUT, for fast paced production, would be for the more open printing such as a 45lpi or solid vector work. So the WAX, is only as fast as WET INK...if the WAX machine is at it’s lowest quality/fastest production setting.
If you need more quality out of the wax machine (such as a 65-85lpi), you should need to switch it to a higher wax output resolution, 6 pass (LOW speed), uni directional printing. In this case, wax would not be the same speed to the wet ink machine. Any of the wet ink machines.
Now, lets look at what actually KILLS the wet ink machine in comparison "in every aspect”. I mean literally. Lets look a that. Because there is a lot of “surface talk”, but often missing the specifics...and I haven’t found one reason yet, as to where the WAX machines (process) is providing something that the WET ink machines cannot. The only areas where there is a clear difference and wax comes out ahead in a comparison, is with WAX not being susceptible to a poor or extreme environment. It works in extreme cold, extreme heat, extreme dryness and extreme moisture. Wet, requires to be within tolerances of a standard screen room environment such as 30-45% RH (give to take 5%) depending on location. To accommodate for that, you purchase a devise to control your RH.
There are plenty of people who will say “My wax is better” but how so? Is it really, or are you just happy with your current results and were not as happy previously?
I’m very interested to be proven mistaken. If there is evidence to bring forth that will prove me to be incorrect, then I am happy to accept that and will easily concede. This would also prove to be a good selling tool for the wax devices.
Please (in your own time and convenience), stop back and list all of the categories where a wax machine can beat a wet ink machine “in every aspect”. I then, can provide my feedback as well, as it relates to each category.
--- End quote ---
Making your screen room with in tolerance to accommodate an ink machine is not as trivial as you are making it out to be. This is coming from an owner of an I Image. It was by far the biggest struggle for us to deal with. Plopping a humidifier down did not work, plopping a second more robust humidifier down also did not work. The final solution was dampening the screens before imaging. The shop that we were sent to by M&R to see a demo of an I Image had major issues with controlling the environment for their machine. Their operator demonstrated for us what he had to do to imagae a screen. He had one of those hand help steamers used in dry cleaning for moistening the screens, then the screen had to sit for a period of time before being imaged. So yes their is a clear advantage to wax tech and ink tech that a potential owner should consider.
inkman996:
And my guess for going away from the slant is gravity. You have to have the appropriate strength stepper motors to handle the weight and the gravity with out losing steps, some of the frames out there are rather heavy. Instead of beefing up the motors it would make more sense to go horizontal.
Dottonedan:
--- Quote from: inkman996 on March 23, 2021, 02:13:18 PM ---
--- Quote from: Dottonedan on March 23, 2021, 02:01:05 PM ---
--- Quote from: TCT on March 23, 2021, 10:49:01 AM ---
--- Quote from: Dottonedan on March 23, 2021, 10:38:39 AM ---It will be good to get Pierre’s feedback on the actual quality of the wax versus the ink.
--- End quote ---
I can give you mine. Now I am nowhere near as sophisticated or in depth as Pierre, but I do have him in the looks department...
I've had 2 different ink machines and 1 wax. The wax KILLS the ink machines in every aspect. Only hold out is when comparing the speed of the wax machine vs. the ST-III I had. But the wax is the same speed as a single head ink.
--- End quote ---
Right. (Wax is now the same speed) as a single head. Cuz a wax can ONLY print at a 6 pass. This used to be, ONLY at the LOW speed and UNI directional. Now, (Newley improved Bi directional...and at a HIGH speed setting that enables it to now equal a wet ink machine. BUT, for fast paced production, would be for the more open printing such as a 45lpi or solid vector work. So the WAX, is only as fast as WET INK...if the WAX machine is at it’s lowest quality/fastest production setting.
If you need more quality out of the wax machine (such as a 65-85lpi), you should need to switch it to a higher wax output resolution, 6 pass (LOW speed), uni directional printing. In this case, wax would not be the same speed to the wet ink machine. Any of the wet ink machines.
Now, lets look at what actually KILLS the wet ink machine in comparison "in every aspect”. I mean literally. Lets look a that. Because there is a lot of “surface talk”, but often missing the specifics...and I haven’t found one reason yet, as to where the WAX machines (process) is providing something that the WET ink machines cannot. The only areas where there is a clear difference and wax comes out ahead in a comparison, is with WAX not being susceptible to a poor or extreme environment. It works in extreme cold, extreme heat, extreme dryness and extreme moisture. Wet, requires to be within tolerances of a standard screen room environment such as 30-45% RH (give to take 5%) depending on location. To accommodate for that, you purchase a devise to control your RH.
There are plenty of people who will say “My wax is better” but how so? Is it really, or are you just happy with your current results and were not as happy previously?
I’m very interested to be proven mistaken. If there is evidence to bring forth that will prove me to be incorrect, then I am happy to accept that and will easily concede. This would also prove to be a good selling tool for the wax devices.
Please (in your own time and convenience), stop back and list all of the categories where a wax machine can beat a wet ink machine “in every aspect”. I then, can provide my feedback as well, as it relates to each category.
--- End quote ---
Making your screen room with in tolerance to accommodate an ink machine is not as trivial as you are making it out to be. This is coming from an owner of an I Image. It was by far the biggest struggle for us to deal with. Plopping a humidifier down did not work, plopping a second more robust humidifier down also did not work. The final solution was dampening the screens before imaging. The shop that we were sent to by M&R to see a demo of an I Image had major issues with controlling the environment for their machine. Their operator demonstrated for us what he had to do to imagae a screen. He had one of those hand help steamers used in dry cleaning for moistening the screens, then the screen had to sit for a period of time before being imaged. So yes their is a clear advantage to wax tech and ink tech that a potential owner should consider.
--- End quote ---
Good feedback. I find it ridiculous that one would have to do that. (add moisture to the screen or dampen the screen with a cloth). But there are some I would imagine, that a newer ink and some environments might need some unique accommodations for. Such as your example. I can change that for you if you like, so you Never have to do that again.
The shop I was at last week was using T6 ink. They did not/nor ever dampen, and also did not have a dehumidifier in the room. Just a heater in the drying cabinet for drying screens.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version