Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. - Thomas Edison
Nobody is working?
I will only say this... I'm still up in the air on what embroidery machine to get.I was recently involved in a possible brand new 2 head SWF *gasp* but the details just didn't get worked out like I had hoped.Happy, SWF, Tajima... hell, I ALMOST went look at some Aymani(sp) XT's that were for sell locally... almost. As long as the price is right and it will sew out properly I don't care who put their label on it.
Wheres Musterd when you need him, oh never mind I will do it.
Awesome shop. Hey Brandt.. I just started using the same exposure unit. Do you mess with the exposure times for different mesh counts or do you generally use the same time for everything? I'm trying to get the most detail on our halftone work and sometimes I think I'm overexposing.
Nice shop Brandt! You guys put out some great looking screen/embroidery designs, kudos to you and the crew there. Gilligan, get a Tajima.Someone mentioned an exposure unit, and getting the best detail out of their halftones. There are many different exposure calculators available from different emulsion manufacturers. These are printed films that you affix to your screen and expose to calculate the best possible exposures for variables such as coating method, mesh counts, light source, etc... The problem I see with exposure calculators is that the dMax values of the provided films will not match the dMax value of your film. If your films are weaker (less opaque) than the test film, most of the data from the test is irrelevant. The test films will give you a roundabout figure or a starting point but the trick is to use your film, your own coating technique, and find where you are losing detail and or low percentage halftones vs. underexposure which results in scumming on the squeegee side of the screen and the loss of higher percentage halftones . Emulsion companies would serve us better by supplying us with digital files to output our own test films for more some really dialed in exposures and more accurate results.
I've always agreed with this. I don't see the need for an exposure calculator like they provide. It's not apples to apples.Problem with them giving us digital files (other than them spreading like wild fire and harder for them to "sell" them), is that what most of the calculators I have see are using neutral density filters at various percentages. You can't print ND filters... you can only print percentages of 100% (if that makes any sense).Thus leaving you with the ol' step wedge test really being the only way to do it "properly".It would be nice if you could send them a sample of your films, they could test what 100% opaque was for you and then give you a "curve" to grade their films with. If you get 95% opaque compared to their 100% then everything is off by 5% (total guess that it would work that linearly). So then if you need 100 light units for proper exposure with their film then it would mean 95 light units with your films.The problem comes in on the other side of the spectrum, 100% clear. If their films aren't "water proof" and are mo' clear than yours then that raises another set of variables. Bringing MORE to the table of test with your own films... but I would think the master mind mathematicians could figure out some sort of curve... maybe it's a pipe dream.
Nice shop Brandt! You guys put out some great looking screen/embroidery designs, kudos to you and the crew there.
here's an idea, put a piece of the film you use down on top of the exposure calc. That way it shoots through both. The expo calc proabably has virtuall no UV block, where the WP films have a decent amount