Film

[screenxpress]

From MK162 -

OK, so I tested WP and non-WP.  I forgot to turn off my linearization tools, which is fine actually but I tested 20-80% and with the non-WP i was dead on for everything, with the WP films, I was 20% high on 20, 10% on 40, 7% on 60 and 5% on 80.  So clearly there is more gain on these than the non-wp.  This is strictly on the film, not on the print.  I turned off my dot gain compensation so I could get an accurate reading and know what I was shooting for.


Maybe I didn't understand the results here.  Quite understandable - 

the way I read this is that the WP film had a lot more gain.
this is probably related to the difference between the two.

from what I understand:
regular film is just that. Plain piece of film that takes the ink on the surface (it builds up).
WP film has a coating and it uses the capillary effect to draw the ink into it. My guess is that the capillary effect caused some of the ink to spread out rather than just into the film only.

This is probably film type related as my readings on the WP film are within few percent. What kind of film was it?

So my question was is the gain a good thing.....or not. 

If you got a gain from just the film, I'm thinking that's a bad thing...unless you compensate for it other ways.

By the way, I don't know exactly what the differences are between WP and non-WP, but I can say that the non-WP has a coating too.  I know this as I have to lick my fingers and pick up the film to determine which side (currently Ulano non-WP) is coated (print side).  Fingers stick to the coated side.  Just have to remember to not lick twice 

[mk162]

For my setup, the nonWP film is WAY better.  My emulsion edges are sharper and I am getting less scumming.  A pigment based ink might work better with the WP film, I am running the old dye inks.

I bet if I change inks it would make a difference.  Maybe the film I am using is too cheaply made.

At any rate, I am going back to non-wp.

[spotcolorsupply]

A pigment based ink might work better with the WP film, I am running the old dye inks.

I "think"  ( ) you are Exactly right here....Your printer is matched to Non-Wp film.... Dye based ink doesn’t contain solids (or has less of them), so non-Wp film has a thinner coating to trap the thinner dye based ink.... WP film has a thicker coating to trap the solids in a Pigment based ink. The thicker coating has too many pores that allow the thinner dye based ink to spread causing dot gain...

[mk162]

And that is what I have noticed, it's so much that even small text is noticeably thicker.

[ZooCity]

There's a lot of variance in dye ink too.  I noticed that epson stock ink on the 1400 we picked up worked very well on fixxons (wp) film but the claira replacement ink I refilled with had the water halos.  The ink we run from FilmDirect doesn't have the clear bleeding either.

mk, maybe you already posted this but which printer/ink are you running with the non-wp.  I would love to find a non-wp like the kimoto stuff we used to get from westar or preferably higher-end if they make it that will be happy with epsons and our current rip.  The underexposure on the squeegee side of thick screens is getting old....

[mk162]

I am using the film from Brannon at Spot Color Supply.  So far it seems good.

I am using a 3000 with dye ink from inksupply.com

After the WP film sits a few days, I get a white halo effect around the image.

[ZooCity]

I am using the film from Brannon at Spot Color Supply.  So far it seems good.

I am using a 3000 with dye ink from inksupply.com

After the WP film sits a few days, I get a white halo effect around the image.

What rip?  I couldn't get Accurip or FastRip to run on the 3k but it printed beautifully on non-wp film using the epson driver or a tweaked out gutenprint setting I made. 

I get the halo immediately. 

[blue moon]

I am using the film from Brannon at Spot Color Supply.  So far it seems good.

I am using a 3000 with dye ink from inksupply.com

After the WP film sits a few days, I get a white halo effect around the image.

since changing the ink can cause issues, I would suggest trying different film. I'd gladly send you few sheets of the stuff I use on my 3000 so you can try it out.

same offer extends to anybody else! I can even print on a portion of it so you can compare the final output.

[mk162]

I am running OpenRIP NT.  Ha, bet nobody has heard of THAT one.

It's good, the problem is I don't want to spend a ton more to upgrade it to work on WIN7, so I have it installed on the server.