I sasw this on another forum

[royster13]

"You can get higher detail with direct to garment printing compared to screen printing. If printed and heat set properly your print should have the same washability and durability as a screen print."

Really more detail with DTG?.....This fellow obviously has not seen some of the work done by the great shops here......

[mk162]

yes, digital printers print at 600-1200 dpi.  Screen printing is much less than that...but still more than totally acceptable.

That being said, most block colors don't look as good in DTG because the way the dots are laid down.  but you can't beat the blends and gradients.  So on photos, DTG rules, but on spots, screen printing still looks better.

[Command-Z]

There's another forum?

[Frog]

Yes, the OP's original quote is accurate, but like as most of us know, requires some qualification rather than accepting DTG as "better than" screenprinting across the board.
Ideally, one is in the position to offer both, and know when one is more appropriate than the other.

[Frog]

There's another forum?

Probably some digital thingie

[blue moon]

yes, digital printers print at 600-1200 dpi.  Screen printing is much less than that...but still more than totally acceptable.

That being said, most block colors don't look as good in DTG because the way the dots are laid down.  but you can't beat the blends and gradients.  So on photos, DTG rules, but on spots, screen printing still looks better.

for the most part, DTG prints pretty good. Considering the amount of work needed to get a decent print, it is incredible. As Frog said though, the statement does need some qualification. . . in the end, it comes down to the operator's skill and time put in. I know that some of our top prints beat the DTG, no question about it, but damn it does take time to get there (seps/setup/sampling).

pierre

[mk162]

that is correct frog.  It has a place, but I think it also makes you complacent in learning how to better print because it can be a cop-out..."oh, just throw it on the DTG"

[StuJohnston]

That's relatively benign compared to http://sharksplode.com/faq/#dtg

They apparently misstook the number of colors their monitor can display with what their printer can output. Among other things.

[ScreenFoo]

That's relatively benign compared to http://sharksplode.com/faq/#dtg

They apparently misstook the number of colors their monitor can display with what their printer can output. Among other things.

This is important information, I suggest everyone read it thoroughly.  (It IS rather entertaining.)

[Frog]

If Will Wheaton is involved, the gross miscarriage of factuality should be pointed out to Sheldon Cooper to exploit to its fullest.

[Evo]

When DTG gets this fast, then it's time to worry:

Formula 1

Until then, carry on.

[mk162]

even if dtg gets that fast, the cost of ink will make it too expensive for most large runs.

It will take a larger and larger chunk of the screen printing market, but it won't overtake screen printing any time soon.

[Gabe]

i would say when ink for DTG gets as nearly as cheap as plastisol
is time to ditch the screens, squeegees, etc.
gabe

[blue moon]

most have seen this, but here it is anyways:

Aeoon DTG Printer at FESPA (2)

this is at least two years old. . .

pierre

[mk162]

the only way it would get that cheap is if a ton more shops moved to it.  I don't see that happening, the market is still fairly small...so ink can sell for $1 per cc.  A gallon of inkjet ink runs about $2,800. 

The other problem is the faster the machine, the bigger the printhead...the bigger the head, the more money per head.  Brother heads are $1k each...I think Kornit heads are around that as well.

When you get into a large format head, they go up a ton...so you are looking at the cost of a nice fully loaded 16 color auto to get production speeds up...but you are still dealing with outrageous ink costs.