Standards

[tonypep]

Thought this might deserve its own thread. SGIA would be the most likely instution to implement what would be an absolutely monumental and improbable task, and you can be sure many companies would rather drop their membership rather than comply. Sadly for us SGIA is more strongly focused on digital and its future. Much more but somone else can chime in if you like.

[tancehughes]

Call me dumb, but I am not following. What kind of standards?

[tonypep]

Chk The wish list thread the topic is buried there

[mimosatexas]

I think tony is referencing the "wish list" thread where a few people chimed in that having industry standards would be helpful, like you see in digital and offset printing, and most industries.  Screen printing is so enormously variable though compared to those, I don't see a lot of standards actually being helpful.  Obviously some things could be standardized, but when everything from humidity to shirt lot can wholly change your process, it makes standards hard.  Hell in my own shop I change processes depending on different little variables all the time, and still constantly test and tweak.  Sometimes the best results seem to happen by complete accident (which is frustrating and confusing at times, especially when something has worked for 100 jobs then produces subpar results on 101).

I think the biggest help when it comes to standards would be on the equipment side.  I know in many industries there are universal adapters, measurements, and certain simple systems that mean you can mix and match parts and third party accessories easily.  It really helps push forward the technology as a whole when everyone isnt hiding and protecting their proprietary tech.  I'm sure things like brackets and frame dimensions could easily be more standardized without affecting end results and increasing choice.

Obviously having standardized colors and chemistry would be nice, but I don't see that happening.

[Frog]

My wish list?

It's short:

1) Standards.



No more mystery. Industry wide standards for color, registration systems, substrate suitability, etc etc.

Offset and digital printing has had this sh*t down for decades. Heck we stole (and for the most part badly implemented) their color standards.

You can arrive at a result fifty different ways at fifty different screen printing shops. It's never a question of what, it's always a question of how. Gimme standards.

Probably (definitely?) never going to happen. Unfortunately opinions and sometimes egos (including my own) will always muddy the waters. To be fair to our industry however, there are far more interdependant variables than offset or digital. Sure, we have Pantone for color reference, however, aside from Union Tru-tone process inks, no SWOP standards to adhere to. With DC and WB inks we still don't have reliable formulation and that can change due to substrate. As can mesh count selection and tension, which in turn may change squeegee parameters; which include but are not limited to composition, durometer, supported height, pressure, angle of attack and speed. Which may chage due to ink rheolgy and viscosity. Which may change all of the above and far more. Which may change print sequence and flash options. Which include time, temperature, height, and the very nature of the unit itself. And all of the above and more is image specific.
Example, At Marc Eckos shop in NJ they were stacking gels and HDs like crazy. We'd get it perfect, using rasta bars and tri-locs etc. Problem was with four flashes on each auto the ink rheology and viscosity broke down and many prints colapsed like a bad souffle after about an hour. The variables had changed causing the other variables that were dependant upon them to consequently fail.
All that said it is of course important to establish a structure within each shop that is tried and true and proven to yield predictable results within in your shop. Our friend Dave, as with others, is a huge proponent of this. So here in this forum we can seek advice and opinions and that is obviously and usually helpful.
But that just muddies the waters even further doesn't it?

[Sbrem]

I seem to recall a list of 57 variables that need to be controlled in one of the trade magazines a few years ago. There are others as well, but the idea seemed to be about setting some standards, then it's up to the individual to achieve control of them. That's good place to start I think...

Steve

[ZooCity]

I think it's doable but would have to be an opt in, sort of like ISO standards maybe.  It would probably need a couple levels too, many shops would not be able or willing to meet them.  Just think how easy that would make a contract purchasers job if they could pull up a list of all the shops in the country that were capable of doing their work?  Not to mention how relieving it would be for a lot of us.

[ebscreen]

Uhh, how can you standardize natural fabrics? "This swatch has 57 yarn ends sticking up, REJECTED"

I think part of why we do what we do is that it's still the Wild West out here compared to those boring paper guys.
Andy MacDougall said it best "professionalism is for offset printers".

[ScreenFoo]

I seem to recall a list of 57 variables that need to be controlled in one of the trade magazines a few years ago. There are others as well, but the idea seemed to be about setting some standards, then it's up to the individual to achieve control of them. That's good place to start I think...

Steve

Last time I looked at an SPTF process chart there were over five hundred variables that could affect the final print.
If you haven't checked it out, it's an eye opener...

[ZooCity]

Uhh, how can you standardize natural fabrics? "This swatch has 57 yarn ends sticking up, REJECTED"

I think part of why we do what we do is that it's still the Wild West out here compared to those boring paper guys.
Andy MacDougall said it best "professionalism is for offset printers".

That's where sh!t would get weird, substrate side of things.  How nice it would be to have some sort of fabric standard though.  Love that quote.

[Homer]

I think the place to start would be tolerance of registration and possibly opacity. the rest is just ridiculous....how many times do you see a print and cringe that the white is peaking out...drives me batty.

[starchild]

I think the place to start would be tolerance of registration and possibly opacity. the rest is just ridiculous....how many times do you see a print and cringe that the white is peaking out...drives me batty.

Hmm.. There are four measurable properties (specifications) for inks that ink manufacturers
have available, these are: it's optical, rheological, thermal and physical..

Well it so happens that the ink's opacity will be available in the optical specifications.
It's measured by the use of an opacity card (half black, half white card) and ditensometer.
By making a drawdown of the ink at a specific thickness on the card, the meter takes a reading
of the ink's reflective surface on both the white and black end of the opacity card and the difference
in values of the two readings will tell you the percentage of opacity at a specific ink thickness.
Then the manufacturers log it to the optical spec log and keep it in their desk drawers because
screen printers really won't need this information when setting standards in their  setups.

[bimmridder]

I honestly don't believe I can standardize.....if not ALL of my suppliers do first.

[GaryG]

Good point. 

[Evo]

Great topic!

 

The first step is standardize what is easy to standardize.

Much of standardization in most industries begins with ubiquity. Not always a good thing, but it's unavoidable. Take the Pantone matching system for example. Is it the best system? Maybe not. Does everyone use it? Yep.

So you start with ubiquity, and develop standards that adhere to, service and uphold that ubiquity. The ultimate winner is often the creator of the product or method that becomes ubiquitous.


Now let's toss in the open source model. Experts, enthusiasts and professionals dedicate time and attention to create a universally accepted concept, method or product, and these are made freely available for common use, provided they are not monopolized or made proprietary. Peer review makes it better and stronger, and ultimately determines a standard.

You see much of that going on right here in the forums. Shared knowledge leads to common usage, and common usage (ubiquity!) becomes a standard.



So I say keep it coming. Give me standards, and I shall share them with others.