TSB
screen printing => Screen Making => Topic started by: ScreenPrinter123 on June 01, 2012, 04:01:39 PM
-
So, here's the one hit white on red (which I find the to be the hardest shirt to get that opaque -- what I called "sealed" -- look). This is with a 65/95/65 murakami triple durometer; 155 s mesh; about 15 on the pressure readout; 5/5 coating with rounded edge with chromablue; using rutland's max opaque white. The single prints and the print-prints are denoted in the file name. It has "lift" to it, but still leaves that "splotchy" look that always mutes out top layer prints because of the color of the shirt coming through -- bah!
"You have been weighed; you have been measured; and you have been found wanting." - Count Adhemar
The good news is that nobody says I can't go for a 10/10 coating. :)
It looks like I'll have to post the rest of the pics in a separate "response".
-
Rest of the pics
-
I was waiting to see this. I know we talked about this but I never thought it would look that bad. The stencil you made was super thick and the print came out not much better than a standard screen. How many did you print? Was Ink worked up? Did the screen clear?
-
One factor of achieving this "Holy Grail" of screen printing is the design itself. As mentioned before, big broad areas of solid coverage are not the ideal candidate, though I'll tell you that in the old days, it was not unheard of to do athletic prints on a manual without a flash, by doing a second hit by sort of finessing the ink out of the flooded (filled) screen with a really light touch rather than a real print stroke.
-
I'm not familiar with Rutland's Max-Opaque (aren't we stepping on Union's toes here, or are they the same co. now?)
but you want the thickest heaviest white you can find for attempting this sort of thing. From the looks
of your stencil an HD white might fit the bill. Some poly whites might work as well.
Like Alan has said, 1 hit white is largely art dependent. When it works it works, but don't go trying
to force it if it ain't right. Long haired Texans (contradiction in terms?) will have you believe otherwise,
but then I, and nobody I know, have seen a closeup of the final product.
Also, I've heard the "wide open design" problem described as a rope/wood bridge across a chasm.
The sides on the chasm (your stencil profile) are your supports, and short of stainless steel planks/rope
(super high tension mesh) you will have sag in the middle no matter what.
-
Anyone can do a one hit print. Its really depends on what your level of quality is.
-
wouldnt fly at my shop.
-
I was waiting to see this. I know we talked about this but I never thought it would look that bad. The stencil you made was super thick and the print came out not much better than a standard screen. How many did you print? Was Ink worked up? Did the screen clear?
Printed about 5 shirts; didn't heat pallets, etc. Just did it enough to just be getting the ink to clear on first pass. Some of us just don't have your talent - let's see the magic on your end :).
-
Here's one I did on the manual the other day through a 135/48, coated 3/3 with saati phw red.
(http://i485.photobucket.com/albums/rr211/alan802/Tshirt%20Pics/BDC6F1DF-D843-4D9D-AE65-E09ADC33938E.jpg)
A little closer but a bad iphone pic
(http://i485.photobucket.com/albums/rr211/alan802/Tshirt%20Pics/6AD654E2-E8D0-4C08-A652-5A13F4D76230.jpg)
-
Here's a print flash print through a 180-S on the back of that same shirt done on the auto.
(http://i485.photobucket.com/albums/rr211/alan802/Tshirt%20Pics/17CF9824-FD5F-4401-9027-593C35E35725.jpg)
(http://i485.photobucket.com/albums/rr211/alan802/Tshirt%20Pics/CE3ECC4E-8DB7-41C6-B44C-6B87E975AEA7.jpg)
-
7/7, that's basically two screens coated 3/1 that could be PFP. At what point is there too much stencil for the ink to shear or release from the screen. IMO if the ink is too thick when the pallet drops some of the ink will stick to the screen and pull away from the garment leaving a rough finish. Also how hard or stiff is the image, will it be like wearing a rain coat?
-
I was waiting to see this. I know we talked about this but I never thought it would look that bad. The stencil you made was super thick and the print came out not much better than a standard screen. How many did you print? Was Ink worked up? Did the screen clear?
Some of us just don't have your talent - let's see the magic on your end :).
I have never done a one hit white like you did. I know what your trying is very hard. I would not say I have special talents at printing shirts. Most of the time lately I have been running around just trying to get things to work so I can get the jobs out the door. If talent is trying everything you can to get something to work then I am very talented and tired. I guess just knowing what to try to fix a problem is why a lot of use come on here. I know I have learned a lot from you guys.
-
Here's one I did on the manual the other day through a 135/48, coated 3/3 with saati phw red.
([url]http://i485.photobucket.com/albums/rr211/alan802/Tshirt%20Pics/BDC6F1DF-D843-4D9D-AE65-E09ADC33938E.jpg[/url])
A little closer but a bad iphone pic
([url]http://i485.photobucket.com/albums/rr211/alan802/Tshirt%20Pics/6AD654E2-E8D0-4C08-A652-5A13F4D76230.jpg[/url])
Oh, ok, I see how it is -- Johnny Raincloud is changing it up going manual with a thick stencil one hit white. I'm gonna slap my screen up on my manual monday and send the results -- finessing that second stroke -- haven't mastered that on the auto yet (though I don't know if it's possible unless you can program your auto to hit the first pass hard to lay the fibers down and then pass the second stroke with an uber soft print for the second pass to finesse that top print).
CHEATER!
-
I was waiting to see this. I know we talked about this but I never thought it would look that bad. The stencil you made was super thick and the print came out not much better than a standard screen. How many did you print? Was Ink worked up? Did the screen clear?
Some of us just don't have your talent - let's see the magic on your end :).
I have never done a one hit white like you did. I know what your trying is very hard. I would not say I have special talents at printing shirts. Most of the time lately I have been running around just trying to get things to work so I can get the jobs out the door. If talent is trying everything you can to get something to work then I am very talented and tired. I guess just knowing what to try to fix a problem is why a lot of use come on here. I know I have learned a lot from you guys.
I didn't mean the "show us your magic" as any kind've jab -- I seriously meant for you to post some pictures of a 1/1 or a 2/2 coat on 150 mesh or thereabouts - white print - on a red shirt. I'd also like to see some people post some prints that use a one hit underbase (in the 230, 180, and 150 range) with a 1/1 or 2/2 coat using a 310 or 230 top coat mesh -- I want to see how opaque you are getting your top colors. I'm usually quite frustrated with mine. I was pushing Union's max opaque lemon yellow through a 310 two days ago as a top coat and was not super satisfied -- but am still amazed how such ink whistles through such a high mesh count.
-
Here's a print flash print through a 180-S on the back of that same shirt done on the auto.
([url]http://i485.photobucket.com/albums/rr211/alan802/Tshirt%20Pics/17CF9824-FD5F-4401-9027-593C35E35725.jpg[/url])
([url]http://i485.photobucket.com/albums/rr211/alan802/Tshirt%20Pics/CE3ECC4E-8DB7-41C6-B44C-6B87E975AEA7.jpg[/url])
Alan, what kind've coating and emulsion were you using? Were you going around twice -- if so, were you adjusting the second print after the flash to use less pressure?
-
No finesse on a second stroke, just a single stroke :), one pump chump. I didn't have time to put it on the auto because I was printing the fronts while they were printing a job on the auto but I could have gotten better results on the auto I believe. I used a Manny squeegee blade on that job and printed it really fast. Pretty much I was just flicking my wrists and I was done. I had a few where I had to hit it again because when your trying to get that perfect print stroke with as little pressure as possible, sometimes you print too soft and end up leaving ink in the screen.
I should have clarified that the text on that second pic was the 180-S, printed, flashed and printed then the soldiers face was printed with one stroke through a 225-S. I didn't adjust the stroke for the second print on the text, I just had the 180 in printhead 1, went around 2 revolutions and the soldier on printhead 10. It was 24 pieces so I used the one screen for the text and went around twice.
Both of the screens for the back print were coated 2/1 with chromablue.
-
No finesse on a second stroke, just a single stroke :), one pump chump. I didn't have time to put it on the auto because I was printing the fronts while they were printing a job on the auto but I could have gotten better results on the auto I believe. I used a Manny squeegee blade on that job and printed it really fast. Pretty much I was just flicking my wrists and I was done. I had a few where I had to hit it again because when your trying to get that perfect print stroke with as little pressure as possible, sometimes you print too soft and end up leaving ink in the screen.
I should have clarified that the text on that second pic was the 180-S, printed, flashed and printed then the soldiers face was printed with one stroke through a 225-S. I didn't adjust the stroke for the second print on the text, I just had the 180 in printhead 1, went around 2 revolutions and the soldier on printhead 10. It was 24 pieces so I used the one screen for the text and went around twice.
Both of the screens for the back print were coated 2/1 with chromablue.
What type of squeegee, angle, pressure, and speed for the 180. Also, I have my off contact set at .13. What about u?
-
Ok I will play. Below is a sleeve print that I have been doing for this client for years. I print the front and back of the shirt with a Print Flash Print. But this sleeve print can be done with one hit on the manual. 60 Duro 6 inch squeegee, thick out of the bucket quick white just worked up by hand to help flow, thick soft flood (I never hard flood), soft 35 degree PULL stroke, 123 with 10-15% EOM (I have done it with a 156 and almost no EOM, off contact at 1/8th. The manual is a finesse game. One pass on almost all of them. A few needed a second pass (no flash just redid the print stroke) because I used too much pressure the first time.
If you look at the zoomed in photo you can see fibers in the print. You can't see them when looking at the shirt. This is one time you can get away with a one hit print.
-
What type of squeegee, angle, pressure, and speed for the 180. Also, I have my off contact set at .13. What about u?
The squeegee was a Manny from Joe Clarke, angle was straight up with the beveled edge, 89 degrees, pressure was probably around 24psi, speed was 12. Our off contact will be totally different from yours because I have mine set up so that .00 is actually zero off contact/on contact for a newman roller frame. When our press is set to .00, the mesh is just barely touching the pallet. You could easily set your press parallel so it's like ours, that way you have the full .40" off OC to play with. Some presses have it set so that .10 is actually on contact and they only have .30" of central OC, I wanted to be able to use all of it if needed, which I haven't needed but it's nice to know it's there. For newman roller frames, our OC is set to .08, on shurloc ez's, we are at .04 for most shirts.
-
What type of squeegee, angle, pressure, and speed for the 180. Also, I have my off contact set at .13. What about u?
The squeegee was a Manny from Joe Clarke, angle was straight up with the beveled edge, 89 degrees, pressure was probably around 24psi, speed was 12. Our off contact will be totally different from yours because I have mine set up so that .00 is actually zero off contact/on contact for a newman roller frame. When our press is set to .00, the mesh is just barely touching the pallet. You could easily set your press parallel so it's like ours, that way you have the full .40" off OC to play with. Some presses have it set so that .10 is actually on contact and they only have .30" of central OC, I wanted to be able to use all of it if needed, which I haven't needed but it's nice to know it's there. For newman roller frames, our OC is set to .08, on shurloc ez's, we are at .04 for most shirts.
I'm pretty sure Michael calibrated it to be the same [i.e., 0 = the mesh just hitting the pallets -- otherwise I'd find it difficult to speak with other printers who have presses with digital readouts to try to duplicate things, eliminate variables, etc. etc. - you'd only be guessing at the height if your 0 doesn't really = just touching some measurable landmark like the pallet]. I'll double check that on monday, but I think I will put that 5/5 back on the auto and lower the off contact to see what comes of it. I simply can't duplicate the pressure exactly with an all pneumatic -- the pressure increases as the stroke gets further to the bottom of the print, so it starts out low and then increases, so I have to accommodate for that -- need a/c heads. If I have any better results [and time!] on monday, I'll post em.
How does the manny compare/contrast to the smilin j - never looked into the manny at any depth - why do I vaguely recall the manny being for manual printing (hence it's name?)? Is it usable for both auto and manual -- if so what's the difference between the two? I tried the smilin J -- had decent results with the beveled edge, but at the end of the day, just went with the triple durometer squeegees -- like screened gear -- just had to get jobs out of the door and couldn't play around testing it a lot at the time.
-
I really enjoy these threads. Very nice prints.
I had to do something fun after all the crap today, threw down a few shirts on one of my old twofold experiment stencils--2/3 coat, 10LPI (that's actual LINES per inch ;) ) on 86/100 mesh.
Figured I'd do a black and a red shirt. All manual.
A little arms length shot--
(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w388/ScreenFoo/SkullsRedBlack.jpg)
And a couple close ups--
(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w388/ScreenFoo/SkullRed.jpg)
(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w388/ScreenFoo/SkullBlack.jpg)
-
Thanks for posting pics guys. Screenfoo, is this manual or auto?
-
Anyone can do a one hit print. Its really depends on what your level of quality is.
I totally agree with this statement.
Especially most of the time when the master of the one hit white , whose name shall not be spoken, posted photos of his wizardry no real close ups were available, at least from what I have seen. I think a proper one hit white that is real opaque might as well be described as a one hit wonder, a single success that will not be repeated easily or at all.
-
Just a side note, but isn't EOM a complete non-factor in ink deposit once you get about 1/8" away from the edge of the stencil? It'll help with lines, fairly fine text and tones, but in big wide areas of print the stencil thickness is a non-player in ink deposit unless you want nice opaque outlines around the image area. you're better off playing with mesh count/open area/thread thickness and squeegee angle, pressure, durometer, print speed. etc. to get more ink down in one print.
-
I was waiting to see this. I know we talked about this but I never thought it would look that bad. The stencil you made was super thick and the print came out not much better than a standard screen. How many did you print? Was Ink worked up? Did the screen clear?
Some of us just don't have your talent - let's see the magic on your end :).
I have never done a one hit white like you did. I know what your trying is very hard. I would not say I have special talents at printing shirts. Most of the time lately I have been running around just trying to get things to work so I can get the jobs out the door. If talent is trying everything you can to get something to work then I am very talented and tired. I guess just knowing what to try to fix a problem is why a lot of use come on here. I know I have learned a lot from you guys.
I didn't mean the "show us your magic" as any kind've jab -- I seriously meant for you to post some pictures of a 1/1 or a 2/2 coat on 150 mesh or thereabouts - white print - on a red shirt. I'd also like to see some people post some prints that use a one hit underbase (in the 230, 180, and 150 range) with a 1/1 or 2/2 coat using a 310 or 230 top coat mesh -- I want to see how opaque you are getting your top colors. I'm usually quite frustrated with mine. I was pushing Union's max opaque lemon yellow through a 310 two days ago as a top coat and was not super satisfied -- but am still amazed how such ink whistles through such a high mesh count.
Here ya go. Had to dig for these but I found a few. 230 white base 230 colors, 305 for trans black on the first one. Second one with the cat is 230 base with 230 and 230's for the colors. Both Highlight whites were 230's.
Underbase screens were coated 2/1 sharp edge. Triple duro squeegees.
(http://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt25/Inkwerksspd/Geiger.jpg)
(http://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt25/Inkwerksspd/Cat.jpg)
-
123--Manual, 70 single duro--didn't feel like kicking all the gear back on. This was actually kind of a joke print that turned out better than I thought it would. No AC heads here either.
As mentioned in the coating thread, I'm itching to try this type of print out with those S threads--it's calling me from the mesh rack.
The 86/125 mesh I play with on stuff like this leaves too rough a hand IMO.
Rockers makes a great point. I see too many 'one hits' I can spot from across the street where I can only assume the printers were convincing themselves with that old line about how "we're the only ones who'll notice this"... Lots of other printers out there sparky. :)
-
One factor of achieving this "Holy Grail" of screen printing is the design itself. As mentioned before, big broad areas of solid coverage are not the ideal candidate, though I'll tell you that in the old days, it was not unheard of to do athletic prints on a manual without a flash, by doing a second hit by sort of finessing the ink out of the flooded (filled) screen with a really light touch rather than a real print stroke.
Heck ya! I call that "babying" the print. Oh, the good old days!
-
Especially most of the time when the master of the one hit white , whose name shall not be spoken, posted photos of his wizardry no real close ups were available, at least from what I have seen. I think a proper one hit white that is real opaque might as well be described as a one hit wonder, a single success that will not be repeated easily or at all.
I don't understand? I posted a picture of a one hit white on black on the first page that is about 95% of the opacity of the second picture I posted that was PFP. The first one is more opaque than about 98% of the shirts I see at retail stores and on the backs of people walking around and I assume that most of those were PFP. White prints don't get much more opaque than the one I posted and they DO NOT get more opaque than the second picture, at least I've never seen it and I've looked at tens of thousands of screen printed shirts over the years. In the end we all judge what is opaque a little differently but I am confident that everyone on this forum would give their customer a white print that looked like the pic I posted and be completely happy about it. I don't know if one hit prints are possible all of the time, but I do know that we achieve it more and more often as time goes by, so maybe we'll be doing it every day at some point in the future.
The manny blade is a little different than the smiling jack, they have a straight notch cut out of the back instead of the "smiling" notch, and it is also a lower duro blade, which I really like. I like printing with the manny on the auto even though it wasn't designed for it, it actually does a better job than it's auto brother on most applications so far. I've always wanted a smiling jack that was a 70 or 75 duro instead of the 85 that it has. It lays down more ink with the straight edge versus the SJ which I think comes in handy, and the beveled side is comparable to the double beveled 85 duro. Sometimes I don't think the straight side of the SJ puts down enough ink and the manny fills that gap between the beveled and straight edge perfectly. I've got 4 manny blades for the auto and my printer really likes them and he's very picky about his tools and equipment. I plan on being out on the press all next week testing some stuff and making sure everything is working perfectly so I will have way more pros and cons on the manny blade by next Friday. What little I've personally done with it I was very impressed. And when Carlos goes out of his way to tell me that something is good then I know we've got something special.
-
OK in order to get a "1" hit white print with 100% opacity, the critical parameter is pL (pico liters) of ink. Too much and you push the ink in the shirt. Too little and you do not get the coverage. This is the goal of ALL the other parameters in the equation. Any ONE parameter is not sufficient to achieve the goal, but the proper combination of All the parameters will achieve the goal. Is it possible? Yes. Are the parameters the same for everyone? NO. Also atmospherics should be taken into account. If you lay the ink on top of the garment and not in the garment, then you can achieve the "look" of opacity with higher mesh counts. Therein is the rub. Lower mesh count = more ink which increases the chances of penetration of the garment by the ink. Higher mesh count = less ink and less chance of coverage, yet the higher mesh count is the best choice because of the higher chance of getting the correct amount of pl for the goal. So a 110/80 mesh at 25N/cm² screen at 1/8” gap prints around 29N/cm². This mesh uses 231pL [picoliters] of ink [not including the garment].
-
Well this is all fine and dandy but what about underbase on a manual? I still don't know what is exceptable, one hit white flash then color or pfpf the white then color. My single hit whites are not even close to most of you guys, maybe it's my stencil thickness at 1/1 is not thick enough. Imh coating screens today and I will try more hits of emulsion to see.
-
I agree in principle to most everything Sonny, except you have to use significantly more pressure on a 230 versus a 110 and when you use higher mesh counts, you end up pushing the ink into the garment because there aren't enough inks out there that will clear higher mesh counts with very little pressure. It takes approximately 18psi for us to shear white ink from a 135/48, yet it takes almost 30 for it to clear a 195/55. So less ink is going to pass through the 195, plus the added pressure it takes to shear the ink from the stencil and you have a huge loss of opacity. I wish I knew the exact psi on our press that ink begins to penetrate the garment but I don't have the time or the tools to figure that out right now, but I'd take a wild ass guess and say it's in the upper 20's and anything over that and you have too much garment penetration with a good opaque white ink. Obviously, some inks will penetrate at a much lower pressure point and some higher, so the ink rheology plays a huge role in that.
A few things that I don't see mentioned very often on the forums is the mesh specification sheets and what some of those numbers on them really say about the mesh and what it's capable of. Now some of the specs don't raise my attention all that much, but I like to look at thread diameter, percentage open area, tension level and then the big one, theoretical ink volume. Thread diameter is obvious, percentage open area will give you an idea of how much pressure you'll need to apply to shear the ink through the mesh, and then theoretical ink volume will tell you how much ink you can expect to deposit with a standard stencil. You can really change that T.I.V. of a mesh count when you start playing with stencil thickness. I know that with a large percentage open area and a decently thick stencil, I can look at the TIV of a mesh and get a great idea of what I can achieve with it.
You can see that most of the thicker thread mesh will theoretically deposit more ink, but with the right art/design, you can make a thinner thread mesh with a higher % open area deposit the same amount of ink with far less pressure if you make your stencil thicker to make up the difference in thread thickness between the two mesh counts. You can also make that thicker thread mesh with a very thick stencil and get a lot of ink on the shirt but you have to find that line where you don't have to use too much pressure to print with or you will lose opacity because of ink penetration into the garment.
I don't know about any of you, but I'm always looking at the manufacturers mesh spec sheets for those numbers I mentioned. I have put those numbers I see into production and they really do tell you all you need to know about how a mesh will perform. And you can also manipulate those numbers with the stencil thickness and make a mesh count that might not look like it has much potential into a great tool for your shop.
Well this is all fine and dandy but what about underbase on a manual? I still don't know what is exceptable, one hit white flash then color or pfpf the white then color. My single hit whites are not even close to most of you guys, maybe it's my stencil thickness at 1/1 is not thick enough. Imh coating screens today and I will try more hits of emulsion to see.
I'll tell you that you should not have to pfpf an underbase before you put on top colors. We've done it at our shop from time to time on a low piece job so we wouldn't have to burn another screen for a highlight white, and we've had to do it on occasion for very transparent top colors like neon's and your occassional blue. But for every day printing, it's print the underbase, flash it and on come the top colors. You need to use a thicker stencil and perhaps a lower mesh count. Instead of a 1/1, coat everything with a 2/2, round edge of the coater and then observe very carefully what you get on the garments. I know lots of shops do the pfpf underbasing but it's totally avoidable. Get a few screens of the same mesh count, coat one 1/1, then another 2/2 then the third one 3/3 then put them on your manual and set them up the same and put the same ink and use the same squeegee to print with. Put some test shirts on your pallets and just start printing and comparing the ink deposit between the three screens. Now make sure they are all around the same tension level and try to use as little pressure as possible to clear the screen with one stroke. I think you'll be surprised at the difference in ink deposit between the 1/1 and 3/3 and maybe you'll not ever have to pfpf your underbases again.
-
Great points--to me, the count, thread thickness, and tension level are THE three--open area and theoretical ink volume are both calculated from the Mc and Td.
I'm interested in the example though--in that example, then you're increasing mesh count, as well as thread diameter--wouldn't a more subjective test be between something more like a 110/80 and a 220/40?
Although I would suppose even with a near-equal open area, the 220 may still require a little more pressure, having four times more threads per area, and so more thread surface area?
I'm not disagreeing with the reasoning, by any means--I've made similar observations in practice. I get forced into putting white on 230's and 305's on a regular basis, and have not ever been able to do anything close to an acceptable one hit with them.
As to comparing thicknesses on the same mesh--if you're not familiar with it, there's a great little blurb about 'step coating' on page four of this:
http://www.kiwo.com/Articles/Getting%20the%20most%20out%20of%20direct%20emulsion%20stencils.pdf (http://www.kiwo.com/Articles/Getting%20the%20most%20out%20of%20direct%20emulsion%20stencils.pdf)
Exposing it is the trick. ;)
-
The pressure that is true is the mechanical pressure and not the psi. The psi readings on any press are not close to being true or for that matter measurable. “Pressure” equals force divided by area [F/A]. The ideal pressure on the T-Shirt platen [or press bed] is zero. The goal therefore is equilibrium between blade pressure [F/A] and mesh tension AT ZERO GAP.
Ink is "one" of the "All" parameters I mentioned. I guess that what I am saying is that while it is good to know "how" to do something, it is better to know the "why" of what you are doing.
As to "eom" and "tension", these are the two that when changed affect the "whole" in a greater way, yet these are the two that are bandied about as the end all of problem solving. Yet these two probably cause more problems because of not knowing the "why".
-
The pressure that is true is the mechanical pressure and not the psi. The psi readings on any press are not close to being true or for that matter measurable. Pressure equals force divided by area [F/A]. The ideal pressure on the T-Shirt platen [or press bed] is zero. The goal therefore is equilibrium between blade pressure [F/A] and mesh tension AT ZERO GAP.
Ink is "one" of the "All" parameters I mentioned. I guess that what I am saying is that while it is good to know "how" to do something, it is better to know the "why" of what you are doing.
As to "eom" and "tension", these are the two that when changed affect the "whole" in a greater way, yet these are the two that are bandied about as the end all of problem solving. Yet these two probably cause more problems because of not knowing the "why".
Well, unfortunately that's all we have to go by on our autos is "presumed" psi and although the actual pressure being applied is different from one press to another, even within the same company and model, it can still be relative and compared once there are baselines achieved for each machine. I have figured that 20psi on our RPM is equivalent to 22psi on another RPM in our area that I'm familiar with. I also think that a 25psi readout on our press is about 30psi on a sportsman that is down the road from our shop.
I personally think that the psi/force or whatever you want to call it is measurable, although it's not very accurate or "true" in a purely physical sense like we can measure how much I weigh or how much I can bench press. It's all we have and is pretty much standard on most autos out there for a reason, it does serve a purpose for those who want it to.
-
The pressure that is true is the mechanical pressure and not the psi. The psi readings on any press are not close to being true or for that matter measurable. “Pressure” equals force divided by area [F/A]. The ideal pressure on the T-Shirt platen [or press bed] is zero. The goal therefore is equilibrium between blade pressure [F/A] and mesh tension AT ZERO GAP.
Ink is "one" of the "All" parameters I mentioned. I guess that what I am saying is that while it is good to know "how" to do something, it is better to know the "why" of what you are doing.
As to "eom" and "tension", these are the two that when changed affect the "whole" in a greater way, yet these are the two that are bandied about as the end all of problem solving. Yet these two probably cause more problems because of not knowing the "why".
Well, unfortunately that's all we have to go by on our autos is "presumed" psi and although the actual pressure being applied is different from one press to another, even within the same company and model, it can still be relative and compared once there are baselines achieved for each machine. I have figured that 20psi on our RPM is equivalent to 22psi on another RPM in our area that I'm familiar with. I also think that a 25psi readout on our press is about 30psi on a sportsman that is down the road from our shop.
I personally think that the psi/force or whatever you want to call it is measurable, although it's not very accurate or "true" in a purely physical sense like we can measure how much I weigh or how much I can bench press. It's all we have and is pretty much standard on most autos out there for a reason, it does serve a purpose for those who want it to.
This has turned into a great thread. I want to ask a question but I know it is veering off topic. So for presumed PSI what is everyone's point where deflection steps in? Our Sporty E is right around 40 to 45 PSI, but as stated above it can vary from mesh count/ink and sometimes head to head (sigh).
On a side note that certain long haired Texan has helped me a lot in the past. Not personally but if you give him the chance about being efficient and thinking ahead and ROI he has some very, very good points
-
The pressure that is true is the mechanical pressure and not the psi. The psi readings on any press are not close to being true or for that matter measurable. “Pressure” equals force divided by area [F/A]. The ideal pressure on the T-Shirt platen [or press bed] is zero. The goal therefore is equilibrium between blade pressure [F/A] and mesh tension AT ZERO GAP.
Ink is "one" of the "All" parameters I mentioned. I guess that what I am saying is that while it is good to know "how" to do something, it is better to know the "why" of what you are doing.
As to "eom" and "tension", these are the two that when changed affect the "whole" in a greater way, yet these are the two that are bandied about as the end all of problem solving. Yet these two probably cause more problems because of not knowing the "why".
Well, unfortunately that's all we have to go by on our autos is "presumed" psi and although the actual pressure being applied is different from one press to another, even within the same company and model, it can still be relative and compared once there are baselines achieved for each machine. I have figured that 20psi on our RPM is equivalent to 22psi on another RPM in our area that I'm familiar with. I also think that a 25psi readout on our press is about 30psi on a sportsman that is down the road from our shop.
I personally think that the psi/force or whatever you want to call it is measurable, although it's not very accurate or "true" in a purely physical sense like we can measure how much I weigh or how much I can bench press. It's all we have and is pretty much standard on most autos out there for a reason, it does serve a purpose for those who want it to.
Do you not have a mechanical adjustment on the squeegee bar? This should be 99% of your adjustment with the other 1% being the air pressure.
-
Again... aren't these single measurement tangents not seeing the forest but the tree?
Variations in mesh tension and off contact (obviously changing mesh tension as well) will make even a properly calibrated pressure measurement just another factor... Everyone running the same bore chopper? Exact same squeegee size?
Everyone's squeegee new? If you're sharpening, the free length, deflection, and applied force are changing. Ceteris paribus....
-
Again... aren't these single measurement tangents not seeing the forest but the tree?
Variations in mesh tension and off contact (obviously changing mesh tension as well) will make even a properly calibrated pressure measurement just another factor... Everyone running the same bore chopper? Exact same squeegee size?
Everyone's squeegee new? If you're sharpening, the free length, deflection, and applied force are changing. Ceteris paribus....
Yup, and getting back to the original posters print, in this case EOM is a non-factor.
I'd start with:
#1 - Mesh choice
#2 - Ink choice
#3 - Squeegee durometer/angle/pressure/speed
The light-touch final stroke is the key to not having to p/f/p.
-
Again... aren't these single measurement tangents not seeing the forest but the tree?
Variations in mesh tension and off contact (obviously changing mesh tension as well) will make even a properly calibrated pressure measurement just another factor... Everyone running the same bore chopper? Exact same squeegee size?
Everyone's squeegee new? If you're sharpening, the free length, deflection, and applied force are changing. Ceteris paribus....
Bingo. You get it. All I was saying in my original answer is that "all" the parameters have to be taken in to account and that no two shops are the same. Also understanding "why" something does what it does will help you know what changes are needed in other parameters. You sir get it. No 1 parameter is the fix all for any printing issue. The goal is to place the ink "ON" the garment and if all the stars line up in your shop then you can and you will not see any problems.
On a side note...a troubleshooting technique that has helped me throughout my career is Do the opposite of what you think you should do and you will fix your problem 99 times out of 100.
-
Do you not have a mechanical adjustment on the squeegee bar? This should be 99% of your adjustment with the other 1% being the air pressure.
I've done it both ways where I relied on the mechanical sq. adjustment more than worrying about psi and the other way of setting the sq. all the way down and never touching them and using your air pressure regulator (psi) to adjust print pressure. I stayed with the latter and if anyone would like to compare the two methods, do them both for several weeks at a time and let me know which one actually assures you are printing with the least amount of print pressure. So do you set your squeegee regulators all the way up, or at a pressure that you know even the thickest ink will go through the highest mesh? That method doesn't work the best at our shop for what I'm trying to achieve, and that is maximizing opacity by putting as much ink on the shirt and not in the shirt. For a while I used both, 50/50, thinking that I would be maximizing all the adjustments and it was basically a waste of time. Just set the sq mechanical adjustment one time and forget about them and if you set everything up correctly, you'll never be printing with too much pressure.
I don't recall anyone saying that one parameter is the fix for all printing problems, I'm sorry if someone got the idea that I was saying that in any way. I think I understand as much as anyone how all the parameters interact to achieve the final print, but I think many don't understand the importance of EOM and stencil thickness. You have to be careful when talking about EOM and just because a screen has 100% EOM, doesn't necessarily mean it's going to lay down a crap load of ink. You can lay down a tremendous amount of ink with 10% EOM if the thread thickness of that mesh count is way up there. In comparison, you can have 100% EOM with a 10 micron thick thread mesh and not have much of an ink deposit at all.
If you really want to only use the bare minimum pressure to shear ink from a screen, you set up your screen and put a few shirts on your pallets, set your sq all the way down, then set the squeegee regulator to a psi where you know it won't clear, then print. Look at how much ink is left and make the adjustment based on what you think will get the ink to "almost" clear the screen and print a completely different/fresh shirt. Printing on a wet shirt will throw you off and the wet ink will actually help pull ink from the stencil and you'll think that you have the pressure set correctly and the next clean shirt you print on the ink won't clear completely. Increase your psi on the printhead until you reach that pressure where the ink clears, then you can do the same with squeegee speed to get the fasted print speed therefore maxing out ink opacity.
I guess I don't understand what your asking Foo. I suggested a few things knowing the guy runs the same exact press as I do, maybe that's where the confusion is coming from?
And I'm just gonna say it... Sonny, but that is pretty awful advice in my opinion. I guess if you are so far off with your thinking that the opposite of what you were doing actually works, then perhaps more knowledge and experience is needed in a bad way.
-
Do you not have a mechanical adjustment on the squeegee bar? This should be 99% of your adjustment with the other 1% being the air pressure.
I've done it both ways where I relied on the mechanical sq. adjustment more than worrying about psi and the other way of setting the sq. all the way down and never touching them and using your air pressure regulator (psi) to adjust print pressure. I stayed with the latter and if anyone would like to compare the two methods, do them both for several weeks at a time and let me know which one actually assures you are printing with the least amount of print pressure. So do you set your squeegee regulators all the way up, or at a pressure that you know even the thickest ink will go through the highest mesh? That method doesn't work the best at our shop for what I'm trying to achieve, and that is maximizing opacity by putting as much ink on the shirt and not in the shirt. For a while I used both, 50/50, thinking that I would be maximizing all the adjustments and it was basically a waste of time. Just set the sq mechanical adjustment one time and forget about them and if you set everything up correctly, you'll never be printing with too much pressure.
I don't recall anyone saying that one parameter is the fix for all printing problems, I'm sorry if someone got the idea that I was saying that in any way. I think I understand as much as anyone how all the parameters interact to achieve the final print, but I think many don't understand the importance of EOM and stencil thickness. You have to be careful when talking about EOM and just because a screen has 100% EOM, doesn't necessarily mean it's going to lay down a crap load of ink. You can lay down a tremendous amount of ink with 10% EOM if the thread thickness of that mesh count is way up there. In comparison, you can have 100% EOM with a 10 micron thick thread mesh and not have much of an ink deposit at all.
If you really want to only use the bare minimum pressure to shear ink from a screen, you set up your screen and put a few shirts on your pallets, set your sq all the way down, then set the squeegee regulator to a psi where you know it won't clear, then print. Look at how much ink is left and make the adjustment based on what you think will get the ink to "almost" clear the screen and print a completely different/fresh shirt. Printing on a wet shirt will throw you off and the wet ink will actually help pull ink from the stencil and you'll think that you have the pressure set correctly and the next clean shirt you print on the ink won't clear completely. Increase your psi on the printhead until you reach that pressure where the ink clears, then you can do the same with squeegee speed to get the fasted print speed therefore maxing out ink opacity.
I guess I don't understand what your asking Foo. I suggested a few things knowing the guy runs the same exact press as I do, maybe that's where the confusion is coming from?
And I'm just gonna say it... Sonny, but that is pretty awful advice in my opinion. I guess if you are so far off with your thinking that the opposite of what you were doing actually works, then perhaps more knowledge and experience is needed in a bad way.
Alan, I can see you might get that conclusion. I'll give you an example. I was helping a friend get a print looking better. He started with a 110 mesh for his underlay. He was doing pfp and he was not happy with the result. It was uneven and rough. I asked what he thought the problem was with printing one pass instead of pfp. He said there was not enough ink and needed more for coverage. His solution...pfp. I took the shirt off and turned it inside out and there was a lot of ink coming through the shirt from his first pass. I explained that the problem was not not enough ink on the first pass but in actuality the exact opposite was true. He had way too much ink. We went to a 230 mesh pfp and the shirt was beautiful. The exact opposite of what he thought he needed to do was the correct thing to do. All I am saying is if you think you need more pressure the maybe you have too much and the screen is pulling the ink back.
If I was to ask which print stroke would get the best deposit of ink all things being equal, fast or slow, what would your answer be.
Joe Clarke's answer would be: High shear is ONLY possible with high stroke speed.
-
Sonny beat me to it on carriage speed--I had it beaten into my head for years by many people that screens clear by slowing down the squeegee. In a way, it's true, but it's almost always a consequence of other factors that likely need to be changed.
Perhaps it was partially misunderstanding--pressure I only questioned because to me, it's the last link in the chain. Once all other factors are decided, the screen is in, loaded with ink, floodbar, squeegee, etc. then you set pressure at the smallest amount that will clear the screen properly. I questioned it not only in the respect that it is not a calibrated adjustment, but that other factors not mentioned could change the amount of pressure, whatever the setting, irregardless of the possibility of settings between presses being exactly the same.
I wasn't trying to say pressure is unimportant to the process, it's critical--just like every other link in the chain is. It was just my take that if we can go under the assumption that the screen, mesh, stencil, ink, and off contact are fine, squeegee pressure may be too high, but why is that? Is the squeegee trying to fill the stencil when the floodbar did not? Is the squeegee too dull or moving too slow to properly shear the ink? Is there a factor like the ink, planar calibration, or head linear that is being taken for granted to be OK that isn't?
These are just some thoughts--and another nice break from cranking out shirts on the press. (Is it the weekend? I can't tell anymore ;) )
-
I was lucky to discover how print speed can affect ink deposit/opacity when I first met Mr. Clarke at the ISS in Ft. Worth a few years back and I took home a few of his smiling jack blades. I wish I would have known something other than slow=more ink, fast=less ink much sooner in my printing career but just like every other parameter and variable, I learned a little at a time. I also started reading anything I could find from Joe and it was a lot like when I discovered Bill's articles and it opened up a lot more info that I could use to my advantage. It was one of the last print parameters that I found had a profound influence in maximizing an inks opacity. I had always been told that slower squeegee speed equals more ink, but just because we deposit a large amount of ink, doesn't mean the print will look good or be opaque. I know I'm not saying anything that a lot of us don't already know, but it might help some of the pups that haven't learned this yet, but printing faster helps in shearing the ink on top of the garment, possibly depositing less ink but maximizing opacity.
-
So am I tracking with you, Raincloud: open the print speed valve up all the way and add just enough pressure for all the ink to clear -- even with a triple duro or is this really only optimal with something like a smilin' jack? You're always printing wide open on the print speed valve with plastisols? -- or in your case, as fast as the motor will move the squeegee? I'll be flinging ink all over the stinkin' place.
-
We've rarely been able to print at 30, but considering most shops print white ink very slowly, 3-6"/sec, we print white at 10-14"/sec and some other inks will shear at 20-25. Triple duros are great, but you can print faster with the smiling jacks. It's not a ton faster but it's noticeable. With regular spot colors on lights, you should be at 10-20"/sec and if you're not already printing at 8-12 with your white, go ahead and try to increase your squeegee speed. You might have to increase print pressure slightly as you increase print speed so you have to balance those two parameters to get the most opacity.
-
We've rarely been able to print at 30, but considering most shops print white ink very slowly, 3-6"/sec, we print white at 10-14"/sec and some other inks will shear at 20-25. Triple duros are great, but you can print faster with the smiling jacks. It's not a ton faster but it's noticeable. With regular spot colors on lights, you should be at 10-20"/sec and if you're not already printing at 8-12 with your white, go ahead and try to increase your squeegee speed. You might have to increase print pressure slightly as you increase print speed so you have to balance those two parameters to get the most opacity.
I print at higher speeds than most. I don't know the inches to seconds but Its about half the top speed of the machine. Out of 1-10 on the press I am at 4 to 6 for flood and print (white and top colors). I print even faster on the manual. I get a nice flat smooth white this way. I have done nice work slow also but I think faster is easier to control and looks to give more consistent results. I have printed faster but it depends on the ink.
-
ScreenPrinter123 - try a 90/71 for this type of art next time. It takes skill to use it but it will get you much closer than the 150/48 for this application.
Good thread on the pressure topic though, that was a nice tangent.
-
Zoo, I can't wait until you get an auto, I think you need to buy one this year.
-
Zoo, I can't wait until you get an auto, I think you need to buy one this year.
Haha, I keep getting close and then the capital goes to something else, mostly retail inventory. I had a very rough ride with the biz last year and this one's going to be bumpy still but maybe next winter I'll start getting serious about hunting down an auto again. Half or more of our income comes from retail sales of our clothing line which can easily be done on the manual for now.
I do listen to all yinz talking about the chopper pressure, blade angle, etc. though and I think about it and apply it to manual printing and store some of it away for when it's auto-time.
-
I was lucky to discover how print speed can affect ink deposit/opacity when I first met Mr. Clarke at the ISS in Ft. Worth a few years back and I took home a few of his smiling jack blades. I wish I would have known something other than slow=more ink, fast=less ink much sooner in my printing career but just like every other parameter and variable, I learned a little at a time. I also started reading anything I could find from Joe and it was a lot like when I discovered Bill's articles and it opened up a lot more info that I could use to my advantage. It was one of the last print parameters that I found had a profound influence in maximizing an inks opacity. I had always been told that slower squeegee speed equals more ink, but just because we deposit a large amount of ink, doesn't mean the print will look good or be opaque. I know I'm not saying anything that a lot of us don't already know, but it might help some of the pups that haven't learned this yet, but printing faster helps in shearing the ink on top of the garment, possibly depositing less ink but maximizing opacity.
Never had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Clarke, but "Control Without Confusion" rocked my world when I found a copy. I read any and every article I see by him--and try to understand it.
It makes you wonder though... how many things will we be wishing we knew now five years from now? ???
Zoo--you're right on track learning the necessary technique on the manual the parameters really don't change--if one can't print well manually, an auto will just enable faster misprints.
Definitely agree with Alan on the sentiment... Sporty with AC heads? ;)
-
Zoo, go to a credit union and get a loan, you should be able to get a great rate and the amount of time you save every month should pay for itself.
I couldn't function without an auto...it makes my life so much easier.
-
I'm coming in on the tail end of this discussion, but I will share with the class what I achieved today.
I printed a 1 hit white with Wilflex Epic Quick White through a 110 mesh on my Diamondback today, and it was one of the best prints I've ever had. I have been working with thicker stencils and decreasing pressure and while I haven't mastered everything yet, I will be the first to say that one stroke of white on a black t-shirt can be done. You simply must get the variables under control and understand the process instead of guessing.
A lot of people give Bill grief over his claims, but I can tell you the man knows his stuff and isn't shooting any bull when it comes to one hit white.
I will try to get more details on my print today and can hopefully share more stories like this in the future. I enjoy discussions like these and hope to see others chime in.
-
Piiiiictuuuures.
What thread diameter?
I agree with you partly on bill, sharp as tack for sure but all the videos I saw of his featured light cream/tan ink and not white. I know from experience that just a titch of brown will drastically change an inks rheology and it's hiding characteristics. A one hit tan isn't really something to bark about. But it illustrates a very handy method for those willing to commit to it.
-
I do not know the thread diameter (awful right?), but I can tell you this is straight out of the bucket Wilflex Epic Quick White. I can not guarantee anything about Bill's coloring, but I would highly doubt that he changed the color any. He's a straight shooter.
Anyways, here is a picture, not the best but I tried to get closer to it so that you can see it "up close" as so many demand.
-
Tance, was that with a fast print stroke or a slow one? It looks like a slow to medium print speed. I have achieved "one hit" prints dozens of times over the past year, saving us tons of production time. My goal is to achieve it on a higher percentage each year till it becomes common. 3 years ago I would have never thought we could do it, now that we do it regularly, I expect it to happen more often as we continue to be better printers. I need to go through our portfolio prints and pic the "one hits" out and take pics, maybe I'll get to that tomorrow.
-
And here I am struggling with Flood, Print, Flood, Print, FLASH, Flood, Print, Flood, Print, Clearing pass to get a half decent white on black.
156 static, keya black (ring spun shirts... very soft feeling), 70 duro (fairly new squeegee), Union Cotton White.
I've tried various strokes, pressures but anything less and the fibrillation gets a bit nasty.
-
Gilligan,
I drove to Alexandria and back to new Orleans yesterday. I should've stopped in to say hi and check out your issues with the bright cotton-- sat in traffic for 1.5 hours on I-10 in baton rouge heading back due to an overturned 18 wheeler, so I could've had fun printing in your shop instead and still made Better time had I taken Hwy 90 back home. I'll try to make it to your place next time Michael or I are passing through if you're interested.
-
That would have been cool.
We have actually been printing almost everyday... granted that is because we are incredibly slow and the new guy is even slower. ;) But still printing almost every day. I hope it doesn't stop, but I'm sure it's one of those feast or famine types of things.
After about 15 prints my back started complaining, something isn't right up there... so I took a break at 30 prints (25 mins)... not too bad given all the strokes and how slow I am at loading a shirt. :)
I had to run do a computer job anyway and then figured I'd grab a bite and a handful of ibuprofen and get back on it in a few and see if I feel any better. If not then this job might not get done this week.
-
gilligan, how is the new expo unit working out for you?
-
So... since my back was hurting I asked the wife if she wanted to try printing some... one color distressed image (three letters actually), so she really couldn't do anything that I couldn't "fix". If anyone remembers she has never been able to push a squeegee very well (at all). So she decides to give it a try... I put her a little "apple box" to stand on and get another 4-6 inches up and she still can't really clear the screen well.
BUT she starts trying different things and she decides to go real slow and deliberate... tada! She's actually printing it better than I am. Flood, Slow (but not real slow actually) print, FLASH, Flood, Slow Print and if it clears it's done... if not she does another slow clearing pass and it's done... and it looks better than mine. In fact even using her technique her's still looks better than what I can do.
So I'm inside watching the baby sleep, talking to you a-holes and she is outside printing away. :))
gilligan, how is the new expo unit working out for you?
Sadly haven't even used it yet.
I just put it at the new shop vs moving it back and forth (hopefully will be completely in new shop soon). Actually as soon as I get my "new" washout booth in there I will just start making my screens there and bringing them home till I get the shop completely set up. Not the best idea but I'll risk messing up the screens for better quality screens.
-
Women are said to be better printers because they finesse things more. Men are brutes and we tend to muscle things.
-
I'm a pretty dainty guy. ;)
She is an artist and I am a technician so there definitely could be something to that... I just don't like to get dirty... I'm a clean printer... my guy that I have printing has been dirtier in the 3 days that he's been printing than all the days I have been printing combined!
His second day I said "ok, our goal today is to keep our hands clean and watch the squeegees for build up. This will help you print faster because you will spend less time having to check your hands every print and cleaning them."
His shirt at the end of the day looked like one my shirts I use to wipe down screens... I had him send his shirt down the dryer to minimize contamination. :)
He is getting better though. One of his problems on that second day was some douche nut ;) sold me some fancy pants squeegees that aren't worth a d@mn! ;)
-
If Newman made it has to be good, right? ::)
-
Maybe he needs to bless my hands (and the hands of my printer). ;)
-
You'll get it once you make the trip. I think your mind will be blown.
-
Alan, my print carriage speed was turned up as fast as it will go. I believe that it used to go faster than it does now, and I'm not sure how to check for that problem (if it even exists or is just in my head). I've been pushing hard to get my guys to print at high speed lately. We rarely rarely rarely print at a slow speed. It just never works correctly.
Gilligan, come up to my shop one day and I'll show you some stuff. I'm not saying I'm an expert by any means but I'll share what I know and vice versa. I'll get you hooked on retensionable frames.
-
Thanks for that invite Tance... as I said in my PM... I got family close to you so we might just have to do that.
I did go to Alan's last week and I will tell you guys what.
I have seen one hit whites with my own eyes and it can be done, and it can be done RIGHT! These looked GREAT, not halfassed at all!
Even further to the point that even my lame a$$ was able to do a 95% one hit white that looked better than ANYTHING I had EVER printed. This was white on red 50/50's that Alan had laying around. This visit to Alan's just stepped my game up by a HUGE bit! My eyes were opened REALLY wide!
-
Digging this guy up from the grave as my post doesn't warrant a new thread.
If one can do a one hit white then isn't it feasible to be able to do a one hit Pink or Turquoise? I'm pretty sure we've done a PFP Turquoise on black and it looks great... is it just because this particular ink has enough opacity or am I not realizing how much this COULD "pop" if I underbased it with white?
-
Boils down to opacity and rheology. With a pc system, you can mix colors at max pigment load and use the base with the right rheological properties and do one hit whatevers just like one hit whites.
The tough part is the rheology in my opinion- you can max out the pigment load, but each color pigment has it's own shape/structure that effects flow and clearance through the screen and lord knows what else. You introduce that unique shape into any base you add the pigment to and with it a whole new set of variables. With a good, consistently made white ink, you know exactly how it's going to behave every time and can go for the one hits with more confidence.
(keep in mind the biggest downside of going for a one hit and missing is that you can't just p/f/p that print or use the one hit screen as a second screen b/c it would likely be way too much ink. And we all know that double stroking a screen with that kind of eom + open area typically makes a mess. So, you need to re-setup the whole thing in many cases...or surprise your client with a "high definition" print, on the house of course.)
-
Many pinks in particular relies heavily on it's background to display it's color. Not unlike neon green, royal blue, and
a few others. Really needs a white background to look right.
Now a cotton candy pink with a lot of white can likely be P/F/P and opacity achieved, not unlike many pastels.