Is a 1-2 or 3% dot really worth trying to achieve?

[Dottonedan]

Is a 1-2 or 3% dot really worth trying to achieve?  The answer depends on you and what you print.


I was reminded recently as I have heard quite often as an answer that a 1 or 2% dot is not even possible to hold on tee shirts alone because they are too small and get eaten up or lost by the threads of the tees let alone how difficult they are to hold in the screen.  This is one of the myths or arguments that seem to hit me as old school or really just one not well thought out.

First, what size of a 1% dot are they referring to?  Is that a 1% in a 45 line screen?  That 1% may equal the size of a 3% in a 65 line screen.  Interesting right?  Many hold a 3% in a 65 line screen from digital films.

Now, consider this, The quickest or simplest way to bust this myth is to look at DTG.
Have you ever looked at how small a dot is that sprays out of a DTG head?  A single speck can be as low or small as 7 politer.  When you measure this, ( I have),  they are in the area of 9-14 microns across.  How big is that? Well, depending on the device you are comparing halftones to, a digital film printer may put out a 1% dot on a 65 line screen that can be 2-4 times larger than that 7 picoliter dot spray.  7, I believe is the common (smallest) spray size while 14 is more common.

Now, take that fact that this small dtg dot gets printed on tees in full color with extreme image quality and color vibrancy, lets look at the rest of the dots in a traditional halftones.  They are even larger as you go up. So it's fare to say that one can possibly achieve a very good image with those who can hold the 1%.

Stochastic or even Index printing is similar. Some people print a square dot that is equal to a 1% 65 line screen dot (This might be coming from a resolution of 250-270 resolution when converting to index or stochastic...and printed on a 310 or 350 mesh.  All of those dots are the same size. They hold them all across the board (on tee shirt threads).  Nuff said on that.

Now, given that comparison of a dot size that is double or 4 times larger than a 7 picoliter dot,  take that and X it by 8-10 screen printed colors. Many DTG printers use CMYK + 4 other colors with that, they print fantastic image quality. When doing sim process (for mass production), you do have to take extreme measures to hold and maintain that but people (are) doing it in production for large orders.

People have said, a 1% dot is so small that it can't even be seen on a tee shirt or that it does not make any noticeable impact on the print. Mark Coudrey wrote about a mistake he had made once about 10 years ago. He had accidentally left a small % (1%) in the seps of a 65 line screen print that covered the entire background printed out on his film, a 1% dot in a 65 line screen (of imagesetter film) that is much tighter or smaller than digital films. They only realized this after it was printed when they noticed this consistent, faint square in the background on the print. They held it without even trying.

I just thought I would share my thoughts on that myth or the reason people use to justify why they don't bother. It's very fair to say that you don't want to bother with trying to hold 1% dots in a 65 line screen. It's not a feasible every day task for 90% of the industry, but it (is) possible and done well by many top shops.

[Colin]

I have always looked at the chase to hold a 1%, 2%, 3% dot not as "Oh look at how bad ass I am".  But more of a "do I have my screen room processes dialed in?"

If I can hold everything on my film at 55 lpi+ or at 220 dpi+, I KNOW that my screen is in great shape and I will have the best chance of creating an amazing print that the customer will love.

It's about the chase of perfection and always, always trying to be better.

[abchung]

Interesting, I am still learning half-tones,
I don't know how a DTG or printer work, but you mentioned "spray on". Does this mean, the ink will be spraying into the shallow holes of the garment that can achieve that 1 or 3% dot.
As for Garment screen printing it is laying inks on rough surfaces. If that small hole does not land on a thread, the ink will remain in the gasket because nothing pulls the ink out. Then on the next flood, the small dots gets filled in even more which will push the ink out of the gasket which will cause a lot of dot gain problems.

Is the above assumption correct?

[size=78%]Your above illustration is semi correct.  the "spray" of dots do have much more of a chance to land in deep shadow areas (and the shirt does not get smashed down by a screen and squeegee).  [/size]
[/size]
[/size][size=78%]For printing, the contact ares is compressed by the squeegee and the screen so it gets put in closer to the deeper shadow areas.[/size]
[/size]
[/size][size=78%]If you were printing a white shirt with a 1 color black digital print versus a 1 color screen print, this would make a difference and the DTG print would show much better coverage in those valleys.  Where this idea loses strength is the fact that sim process screen printing puts down a base white (as well as does dtg) and then the inks are put on top. So those valleys are covered up in both examples.[/size]
[/size]
[/size][size=78%]D[/size]

[ABuffington]

While you can get some of the 1-3% to image, you won't get them all.  Under a microscope it is possible to image a 1-2% dot if it lands in the opening of the mesh, some do some don't = moire.  From a production point of view eliminating these dots via curves or in the RIP assures your entire image of tonal values will image as well as all of them printing.  The old 4 squares for 1 dot still holds true.  If you have 4-4.5 mesh openings per the smallest dot  you can get them all to image.  This requires printing base plates however through impossibly fine meshes for a base plate.  S-mesh has more open area and can image halftones better since there is less dot blockage in the lower tonals.  Ultimately trying to print dots below 4% yields spot moire where the mesh isn't perfectly square to the frame, typical in UV poster printing.  For t-shirts I don't see the need for dots below 4%.  Most of time vignette or spot moire develops somewhere in the print.  There are some interesting twists in RIP software like Wasatch that allows you to create hybrid screens of halftones and stochaistic dots that fixes this image issue.  Basically the RIP substitutes stochaistic for halftones at a set tonal value, usually below 10%.  That way the smaller random stochaistic dots can create extremely fine tonals that transition to shirt with no moire and no mesh interference issues.

Still the go to is to linearize the film output, inkjets especially, so that all tonal values match from screen, to film, to print.  A transmissive and reflective densitometer are needed to take the readings necessary to adjust film output so that there is no dot gain.  Then in some RIPs and in Photoshop you can control the tonal values in the art or tell the RIP not to output dots below 4%.  Additional curve adjustments in the RIP or Photoshop can help provide image punch, contrast, or preserve the tonal spread to look dynamic in the print.

Nothing wrong with printing finer dots, just a hassle in a production house that needs to print consistently commercially acceptable prints.  The hybrid screen is a new way to look at tonal printing.  Quite common in UV poster printing where the yellow is 100% stochaistic to prevent dot stacking moire from developing.

Al

[brandon]

It's about the chase of perfection and always, always trying to be better.

Exactly. Always room for improvement. I learn something every week / day in the screen printing world

[Dottonedan]

While you can get some of the 1-3% to image, you won't get them all.  Under a microscope it is possible to image a 1-2% dot if it lands in the opening of the mesh, some do some don't = moire.  From a production point of view eliminating these dots via curves or in the RIP assures your entire image of tonal values will image as well as all of them printing.  The old 4 squares for 1 dot still holds true.  If you have 4-4.5 mesh openings per the smallest dot  you can get them all to image.  This requires printing base plates however through impossibly fine meshes for a base plate.  S-mesh has more open area and can image halftones better since there is less dot blockage in the lower tonals.  Ultimately trying to print dots below 4% yields spot moire where the mesh isn't perfectly square to the frame, typical in UV poster printing.  For t-shirts I don't see the need for dots below 4%.  Most of time vignette or spot moire develops somewhere in the print.  There are some interesting twists in RIP software like Wasatch that allows you to create hybrid screens of halftones and stochaistic dots that fixes this image issue.  Basically the RIP substitutes stochaistic for halftones at a set tonal value, usually below 10%.  That way the smaller random stochaistic dots can create extremely fine tonals that transition to shirt with no moire and no mesh interference issues.

Still the go to is to linearize the film output, inkjets especially, so that all tonal values match from screen, to film, to print.  A transmissive and reflective densitometer are needed to take the readings necessary to adjust film output so that there is no dot gain.  Then in some RIPs and in Photoshop you can control the tonal values in the art or tell the RIP not to output dots below 4%.  Additional curve adjustments in the RIP or Photoshop can help provide image punch, contrast, or preserve the tonal spread to look dynamic in the print.

Nothing wrong with printing finer dots, just a hassle in a production house that needs to print consistently commercially acceptable prints.  The hybrid screen is a new way to look at tonal printing.  Quite common in UV poster printing where the yellow is 100% stochastic to prevent dot stacking moire from developing.

Al

Allen,  I can agree with most all of that.  It will be easier for me to talk about the areas I don't since there are fewer of them.


1,  I have read, learned and experienced that my best results of the smallest dots size are using the idea of 2 mesh openings and 1 mesh thread.  That has worked for me as a recipe for what I'm looking for. What you have described using 4 mesh openings, seems almost double and seems to be allowing for a sure between for most everyone's circumstances mostly accommodating the needs of the novice or beginner.


2, All of this is a matter of what one thinks is commercially acceptable or what ones definition of (is) is.


To say

While you can get some of the 1-3% to image, you won't get them all.

implies using the wrong mesh for the wrong line screen.

When all you have to eat are apples, you may be fine with the taste of only apples. If you were to set two identical designs done by the same shop, one with 40 line screen and one done with 60 line screen, I am almost convinced that the customer would gravitate to the 60 line screen but we see this example that the customer doesn't know and won't hesitate to purchase if it's done with 40 line screen.  Where I'm going is, that most commercial printers are already printing designs that will have some vignette or spot moire in them and are very successful in doing it. we see it in retail every day. You can't go into a store without finding this in a large portion of the designs in stores for a normal production situation. Now given that, I find it to be "ok" to have some missing dots here or there in the art and especially considering that most all designs do not consist of mostly (or large areas) of 1% tones...to be noticed. Typically, they are fading off to nothing or are hanging out in some small portion of the art that make up some innocuous texture or color tone. Then, some areas that do consists of this...are not usually made up of only just one color alone where some missing dots may be seen, but typically multiple colors creating light shades like pastels. Combine a given area with 1% with some missing...with 4 other colors of 1% with some missing combined, create a nicely printed pastel shade with no outstanding unattractive patterns.




One really needs to identify exactly what one is really comparing to. For example, A 1%-3% dot can all be held in the screen....in a 45 line screen and can be held by many people in a normal production situation...using a 305 or 330 mesh. It's a bigger dot than the 1% in a 65 line screen.  taking that, one can hold a 1% dot in a 65 line screen (with the mesh that works) with that dot size. What mesh size is best to hold that will be based on as you know, the thread size and % of open area.


To do a sim process of all dots being the same size of a 1% dot all across the board, or in other words, would be similar to using a 350-450 mesh. Like they say, don't bring a knife to a gun fight. Don't try to use a 305 mesh when trying to hold a 1% dot in a 65 line screen.  Don't try to use a 230 mesh on a 55 line screen...and expect to hold the 1% dot.

[3Deep]

As a halfass artist and printer myself I say no, yes we all want to do what others say can't be done, in the end does the end user or we say wearer of the design really care NO!!!!.  I will lean more toward trying to be at the top of your game and making your shop efficient, but trying to hold a 1% to 3% dot is good for our own achievement's.  Plus whatever you hold on screen might not even make it on the shirt or even seen for that matter, man it sounds like I work with 35 lpi and can only hold a 30% dot using 110 mesh , but serious there is only so much a T-shirt weave is going to hold anyways, but when you fellers do print those 1% to 3% please post a pic, I seen some very very nice prints posted here which tells me some of you are well on your way.

Darryl

[Dottonedan]

I use names like Andy Anderson and Mark Coudrey only because most of us know these names and what they can do in a real world production environment but there are far more than just those two that strive for such detail. Typically, they are medium sized shops (3-4 autos) that have developed a reputation and have a customer base geared towards this. Another good example would be Mirror Image (Rick Roth).

As these shops get larger, the $ seems to preside over the extreme quality. Andy Anderson is one that still focuses on this level with 80% of his work. Andy's and Rick Roths customers still go to them (because) they look towards these things. These details.

Do all shops need to strive for this?  No, but each shop has a customer base and each have different needs like each of us have different interest. For me, this is the stuff that moves me.  With my new job, I'm hoping to get the time to do more testing. I've already learned of a few new options in our STE's that enable us to get extreme quality out of them with pushing the existing RIP while combining working outside the normal parameters. I'm hoping to show great things from this device.
 
Darryl, take a look back at my original statement about DTG and the dot size that gets printed on a tee. That small dot (tucked away in the big weave) is not what we should be concerned with.  It's the ability to push ink through the mesh that is needed.

[Screened Gear]

I use names like Andy Anderson and Mark Coudrey only because most of us know these names and what they can do in a real world production environment but there are far more than just those two that strive for such detail. Typically, they are medium sized shops (3-4 autos) that have developed a reputation and have a customer base geared towards this. Another good example would be Mirror Image (Rick Roth).

As these shops get larger, the $ seems to preside over the extreme quality. Andy Anderson is one that still focuses on this level with 80% of his work. Andy's and Rick Roths customers still go to them (because) they look towards these things. These details.

Do all shops need to strive for this?  No, but each shop has a customer base and each have different needs like each of us have different interest. For me, this is the stuff that moves me.  With my new job, I'm hoping to get the time to do more testing. I've already learned of a few new options in our STE's that enable us to get extreme quality out of them with pushing the existing RIP while combining working outside the normal parameters. I'm hoping to show great things from this device.
 
Darryl, take a look back at my original statement about DTG and the dot size that gets printed on a tee. That small dot (tucked away in the big weave) is not what we should be concerned with.  It's the ability to push ink through the mesh that is needed.

People always talk about the 3 percent dots and lower but at what LPI? Some of the shops that your talking about most likely don't hold a 3 percent dot. But they are printing at 85 LPI. The higher the LPI the more dots you have per inch (smaller dots). Now They may hold some dots at under 3 percent but not all of them. When you print at a LPI like 85 I bet you cold lose 25 percent of your, less than 3 percent dots and the print will still look crazy detailed. I would also bet that they make changes in their Rip so it doesn't print dots smaller than a certain size that they know they can hold. So at 85LPI or higher if the dot is twice as big as it should be, do you really think you would notice? If there is less dots so that the gradient still reads the same tones. All this is programmable in those expensive rips you know the ones that the guys your talking about have. Anyone with tie and money can print high end prints. The real question is your time and money worth it to your bottom line. I will say this. My quality and ability to do hard prints gets me jobs and keeps about of my clients with me. I'm no award willing printer but I do ok.

[Dottonedan]

Jon,  I know you to be correct. Many that promote doing 85 lpi for example don't really hold a true full tonal range and I would love to be able to hold that level of 1-3% in a 85lpi.  That tho, is a wish. Even at my dream pipe idea if holding small dots of 1-3% in a 65 is extremely difficult at that. Full 85 is probably unachievable (via screen mesh) even on flat stock.

I know a few who really market themselves doing award winning 85lpi and even 100 lpi on tee shirts. As we know tho, it's more like 10% -80% range. This does what you described, provides more doors per inch inbetween  that 10-80 and improves image detail, the sad thing got me tho? I feel is that the one shop I am thinking of had to flash each of the  8-10 colors. This makes them more like a plastic print.