My Epson 1400 sucks...or I suck at using it

[mimosatexas]

So I finally bought and received a more powerful loupe because I want to start improving some of the "little" things in my process and decided to look at my halftones on my film...and they SUCK.  I'm honestly shocked I am even holding the dots on my screens.  There has to be HUGE room for improvement though based on what I am seeing.  A standard dot looks a lot like the attached image, complete with gaps and translucent areas.  More ink lay down seems to bleed or make the problem around the edges worse, less means more gaps and translucency.

I'll definitely admit to being a relative newbie when it comes to optimizing my film output.  I use stock epson inks and whatever version of WP film I am sourcing locally.  I am not using a rip.  Obviously this isn't ideal.

What are some QUICK steps I can use to improve my output on this particular printer.  Are there specific inks and films (I know the other recent thread goes over some film options, but seems geared toward higher end printer models) that will immediately improve my output?  What are the more advanced tips or tricks to really getting a higher quality dot?  Do I just need to look into a better printer?

A lot of why I'm asking is I was about to buy a CIS for the 1400, but don't necessarily want to invest in that if it will still produce poor halftones.

[alan802]

Next time you come by we'll look at ours under the loupe so you can compare it with what you've got.  We have the 1400 with Accurip.

[Shanarchy]

I'm guessing it's because you don't have a rip. I'm assuming you are filling your halftones in illustrator?

I'm thinking if you get accurip you'd be fine.

*I only say Accurip because I think it's the most economical one. I could be wrong. But any rip software should give you the control you need.

Now Pierre and Dot Tone can get on technical in here.

[mimosatexas]

That would be awesome.  I thought I had it at least somewhat dialed in, but holy crap was this eye opening...

I make my halftones in photoshop using the bitmap method with a 600 or 1200 dpi file to prevent the jaggies (depends on LPI).

[ebscreen]

I've never liked Photoshop's halftones, always found them rough.

I'll second that it's likely not using a RIP.

GhostScript is free and if your printer is supported pretty easy to get setup.

[Sbrem]

You're right to use 1200 ppi as your Output Resolution when you convert to bitmap in photoshop, that's the cleanest those dots will come out, from the program. However, if you aren't using a RIP, then you probably don't have the control you need; spend the money, it'll come back in no time, you want to be printing shirts, not films over and over. Also, if you want cleaner dots once you get a RIP, just print from one channel, not all six, AccuRIP lets you control that. Also, print out a test film and have someone read the results with a densitometer so you can plug the readings into the RIP and it will control your shades better. Also, you can buy much less expensive ink from Cobra or MIS, don't buy it from Epson with their 10,000% markup...

Steve

[mimosatexas]

All great points.  I was going to buy the Cobra CIS with pigment inks so I can do inkjet transfers as well.  Will that mess with my ability to get great films?  Will a rip fix the issues inside the dot AND the jagged edges, or at least improve them?  I was under the impression the rip primarily automated the creation of the halftones from the grayscale image, while the issue seems to be with the way to ink and film are actually "creating" the dot.  The digital photoshop file with manually created halftones has very nice edges at that resolution.

Also, with a rip, will it affect the clean edges of text?  Part of why I never got a rip was people complaining that accurip made text edges jagged while they were clean in the digital file.  The same issue happens with manually created halftones in photoshop, but you can omit the text and halftone only what you need, them merge the layers cleanly in photoshop.  I hope that makes sense...

[Sbrem]

RIPs also control how the ink goes down on the film. And a single channel will print once, 6 channels will pile up, and your edges lose something. My last 1400 was giving us trouble, but I kept switching channels, but eventually it was time for a new printer, so I picked up a 3800 for a great price that was hardly used, and AccuRIP had it in it's list of printers, so it was an easy change. As for the 1400, don't use it for both films and color; you can of course, but it would be better to have both dedicated to their particular jobs. And lastly, we didn't bother with a CISS, we just top of the ink every morning with a syringe. I would recommend detaching the waste tube from the waste pads and putting it into a waste bottle. Eventually, your printer will think it needs service, but you can get the Epson reset utility to reset it when that happens.

Steve

[Frog]

I use an Epson WF1100 with Cobra pigment inks, Inkjet Film film, and Ghost, and while I am far from highend, when I look through a loupe, my dots are pretty clean, my type is sharp, and my films are opaque.

[Frog]

Here's a phone shot through a loupe, but as it enlarges, the lack of focus becomes apparent.

And with a better RIP, it could only improve

[jsheridan]

  We have the 1400 with Accurip.

I used to use an Epson 1800 with Accurip and i was able to hold 3% dots on a 270 mesh exposing with flo black light bulbs so yeah, it's not the printer.

If you can get one, a densitometer will allow Linearization of your output so you can be sure that 35% halftone you print, is a 35% dot.

[Sbrem]

I'm sure if you ask nicely, a certain moderator might take those readings for you...

Steve

[Full-SpectrumSeparator]

Also, with a rip, will it affect the clean edges of text?  Part of why I never got a rip was people complaining that accurip made text edges jagged while they were clean in the digital file.  The same issue happens with manually created halftones in photoshop, but you can omit the text and halftone only what you need, them merge the layers cleanly in photoshop.  I hope that makes sense...

It's all about knowing what the right input and output will produce...  proper sampling technique before the RIP.   

For example, in photoshop if I have a clean-text solid-pixel edge,  no anti-aliasing already.... and it is only 300 DPI, with fades and gradients elsewhere... what I do is image-size upsample to 1200 DPI -- choosing the NEAREST NEIGHBOR (retain hard edges) setting, this does no anti-aliasing/blurring on edges that are already perfect.... this is how to prevent the "RIP" from creating halftone edges on what were clean edges.   Also if you don't upsample to 1200 or 1440 etc then you'll have halftones that are not high-enough resolution to hold the shapes especially in the lighter percentages.     Just clarifying that you don't have to run it as two separate pieces, it is just the way upsampling is performed from 300 DPI - or rasterizing artwork if it is high-resolution like vector already you would rasterize at 1200 DPI or 1440 but NO ANTI-ALIAS to retain the clean-edges so they translate just as they would going from vector postscript to a separate RIP.   

I use an Epson 1430 without any modification, converting the black and white halftone or stochastic image to CMYK and threshold 100% for each channel,  choosing print settings to give it the best result with the film.      Personally for me I just don't use the "blind RIP" method,  I always want to work with the halftones and preview them in color, trying to get the best press-simulation of the separations and films/ink etc before ever making films and screens.   Working in dot-gain compensation that is different for different colors and meshes etc.
Was just testing some 45 LPI halftones on 86 mesh the other day, created a dot-response curve profile very easily by working with basic tools like using test patterns and scanning them, just using proper color-management and calibration logic in the workflow to make a compensated or linearized film output to test for the press-curve.     The same settings for everything but switching one factor - like black ink or white ink, through an 86 mesh and it is going to be a difference on press... hitting white twice, another difference, another curve or type of curve.   But it won't be that hard to build up the right calibration and print tests to figure out the information flow from computer to film to screens to press and have scenarios with the separation and RIP methods that will get me working as automated as possible while retaining the accuracy I need to be able to trust what I do on the computer will translate to press the way I need it to.        Some of the response-curve has to do with the film and density, resolution / RIP method etc, some has to do with exposure type and timing, emulsion type and EOM, mesh count to a degree, etc...  lots of variables but they are your friends and not your enemy, once you have a logical workflow and easy methods and tools to measure and sample, you can get very close to a streamlined WYSIWYG model (What you see is what you get) - and this is the purpose behind using computers to aid in the design and manufacture of products. 

[mimosatexas]

As I already mentioned, I create my halftones and upsample artwork properly to print using 1200 dpi and my digital file is fine...I also already use CMYK 100% and have optimized my settings within the default printer settings.  The issue I mentioned occurs regardless of how clean your edges art when outputting halftones manually in photoshop.  It WILL create jagged edges on text if you do not halftone separately from your clean hard lines, even if it is a small change.

The issue is not with my digital file, my workflow during artwork and output file creation, or anything to do with compensating for gain on press or during exposure, EOM, mesh count, etc.  It is specifically with the dot as it is being created by the printer on my film.

[ebscreen]

Got ya. I didn't know there was a way around the cruddy dots photoshop makes for you.

Give Ghostscript a whirl and see if it's actually your printer or lack of RIP. Then you'll know which way to go.
FWIW FilmMaker is pretty badass.