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

[Dottonedan]

Full,


I suspect you have inadvertently supported my initial post regarding the limited differences of using DCS2 and raster type.  It's all in the resolution of the imaging device and the starting point of your art file.


The topic was more about edge definition and I think you took a general term of "clean vector" too literal to imply that "we think" or "I think" our output is actually vector cut/output/plotted onto film or something, I don't know.  Not sure what that means for sure, but no.  Printing vector art comes out more clean (because it used the optimum quality of your imaging device. No matter wether it's vector, digital "raster" or something else.


Typically, now days, psd art is at 300ppi. So any "type" used straight in photoshop can have various levels of edge artifacts based on your individual type setting preferences or how you addresses that issue. When you have anti-aliasing turned off, it's hard edged, yet (resolution dependent). So if the file is 200ppi, it will be more jaggie than a 300ppi file. Far less (and basically vector clean" if it were 1200ppi. Most people don't have their whole art file at 1200ppi tho, so only do that if you are at the halftone conversion point.


To go a step further, and (here is where I will contradict myself), For my own separations, for my own sales and use, I don't even turn anti-aliasing off.  I like the softer edges for the simple reason that at a high res of 300ppi, with somewhat of a fuzzy edge on my type, (on press), it helps smooth out the jaggies.  I mean, who sees a 1%-2% dot on the edge of my 14pt type (at 55lpi on a 305 mesh (that is mixed in with 2-8 other colors creating a photo real image anyhow? The exposure process alone takes care of that for me and rounds out my edges. Having a 1-2% dot at the edge of the type seems to smooth out or obliterate and hard jaggedness of the curves. It's the same thought process of why it's not so important to have your type done in vector and your art done in psd and combining them in a vector for a DCS2 file. It can be redundant. Thats a bit maverick I know, but it looks better to me when I have soft curved edges on letters and art and I get that from not using hard edges. That falls into the same idea that a great dot must be a perfectly round, smooth vector smooth and clean dot. Thoughts like that seems to go against the grain and on most occasions, I don't mind.


Back to jaggies.  If you were to create 55lpi halftone art that has type in it and your file resolution is 200 or even 300 and you manually create halftones as the discussion was about, then you get visible jaggies.  Lets say that is even if your imagine device is archaic and 300dpi. A 600 dpi printer would be better, but still somewhat visible. Higher, and you start to lose that...but it's still there. At the 600dpi and 1200 dpi printers the edges are indeed much smoother coming onto film or screen via vector program. It's provable. I see it every day. You can see it in the preview (before) going to the substrate of film or screen.  Vector is cleaner.


What I had been mentioning, (as it pertains to edge definition) are two things.


1, The shape of the dots is not as important as the solidity of that dot on film or screen (and the intended size of the dot it is to represent. SIZE matter more here, then the shape does.


2, Is that the use of DCS2 files (on tee shirts) at high resolutions with the art done in either vector or raster at high rez, (makes no difference) or very little visible difference. Mostly due to all of the other factors involved. You touched on that a little as well. Stuff like RZ value on the surface of the screen, EOM, ink (types etc. Is it a think or a thin ink) All of the little things compounded on the print, make very little difference for using DCS2. Sure, initially it looks great at print preview and maybe even on the screen, but once exposed and printed, the results of the two images will be almost identical.  For that reason, I forego the use of DCS2 (as a means of getting crisp clean type) on a tee. It's an added step for me that I find not as beneficial as others do.


It seems your stance here is to make sure we know we are not printing vector physically (onto) film.  I think we understand that. It has to be laid out/plotted, mathed out, however you want to call it.... on the film square by square of the devices resolution (and higher resolutions devices) are what create that smoother looking letter S edge. It's all the same, but thats a bit literal and off topic really. For example, when we talk about "blending halftones on press" we don't really mean that we take a spatula and physically mix the dots on press till they blend smoothly. Thats literal.  When someone refers to putting vector on films, or raster art on films, they are more so referring to what program they used to do so.


The difference here (at this point) is that we were talking about manually creating the original posters halftones in photoshop (to film) with no rip and since photoshop files are typically at a much lower rez than the imaging device, we needed to address the differences and discuss resolutions. It's just the 99x out of 100, When people use a resolution in photoshop, it's (typically) or most often, NOT at the same resolution as their imaging device at the time of creation or arrival from the customer. At the point of bitmapping, it should be, but not at the stage of creation. Not many artist have a 30 layer rgb psd file at 14x17" at 1200ppi as a standard. HERE, we are telling them, at the point of sending your separations to the printer, and you want clean edges (the least amount of jaggies), and you are manually creating your own halftones in photoshop, you should do so (at a very high resolution). Something that matches the imaging device for example. 1200dpi would be great.

[Dottonedan]

HA!  sorry  Mimosatexas,
I continued the off topic part, (but i did try to clarify my intentions).   I posted right about the same time you did.

[Dottonedan]

Mimosatexas,, After all of that,  I think you should look at (the process) of how your imaging device) delivers the dots.  It's got to be a different setting in your options. Again, I've seen those dots you illustrated before (in photo) from someone else and I believe it might have even been Pierre. He did two things.

Don't quote me on this, but from memory (often bad), he was getting similar dot shapes and opacities as you and this person did this. (Maybe it wasn't even Pierre) but someone on this forum posted about this a year or so back.

1, He purchased another RIP program for the same device....and got much more of a different shape, more opaque printed dot results. This has to do with how the ink is delivered. He then made some drastic resolution/settings/print pass changes and is getting great dots now.


2, He later purchased another printer with much better results using the newer rip.

I haven't seen Pierre chime in here, so I hope he sees this soon and can elaborate.

[mimosatexas]

No worries Dan, you addressed basically what I was trying to address.  I think everyone is on the same page when it comes to the raster/vector and output results of either, and the tangent seemed to derail a bit based on miscommunication.

I am definitely going to get a rip and start to experiment much more with the actual printer output settings.  I will honestly probably continue to create my halftones manually at high rez in PS as I like being able to see them on the screen, and I often clean up actual dots in areas that may not be obvious from looking at just the grayscale image.  Exposure often takes care of these low percentage "artifacts", but not always and I like being able to see them before printing.

I really appreciate the discussion here and I will update with my progress as I make it.  I am starting to get to a point where I am trying to incorporate sim process-like aspects into designs whenever possible simply to push myself as a printer and keep things interesting.  As a result, the issues with my films became obvious and I can't wait to fix/improve them.

[Dottonedan]

That's when you know your making progress, when these little things get unearthed. Aka, the awe haw! moment.

[jsheridan]

Off topic, but I feel like it needs to be addressed...FSS: you need to work on your communication skills. 

passionate people tend to take it a little personally when a topic they really know something about gets a little tangled on the web, look at how I lecture people on here about screens.

[Frog]

Off topic, but I feel like it needs to be addressed...FSS: you need to work on your communication skills. 

passionate people tend to take it a little personally when a topic they really know something about gets a little tangled on the web, look at how I lecture people on here about screens.

But those of us who know you have learned what to filter out. With those who don't post very much. the filters have not been developed, and the baby may tend to get thrown out with the bathwater.

[Sbrem]

Having a pretty good understanding of this discussion, I see everyone's methods and points. If you want to rasterize the text in PS, then you need to be at the highest resolution you can handle. What I like about the RIP though, is that I can leave the raster image at a lower resolution, typically the "double the line count", and files that don't clog up your machine or network, then doing the text in Illustrator. Before I had a RIP though, I would convert to halftone with the bitmap method, and 1200 ppi produced a smoother edged dot than 300, so that was what I used. The physical evidence proved that. So I might work at 300 creating my channels, but my output resolution in the Bitmap dialog would be 1200. I just find it much faster to have a RIP set up and let it do it's job, no manual converting to halftones. Send all colors to print and get on with something else. Thanks to all for sharing

Steve

[blue moon]

there are many ways to skin a cat, in the end, we use a RIP. It is easy and fast. When on budget you can use the workarounds, but in the end some tools work better than the others (for a variety of reasons).

pierre

p.s. filmmaker is actually cheaper than the AccuRip.

[Prosperi-Tees]

Filmmaker and accurip are both $495 I think, no?

[blue moon]

Filmmaker and accurip are both $495 I think, no?

aaaah, interesting. AR used to be $100 more!

pierre

[Prosperi-Tees]

Fresners T-Rip is at $399, I could be wrong but I think it is the same engine as Filmmaker?

[blue moon]

Fresners T-Rip is at $399, I could be wrong but I think it is the same engine as Filmmaker?

It is!

Pierre