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

[Sbrem]

I guess this is why I don't do my text in Photoshop; I like to do the image in Photoshop, save the channels, export as DCS, import into Illustrator and create the text there, always clean edges. The RIP converts the grayscale to the halftones and we can simply print the film. I have to read over Full Spectrum's post though when I have more time and check it out, knowledge is power after all. Also, I notice your mention of 86 mesh; we haven't used it in years because I discovered this 81 SDE from SAATI that will put down more white ink than you could ever need. It's the "S" thread of low mesh counts, check it out...

Steve

[Dottonedan]

If your Rez is at 600-1200, that's all you need when doing manual halftones. Keep in mind tho, that the halftones comiing from Photoshop are not 100% true line screens to what you choose. A 55lpi will not be an exact 55lpi. That function is entirely based on resolution settings. If you choose 55lpi from a 100 rez file, it will be different from a 55lpi using 300 rez.
When I say "different" it might have 56-57 lines in it and not really 55.

It's true that like SBrem said, images in photoshop (because they are raster) will be less sharp and can have jagged edges. Still, at 600-1200, those little jaggies make do difference (or very very little). It would ahve ot be something pretty low (in resolution) in order for it to be visible or make a difference.  Many choices we make in file prep pertaining to detail are overkill and also that goes to say we also underkill something. Like many don't use the right mesh to halftone ratio and live with (and feel comfortable with) using a 55lpi on a 110 mesh (for example).  I see it a good bit of the time.

Here is an example of why the little jaggies are not so important.
You print small type on high mesh to hold detail, but you coat a high mesh thinner than the others physically.

Many coat it 1:1 with a shapr edge with a fast pull. Some a little heavier but with a sharp edge. That difference alone, contributes to wether you kick out a jaggie edge curve on type. So in print, you end up brining back some (mesh thread) jaggie edges from your clean vector type anyways. So the option and time used to save as dcs2 provides minimal benefits visually. Then, add to that the wet ink on the tee, smashed around a little in the stroke pull, is never an exact true shape of the small letters on top of the fabric threads. All of that combined, contributes to making the need for clean vector type null. AN extreme example of this is if you were to use a 110 mesh coated 1:1 and print fine type with it. Very jaggie. You can see mesh tracks in the print at times.

I love the cool factor of adding in vector with raster but at high resolutions only, it's benefits are still minimal at best. For those that use low Rez psd files, I can see using the dcs method as the lower the rez, the larger the jaggie.

For the issue of the digital film dots, it's like the original poster had indicated. You can bring in high quality files but if the setting and Rez of the printer is low, output will be low.  A 300 dpi printer is not going to provide very good dots.  You probably need 600 min these days to begin to compare to others.


Digital printers all depends on the process used and the settings options. For example, some have multiple passes and at different resolutions.  A single pass is know for being able to put down finer detail. In theory this is correct since the more lay down, the more fill in you have. THink of shadow tones. THe more passes, the more fill in of those negative lines like a negative .5 line and also your negative shadow tone dots. Everything around it is being compounded. Your 95% dot starts to fill in and become more of a 98%.


I've seen those dots put down before like you describe in the art file image above.  They are oblong shapes that seem to be placed randomly in one spot to create a dot (size) representation. That in and of itself (I say) is not a bad thing. The question should be,  How do you get them to be more opaque?  You should look at your settings and determine if you have the option of building in a few more passes and/or a different resolution.  THis process is how Pierre was able to achieve his better dots.

[Dottonedan]

Sorry for the messy posting. Typing fast on phone at the Dr. Office.

I've found over the years that (shape) of a dot is not at all as important as the size that actually gets put on the shirt.  Similar to wether or not you have small jaggies on the edges, is the question of shape.

I would be the first to search out the cleanest, roundest, smoothest dot possible in the past. Pierre's current dots would not pass for me at one time.

By the time a beautiful round dot gets put onto a shirt, under a loupe, it's nothing but a blob with an undefined shape resulting from its process to get there.

An ugly, undefined rough edges squiggle shape (to start with) can be used with equal print results. It's not the shape of the dot that is important, but the % that it is to represent once on the garment. It's all in the compensation and calibration settings of any device.

The only concern should be ink lay down to make that dot. Is it opaque? If not, use a setting where you put down more ink, that might be by using more passes or more heads. 

[mimosatexas]

My main concern is with holding the smallest dots and holding dots in a consistent way.  I think the issues I see with banding and loss when exposing are mostly due to the film having shitty dots.  The exposure unit I am using is holding fantastic detail, but I am having weird issues with dots next to eachother not exposing the same despite being identical dots.  Under a loupe it isn't an issue of mesh interference, so I assume it is light coming through the gaps in my messy films.  Honestly when I get some more free time I am going to test more, and I am going to grab a few rips to test some stuff as well.

I appreciate all help and the info as always!

[jsheridan]

What kind of inks are you using?

some are more opaque than others. the more opaque or UV block is has, the more light you can expose with to compensate for any film cloudiness.

I was using this stuff, it's dye so may not work for you.
Jet Black Dye Based Ink in the liter bottle or you can scroll up and buy the pre-filled cart for the 1400, or just about any epson 'film' printer.
http://www.filmoutputsolutions.com/dyeink#bulk_1

[Full-SpectrumSeparator]

If your Rez is at 600-1200, that's all you need when doing manual halftones. Keep in mind tho, that the halftones comiing from Photoshop are not 100% true line screens to what you choose. A 55lpi will not be an exact 55lpi. That function is entirely based on resolution settings. If you choose 55lpi from a 100 rez file, it will be different from a 55lpi using 300 rez.
When I say "different" it might have 56-57 lines in it and not really 55.

It's true that like SBrem said, images in photoshop (because they are raster) will be less sharp and can have jagged edges. Still, at 600-1200, those little jaggies make do difference (or very very little). It would ahve ot be something pretty low (in resolution) in order for it to be visible or make a difference. 

Let's clear something up, it seems like things are going into the territory of opinion or misguided understanding. 

I'm trying to wrap my brain around what the missing piece is... 


When you say "because they are raster" -- and I think you've said in another post before "clean vector"...  Are you under the impression that somehow there is "non-raster" or "vector" that ends up printed on your film?

[jsheridan]

Raster is the term for an image made from dots.. ie photoshop.
This will print your images as dots and cause thinks like text to lose their sharp edges.

Vector is a mathematical line from point a to b. Ie  illustrator.
Your images will print with clean lines or edges

[Frog]

Are you under the impression that somehow there is "non-raster" or "vector" that ends up printed on your film?

I wonder if FSS is categorizing most of our output devices as printing with dots, and therefore printing raster, even if the file is vector.

[Dottonedan]

If your Rez is at 600-1200, that's all you need when doing manual halftones. Keep in mind tho, that the halftones comiing from Photoshop are not 100% true line screens to what you choose. A 55lpi will not be an exact 55lpi. That function is entirely based on resolution settings. If you choose 55lpi from a 100 rez file, it will be different from a 55lpi using 300 rez.
When I say "different" it might have 56-57 lines in it and not really 55.

It's true that like SBrem said, images in photoshop (because they are raster) will be less sharp and can have jagged edges. Still, at 600-1200, those little jaggies make do difference (or very very little). It would ahve ot be something pretty low (in resolution) in order for it to be visible or make a difference. 

Let's clear something up, it seems like things are going into the territory of opinion or misguided understanding. 

I'm trying to wrap my brain around what the missing piece is... 


When you say "because they are raster" -- and I think you've said in another post before "clean vector"...  Are you under the impression that somehow there is "non-raster" or "vector" that ends up printed on your film?

I will define/clarify my statements.
Files that are created in vector, are of course achieved by being plotted/drawn using math rather than physical pixels and resolution as Jsheridan had indicated.

The quality of output (from vector) is based on your quality of the imagining device. A high dpi/resolution printer will produce cleaner images. Cleaner being (edge jaggies) on curved type.

The quality of raster can be affected by the resolution of your file at output, no matter the output device.
You can have a 3600dpi wet film imagesetter to produce your film...and use a 200dpi halftones in photoshop...and they come out much jaggier via the manual halftones in photoshop (because of the resolution used at your starting point) when creating the manual halftones.

There are plenty of imaging devices that convert both vector and any good/high ppi raster file to it's own dpi "raster" quality at output as well.

Most any time I refer to vector, I refer to is as "clean" as it does present the best chance of having clean edges at output versus raster images, although, I myself have no issues using photoshop with clean edges even if it does have a tad of the jaggies. That is not to imply that raster is non clean. Here, I am specifically speaking of an isolated topic of edge cleanliness such as on the curve of the letter S.

Below, I gave my personal opinion (and past experiences) that are for some opinions, and for me as fact in the topic of using DCS2 files for vector output on type (below). I tho, don't proclaim that anyone should NOT use something they are comfortable with based on my own experiences or even what I believe as facts. The differences are minimal and can be proven, but I do not claim that people should not use what they are familiar with or comfortable with. For me, I find it to be yet another step that I do not need.

[Full-SpectrumSeparator]

Are you under the impression that somehow there is "non-raster" or "vector" that ends up printed on your film?

I wonder if FSS is categorizing most of our output devices as printing with dots, and therefore printing raster, even if the file is vector.

Right, exactly.    Am I wrong to make this categorization?

Can you please show me an example of an output device that prints VECTOR??       Perhaps a vinyl-cutter-plotter... that is the type of device that may use vector instructions sent to the motors and print-head.     Just about everything else prints with DOTS.      I am raising the question because it seems like somehow you guys think you're outputting VECTOR onto your films??   
The printer rasterizes the data whether you sent it raster at the same resolution as the print-engine will do it,  or vector, it will turn into the same exact thing on film -- the only difference is if the in-device rasterization has some other factors besides resolution that can be measured and shown as a different/better quality factor in the process. 
  But the conversion of a "vector" to a shape on the film is almost always a Raster Image Process - conversion to Raster, at a specific resolution.   

[Full-SpectrumSeparator]

Raster is the term for an image made from dots.. ie photoshop.
This will print your images as dots and cause thinks like text to lose their sharp edges.

Vector is a mathematical line from point a to b. Ie  illustrator.
Your images will print with clean lines or edges

"Raster is the term for an image made from dots.. ie photoshop." --- First part is ok...

"This will print your images as dots and cause thinks like text to lose their sharp edges." --- Has nothing to do with printing.   This is where you're confused. 

"Vector is a mathematical line from point a to b. Ie  illustrator. " ---  Ok, your definitions of Raster and Vector are not the best... a little too narrow, but in relation to graphics fine..

"Your images will print with clean lines or edges" --- again, this has nothing to do with printing.  Your "images" will print with jagged lines or edges that follow the resolution of the RIP of the print device, or the vector lines/edges themselves, whichever resolves at the DPI of the device. 


You are mixing up digital graphics with physical print machines.     

I can output high resolution raster from photoshop at the same resolution as the print device will rasterize, and nothing changes,  it produces the same exact CLEAN SMOOTH LINE on the film as the file sent as vector, because they both get RASTERIZED to the same points/dots.     Only if the RIP in the print device is creating a measurably better digital image than the one you rasterize yourself will it have any chance of being "cleaner" on the film.   

[Full-SpectrumSeparator]

If your Rez is at 600-1200, that's all you need when doing manual halftones. Keep in mind tho, that the halftones comiing from Photoshop are not 100% true line screens to what you choose. A 55lpi will not be an exact 55lpi. That function is entirely based on resolution settings. If you choose 55lpi from a 100 rez file, it will be different from a 55lpi using 300 rez.
When I say "different" it might have 56-57 lines in it and not really 55.

It's true that like SBrem said, images in photoshop (because they are raster) will be less sharp and can have jagged edges. Still, at 600-1200, those little jaggies make do difference (or very very little). It would ahve ot be something pretty low (in resolution) in order for it to be visible or make a difference. 

Let's clear something up, it seems like things are going into the territory of opinion or misguided understanding. 

I'm trying to wrap my brain around what the missing piece is... 


When you say "because they are raster" -- and I think you've said in another post before "clean vector"...  Are you under the impression that somehow there is "non-raster" or "vector" that ends up printed on your film?

I will define/clarify my statements.
Files that are created in vector, are of course achieved by being plotted/drawn using math rather than physical pixels and resolution as Jsheridan had indicated.

The quality of output (from vector) is based on your quality of the imagining device. A high dpi/resolution printer will produce cleaner images. Cleaner being (edge jaggies) on curved type.

The quality of raster can be affected by the resolution of your file at output, no matter the output device.
You can have a 3600dpi wet film imagesetter to produce your film...and use a 200dpi halftones in photoshop...and they come out much jaggier via the manual halftones in photoshop (because of the resolution used at your starting point) when creating the manual halftones.

There are plenty of imaging devices that convert both vector and any good/high ppi raster file to it's own dpi "raster" quality at output as well.

Most any time I refer to vector, I refer to is as "clean" as it does present the best chance of having clean edges at output versus raster images, although, I myself have no issues using photoshop with clean edges even if it does have a tad of the jaggies. That is not to imply that raster is non clean. Here, I am specifically speaking of an isolated topic of edge cleanliness such as on the curve of the letter S.

Below, I gave my personal opinion (and past experiences) that are for some opinions, and for me as fact in the topic of using DCS2 files for vector output on type (below). I tho, don't proclaim that anyone should NOT use something they are comfortable with based on my own experiences or even what I believe as facts. The differences are minimal and can be proven, but I do not claim that people should not use what they are familiar with or comfortable with. For me, I find it to be yet another step that I do not need.

"Files that are created in vector, are of course achieved by being plotted/drawn using math rather than physical pixels and resolution as Jsheridan had indicated."

---No they are not, if you're talking about the actual PRINT OUTPUT.    Perhaps only in cases like a vinyl cutter-plotter is this even close to true.   They aren't even displayed on the computer monitor without being rasterized.  The math exists in the digital information... the image or physical-world thing exists when there is digital-to-analog conversion.   On a computer monitor or a laser printer or inkjet printer or a cutter-plotter.   Almost always there needs to be sampling, the creation of points that become signals to the devices... it is not "vector-printed".

"The quality of output (from vector) is based on your quality of the imagining device. A high dpi/resolution printer will produce cleaner images. Cleaner being (edge jaggies) on curved type."

   ---- The quality of output (from vector) is based on the RESOLUTION of the Raster Image Process - and other factors.. but the actual "quality" of the image itself that goes through the rest of the steps is determined by the RIP -- if you perform the RIP at the same resolution and the pixels are all in the same places, there is no difference, nothing "cleaner" or "edge jaggies" --- you still get edge-jaggies always at the resolution of the RIP - then modified by the resolutions of the droplets or other factors of the printing process.    The "effective" resolutions are not always the same as the digital version - but if you rasterize the same image that the in-device raster-engine creates, then absolutely there is no difference whatsoever - the same image gets sent through the rest of the process.     


So am I to take it you really do think that there is vector output on film for screenprinting?    Please show me the device.. I have worked with many over the years, even a thermal imagesetter, one of the densest and best positive-devices,  creates 1200 dpi at best, it appears rounded under the microscope because just like emulsion etc, the film/heat can't create an exact reproduction in the physical world of the digital pixels that are sent to it.     But a vector text vs. a raster text at 1200 dpi - no difference, the vector still gets rasterized at 1200 in the RIP of the imagesetter.

Until someone shows me a device that supposedly outputs vector without performing a RIP in order to do it, then there seems to be no clear evidence that there is any distinction between sending vector to a print device or rasterizing first at the SAME RESOLUTION as the device does to the vector data IN-RIP.      But let's look for a printer that doesn't RIP.   

[Full-SpectrumSeparator]

Are you under the impression that somehow there is "non-raster" or "vector" that ends up printed on your film?

I wonder if FSS is categorizing most of our output devices as printing with dots, and therefore printing raster, even if the file is vector.

Are you printing films with a plotter?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plotter

"Pen plotters print by moving a pen or other instrument across the surface of a piece of paper. This means that plotters are vector graphics devices, rather than raster graphics as with other printers. Pen plotters can draw complex line art, including text, but do so slowly because of the mechanical movement of the pens. They are often incapable of efficiently creating a solid region of color, but can hatch an area by drawing a number of close, regular lines.
Plotters offered the fastest way to efficiently produce very large drawings or color high-resolution vector-based artwork when computer memory was very expensive and processor power was very limited, and other types of printers had limited graphic output capabilities.
Pen plotters have essentially become obsolete, and have been replaced by large-format inkjet printers and LED toner based printers. Such devices may still understand vector languages originally designed for plotter use, because in many uses, they offer a more efficient alternative to raster data."

It is about the only case in which real vector information is going to the print-head and not being raster-image-processed first.   

The LED toner and inkjet printers of today all perform high-resolution 600/1200/2400 etc RASTERIZING of the vector.   They don't print vector. 

[Frog]

Are you under the impression that somehow there is "non-raster" or "vector" that ends up printed on your film?

I wonder if FSS is categorizing most of our output devices as printing with dots, and therefore printing raster, even if the file is vector.

Right, exactly.    Am I wrong to make this categorization?

Can you please show me an example of an output device that prints VECTOR??       Perhaps a vinyl-cutter-plotter... that is the type of device that may use vector instructions sent to the motors and print-head.     Just about everything else prints with DOTS.      I am raising the question because it seems like somehow you guys think you're outputting VECTOR onto your films??   
The printer rasterizes the data whether you sent it raster at the same resolution as the print-engine will do it,  or vector, it will turn into the same exact thing on film -- the only difference is if the in-device rasterization has some other factors besides resolution that can be measured and shown as a different/better quality factor in the process. 
  But the conversion of a "vector" to a shape on the film is almost always a Raster Image Process - conversion to Raster, at a specific resolution.

Hey, don't pick on me. I'm the one who answered your quasi riddle 

[mimosatexas]

This is getting a little off topic honestly.  I think or assume that almost everyone here understands that printers print using dots and are essentially rasterizing vector input as a result.  That is the main reason I manually create my halftones vs using a rip in the first place, because I do not see the benefit of a rip in this specific area.  The dots I am creating digitally mirror what a rip would create specifically when it comes to the interpretation of the grayscale information.  I am using a high resolution digital file, and outputting 1 to 1 (or close to it) with my dots, but they are not as clean as they are on my screen due to the splatter of the ink as it is laid onto the film.

As for RIPs, controlling other factors like ink density etc are benefits which I am excited to explore as a result of the conversation in this thread and are unrelated to the raster/vector tangent.

Off topic, but I feel like it needs to be addressed...FSS: you need to work on your communication skills.  I often see you respond in threads where you repeat what others have already said, but you do so in a way that comes across as condescending and it often seems like you simply haven't read or understood the rest of the posts.  Posting the wiki definition of a plotter for example comes across as condescending on a forum full of seasoned professionals who very obviously know what a plotter is...  No one in this thread has said anything about printers outputting as vector, yet you seem to be arguing about it due to some misunderstanding or hurried reading of other's points.   In fact the majority of the thread mentions printers outputting in dpi and how the digital dpi correlates to the quality of the dots.  Vector was never mentioned in regards to the actual film output beyond how it would relate to outputting at the default dpi of the printers...