CTS Wax - Taking the plunge

[CBCB]

I made my last statement of being a waste of time... (as a waste of “my time” and my money to “prove” anything to anyone that doesn’t want to be proved to. Some of you are so head strong over things that you don’t really see and becomes futile. They’ve proved it time and time again.  So I’ve posted about things and you blew it off. I’ve shown a few pictures and you’ve blown it off..

Blown what off, Dan? I’ve asked you to link it. I don’t recall the few pictures. Can I see them?

Who’s proved what? All I’ve really seen is a dot comparison where CTS looked like crap, plus the many support threads for wet ink.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CBCB]

Oops double post.

[RICK STEFANICK]

Well I can say day in day out we produce high end graphics 12-14 colors with heavy halftone screens. We produce upwards of 300 screens per day for a lot of retail clients and do it on a I-Image with no issues or downtime. That accounts for something.We do use the original ink.

[CBCB]

Well I can say day in day out we produce high end graphics 12-14 colors with heavy halftone screens. We produce upwards of 300 screens per day for a lot of retail clients and do it on a I-Image with no issues or downtime. That accounts for something.We do use the original ink.

Yes, it does account for something. It’s a strong endorsement for wet ink but says nothing about it compared to wax. Shops can say the same thing about wax.

What I’m interested in is shops that have actually compared and tested both and are willing to share the results. I respect your opinion but taking your last post at face value would be the same as blindly buying wax because another shop said it’s better.

Sure you may not think we ‘need’ it but if equipment is going to sit here for years then I’d like to make sure we’re considering all options for quality, and longevity.

If another machine at a similar cost produced a cleaner dot with less headaches then it’s pretty likely you’d have chosen it at the time. And that’s what I see here, that wax produces better screens with less headaches.

Some are claiming otherwise but examples have only been shown that makes wax look better. Or well, apparently Dan has posted the contrary but I’ve never seen or it been able to find it. Would appreciate a link!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[inkman996]

I can't compare wax to CTS since we only have had an I image in our shop. We are about 4 months in and as of yet its been absolutely perfect running with no down time ever. What I can say is the improvement in our half tone printing is remarkable, we are able to hold dots we never could before with just a basic inkjet imaging system. I don't bat an eye at the thought of shooting a 65lpi screen when before I would go above 55lpi. The only issue we had to over come from the transition was the room environment. When installed it was still cold and dry so we went through 3 different humidifiers trying to find one that could maintain a decent humidity level, the best we could do was about 35% on full blast but it would drink water to a blown dam. We gave up on that and came up with a simpler solution. We lightly spray a rag with a water bottle and just swipe it across the screen and then print, works perfect every time. Now that its humidity season we do not have even do that anymore.

We did demo a wax many two years ago and it was a fantastic machine, I loved the foot print which was tiny compared to the I image and it was very fast, and what i recall the image quality was fantastic. Regardless the prcing was out reach at that time and with the more affordable I Image S we demoed it, loved it and pulled the trigger.

[Dottonedan]

I’ve never claimed wet ink dots look “better”.  What I can prove is that your “pretty dots” mean nothing over a wet ink ugly dot.  That I can prove, but not just yet. I’ve posted picture, but you need to see the proof on the shirt at the end of the video. It’s a “when I get to it”.  If you don’t like that, sorry.

it really comes down to “if you can win awards off of both wet ink and wax ink, is your pretty dot under the loop, an important deciding factor?

It's far more common to have no issues with either machine, than what you have seen with wet ink.

[RICK STEFANICK]

Well I can say day in day out we produce high end graphics 12-14 colors with heavy halftone screens. We produce upwards of 300 screens per day for a lot of retail clients and do it on a I-Image with no issues or downtime. That accounts for something.We do use the original ink.

Yes, it does account for something. It’s a strong endorsement for wet ink but says nothing about it compared to wax. Shops can say the same thing about wax.

What I’m interested in is shops that have actually compared and tested both and are willing to share the results. I respect your opinion but taking your last post at face value would be the same as blindly buying wax because another shop said it’s better.

Sure you may not think we ‘need’ it but if equipment is going to sit here for years then I’d like to make sure we’re considering all options for quality, and longevity.

If another machine at a similar cost produced a cleaner dot with less headaches then it’s pretty likely you’d have chosen it at the time. And that’s what I see here, that wax produces better screens with less headaches.

Some are claiming otherwise but examples have only been shown that makes wax look better. Or well, apparently Dan has posted the contrary but I’ve never seen or it been able to find it. Would appreciate a link!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for your input

[inkman996]

I really cannot believe their is enough difference between the two machines dot quality to be important. It is already well known from both sides they produce great enough dots to easily cover the most demanding shops. I don't think I ever heard anyone say an Epson film printer is better than a wax or ink DTS. Besides look at the product from someone like Serj, he does that with just a film printer, so if he can do that with film surely that can be done with any reputable CTS machine out there.

[CBCB]

I’ve never claimed wet ink dots look “better”.  What I can prove is that your “pretty dots” mean nothing over a wet ink ugly dot.  That I can prove, but not just yet. I’ve posted picture, but you need to see the proof on the shirt at the end of the video. It’s a “when I get to it”.  If you don’t like that, sorry.

it really comes down to “if you can win awards off of both wet ink and wax ink, is your pretty dot under the loop, an important deciding factor?

I’m far more coming to have no issues with either, than to have one.

I don’t know what you’ve claimed since I’ve never seen it. I don’t have any dots since I haven’t chosen a machine.

Don’t make this about what I like and don’t like. I’m very interested to hear why the dot doesn’t make a difference. It’s literally what I asked earlier. Why would someone take the crappier dot? Because it doesn’t make a difference on a shirt?

Well then if the dots are the same then maybe it comes down to the other factors. Like which achieves those same results with less headaches for a general non-tech operator.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CBCB]

I really cannot believe their is enough difference between the two machines dot quality to be important. It is already well known from both sides they produce great enough dots to easily cover the most demanding shops. I don't think I ever heard anyone say an Epson film printer is better than a wax or ink DTS. Besides look at the product from someone like Serj, he does that with just a film printer, so if he can do that with film surely that can be done with any reputable CTS machine out there.

Exactly! So if the dots are the same on a shirt then you’re paying for other factors. Other shops have claimed better quality with the wax though. I just don’t understand why the finally print quality and dot quality gets mentioned if it’s the same on the shirt though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RICK STEFANICK]

I think its all the other variables. You can have perfect dots even the 2 percents but what about squeegie pressure, mesh, deflection, off contact. I think thats the point . We are printing a tshirt is the difference really enough to make the difference either way even in the highest end shops? just sayin...not arguing..

[BP]

Well this is starting to become 2 guys trying to sell some equipment. I have looked at both and have used a I Image in the past. We are a blue shop. but with that said I will go with the wax.

[inkman996]

I really cannot believe their is enough difference between the two machines dot quality to be important. It is already well known from both sides they produce great enough dots to easily cover the most demanding shops. I don't think I ever heard anyone say an Epson film printer is better than a wax or ink DTS. Besides look at the product from someone like Serj, he does that with just a film printer, so if he can do that with film surely that can be done with any reputable CTS machine out there.

Exactly! So if the dots are the same on a shirt then you’re paying for other factors. Other shops have claimed better quality with the wax though. I just don’t understand why the finally print quality and dot quality gets mentioned if it’s the same on the shirt though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Absolutely the dot quality was not part of the equation when we pulled the trigger. It came down more to cost. We found the cost of the I image s coupled with a very reputable and trustworthy company made the decision for us. Would I have liked the wax instead? Probably, the foot print being a major reason and some other small things. Regardless I do not feel like I am missing out on anything by have an I Image S versus the wax machine.

[3Deep]

You guys kill me, every year something new comes out or something that's been out for years is debated on, and in most cases the tried and true method wins out.  I can see were wax would save money in the long run and inkjet printers over using film, and yes both might even do a better screen with more detail than film, but how does that relate to the customer?  better looking prints bring more profit? can you tell a big difference in prints or is it just a step that helps speed up production.  Either way this is a good thread for people looking into wax vs inkjet machines.

[inkman996]

You guys kill me, every year something new comes out or something that's been out for years is debated on, and in most cases the tried and true method wins out.  I can see were wax would save money in the long run and inkjet printers over using film, and yes both might even do a better screen with more detail than film, but how does that relate to the customer?  better looking prints bring more profit? can you tell a big difference in prints or is it just a step that helps speed up production.  Either way this is a good thread for people looking into wax vs inkjet machines.

It is mostly for increased speed, trashing the need for films, and even better registration than just the tri loc. But the increase in halftone quality does have me taking more chances on screens than I used to and that has already proved an improvement enough in ability to land a good customer. The customer seen some work we did  and was blown away at the halftone quality and was struggling with his current printer, he started sending his work to us.