CTS Wax - Taking the plunge

[CBCB]

Agreed Al! But there’s some science to this art and unfortunately I don’t want to only be able to hire scientists. An easy dot is the best dot in my eyes.
Just curious why some people wouldn’t take what looks like a better dot. Especially since many others say the quality is higher. But for me I’d pay for a better workflow all day long and less downtime and fussin’ will probably be my biggest weighing point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[3Deep]

Just curious why some people wouldn’t take what looks like a better dot. Especially since many others say the quality is higher

@CBCB, I'm willing to bet most people would, but cost sometimes makes it very impossible and we do the best with what can afford in our shops.  Then you have some of us that don't do very much high end work or have the work flow that some other shops have, but it's good to know that this tech is out there just incase

[CBCB]

Just curious why some people wouldn’t take what looks like a better dot. Especially since many others say the quality is higher

@CBCB, I'm willing to bet most people would, but cost sometimes makes it very impossible and we do the best with what can afford in our shops.  Then you have some of us that don't do very much high end work or have the work flow that some other shops have, but it's good to know that this tech is out there just incase

Totally fair enough! Lots of great work even on film. I don’t do much high end work, but I do want the workflow. Not trying to throw shade on anyone with a particular machine since I’m sure your choices are justified. Budget is a big factor for sure.


Edit, and dang I should clarify by ‘some people’ I meant Dan when I originally asked for clarification. Like I said I don’t charge by LPI I just am curious why opinions I respect seem to say ‘it makes a quality difference’ vs. ‘no quality difference’.

[DannyGruninger]

For myself its not so much about the shape of the dot but the consistency of the dot....... We had our i image printing really really good dots after working on the head voltage, firing pulses, etc but the difference is when we had a climate change in our screen room you could under a loupe easily see the differences. How humid the screens were, how long they sat in the screen room prior to imaging, etc all played factors in the consistency of the dots..... We had jobs that we printed in july that had slight differences compared to jobs printed in the winter and from what I saw under a loupe this was due to the ink jet cts........ Our wax machines we have not noticed any impact based on the environment so for myself its not so much about the shape of the dot but the integrity of the dot from day to day or week to week. I remember a long time contributor here had an i image and outdated wax machine side by side and any of his 4cp work went to the wax because everytime it was the same, with the ink jet results would vary......... To me that said a lot considering I trust the source very much so. Wax has always provided us consistent results where ink has failed us on a few occasions.

[Dottonedan]

this was sent to me last night by a wax machine user.

Looks like wet ink.  You sure it's wax, edges are rough.  We';ve been reading that wax has smooth rounder edges.  I've seen some other wax dots blown up, but those where smoother edges yet meteorite shaped or irregular as apposed to round. Yet still smooth edged.



This seems to be in the area of 35lpi at 70% halftone based on the threads (unless that's like a 355 mesh lol. Looks more like wet ink with "Speckled edges on the dots".  Guessing, but if the sender says it's wax, I have no place to question that.

Dan, Comments like that are why the sender of that left this forum and others. Why did you pick that apart? NO ONE is trying to fool you or anyone else. The sender is one of the most respected industry vets. THIS IS REDICULOUS

Reading to much into it.  I know the sender also and my type of comment is not why he left.
Great guy, and I stand by that. My statement is correct none the less.

 "The edges in that photo look rougher than what had been described as (wax dots being perfect dots) or even "better than".... wet ink....and that image, could easily be a pic of wet ink by mistake (not that it is), but they are not that far apart.  Truth is, I have seen for myself, that the wax dots look "better than" or somewhat smoother than wet ink formulated dots. They ar not "dramatically better than, but for those who like to take somthing and run with it, sure, lets call them "better than". That don't make them smooth, just better rounded, (less irregularities) or less picoliter sprays popping off the sides like than wet ink. Still rough and irregular. It's not wet photo film image setter quality as we know.  That is the all encompassing bench mark for dot quality.


Was actually has mass also, as in "height". If not using a direct light surce, it's more possible for light scatter to fatten a % tone such as making a 6% dot more of a 5%due to .  (Not that this is horrible).   But that's the stuff that people use for comparison.  "Oh, gonna get light scatter with those high wax dots, don't buy wax".  (and just to clarify....that was a joke back there about "oh the light scatter".

[inkman996]

To be fair the slight roughness of those dots on the screen image look like a lot of it is caused by the edge of the dot where it sits on the knuckles of the mesh. So is it a printed dot thing or simply physics when washing the screen out? Its a cool pic with great looking dots, whether that mesh is 300 or 350 TPI those are definitely some pretty small dots.

[Dottonedan]

For myself its not so much about the shape of the dot but the consistency of the dot....... We had our i image printing really really good dots after working on the head voltage, firing pulses, etc but the difference is when we had a climate change in our screen room you could under a loupe easily see the differences. How humid the screens were, how long they sat in the screen room prior to imaging, etc all played factors in the consistency of the dots..... We had jobs that we printed in july that had slight differences compared to jobs printed in the winter and from what I saw under a loupe this was due to the ink jet cts........ Our wax machines we have not noticed any impact based on the environment so for myself its not so much about the shape of the dot but the integrity of the dot from day to day or week to week. I remember a long time contributor here had an i image and outdated wax machine side by side and any of his 4cp work went to the wax because every time it was the same, with the ink jet results would vary......... To me that said a lot considering I trust the source very much so. Wax has always provided us consistent results where ink has failed us on a few occasions.

Fair enough. Good clarity and one I had not considered.  Repeat-ability means a lot in retail.  Still, even when doing the retail (for me and me only guys), it's not enough impact for me to go overboard and pay another 15k or something.  Just me tho.

[Dottonedan]

To be fair the slight roughness of those dots on the screen image look like a lot of it is caused by the edge of the dot where it sits on the knuckles of the mesh. So is it a printed dot thing or simply physics when washing the screen out? Its a cool pic with great looking dots, whether that mesh is 300 or 350 TPI those are definitely some pretty small dots.

  I agree with that. I donno about the dots being small tho. Seriously, they look huge to me..  Like 40lpi in the shadow tone on a 305 or something. Maybe Rick and get the sender to provide the details not that he needs to prove it.

[Dottonedan]

Just curious why some people wouldn’t take what looks like a better dot. Especially since many others say the quality is higher

@CBCB, I'm willing to bet most people would, but cost sometimes makes it very impossible and we do the best with what can afford in our shops.  Then you have some of us that don't do very much high end work or have the work flow that some other shops have, but it's good to know that this tech is out there just incase

Totally fair enough! Lots of great work even on film. I don’t do much high end work, but I do want the workflow. Not trying to throw shade on anyone with a particular machine since I’m sure your choices are justified. Budget is a big factor for sure.


Edit, and dang I should clarify by ‘some people’ I meant Dan when I originally asked for clarification. Like I said I don’t charge by LPI I just am curious why opinions I respect seem to say ‘it makes a quality difference’ vs. ‘no quality difference’.

To be fair, I never said "there is no quality difference".  I said, for me, there is not enough, not a drastic improvement enough to make (me) want/need to go wax over a used I-Image.

[Dottonedan]

CBCB,


YOU'RE RIGHT.  My apologies. It wasn't you who brought up proving it.  I must read your first big post, then saw the proving it thing and then combined the two in my head.

Well state for so many reasons!!!I am happy to discuss with anyone and PROVE the difference using their files and their screens however for many they do not do the homework.  Also, initial cost is about the same.  Mark Diehl313 515 8635

and then I jumped in about proving what I say.

[inkman996]

To be fair the slight roughness of those dots on the screen image look like a lot of it is caused by the edge of the dot where it sits on the knuckles of the mesh. So is it a printed dot thing or simply physics when washing the screen out? Its a cool pic with great looking dots, whether that mesh is 300 or 350 TPI those are definitely some pretty small dots.

  I agree with that. I donno about the dots being small tho. Seriously, they look huge to me..  Like 40lpi in the shadow tone on a 305 or something. Maybe Rick and get the sender to provide the details not that he needs to prove it.

My guess is 305 mesh, 49lpi and I agree 40%.

[Dottonedan]

To be fair the slight roughness of those dots on the screen image look like a lot of it is caused by the edge of the dot where it sits on the knuckles of the mesh. So is it a printed dot thing or simply physics when washing the screen out? Its a cool pic with great looking dots, whether that mesh is 300 or 350 TPI those are definitely some pretty small dots.

  I agree with that. I donno about the dots being small tho. Seriously, they look huge to me..  Like 40lpi in the shadow tone on a 305 or something. Maybe Rick and get the sender to provide the details not that he needs to prove it.

My guess is 305 mesh, 49lpi and I agree 40%.

HAHA!  40%.

[RICK STEFANICK]

Mr Filip said this " pretty sure its 305 mesh. 65 lpi angled for 4c process and I was adjusting the machine at the time "

[Dottonedan]

I don't doubt him. Strange tho, that there is such a large dot area with the mesh. That's a lot of coverage.

[RICK STEFANICK]

I don't doubt him. Strange tho, that there is such a large dot area with the mesh. That's a lot of coverage.

Please call him and get it all clarified. He was just trying to help