MINIMUM OR MAXIMUM IMAGE QUALITY NEEDED FROM A DTS/LTS MACHINE?

[Dottonedan]

WHAT IS THE MINIMUM OR MAXIMUM IMAGE QUALITY NEEDED FROM A DTS/LTS MACHINE?

Lasers as we hear, are to be of a much higher image resolution. What is that exactly? What resolution is needed for screen printing on apparel? What output imaging quality do we need at a minimum. Is there a maximum for apparel? How does that benefit the final print on apparel?

It’s my personal experience and belief, that the basic or minimal output quality of any one of the DTS machines is more than satisfactory for the vast majority of screen print shops printing on apparel. I say “vast majority” for the sake of pointing that out. This, to me, is what we base most of our decisions with. "What works for most shops?” because for most of us, that’s a question we ask ourselves when making major financial and equipment decisions. We use that was a gauge or a starting point and branch out from there. We probably really should be asking, “What will work in my particular shop”?

It’s my belief (based on being in this industry) for over 30 years, and gaining knowledge from the screen print “scientist”of our industry, (The Magazine contributors, the Techs, the Sales people and the product specialist for suppliers”, that they base much of their sales and marketing on what many call “lab”environments.

We all have heard the comments about what the manufacture or the suppler recommendations are. Lets say, for an ink type like Barrier grey or a Bleed blocker, the manufacture may say "Use on a maximum/high of a 156 mesh. That’s supposedly the highest mesh this ink will work with. In production, at a shop, someone may use it on a 230 mesh and it works (in that specific scenario). As a general rule, it’s best on 156 mesh at the highest. This is based on test after test in confined, controlled and specific environments and scenario’s.

This is just one of hundreds of examples where (we people in production), use equipment, chemicals and supplies in different ways outside the manufactures suggestions. This is why, we always hear that statement How does it work in the Real world”?

Emulsion manufacturers for example may say that the emulsion needs to dry for about 1-3 hrs for optimum use and a controlled environment before use. Well, I believe that "for optimum" use. They may also say that you need to properly expose a screen to get the For optimum life or “5000 prints”. But we all know that we have come across many shops and many people that just don’t operate in that manor. For example, it’s very common for many shops to even under expose a screen to hold more detail. Is it [/size]right? no. Is it the best method? No, not at all, but m[/font][/size]any many shops do this every day when in a rush and some as a standard procedure. They produce orders like this all day long because maybe (for their shop), they don’t ever do 5000 shirt orders. They may do 75 shirts per order on average and do 10-20 of those a day. Know anyone like this? I’d think most of us. Like possibly near 60-70% of the industry does an average order of 75 shirts a day. That’s a large number of shops.[/color]

[/size]These shops are kicking out screens as fast as they can, and not developing "properly cured screens” every time or even most of the time and their business may be thriving. This is one example of “real world production”.[/font]

[/size]Having Illustrated that, I say the above, to explain where the screen print “scientist”of our industry mind set is with their marketing. (The Magazine and website technical contributors, the Techs, the Sales people and the product specialist for suppliers” come from with information. They tell you this “optimum methods” so that you get the most out of your products. It’s true. They aren’t lying to you.[/font]

[/size]In the real world, we “production people" often just squeeze by with what we can get away with and for the most part, it works to get a job done quickly. It’s not the best thing to do, it’s not the most efficient and it’s not 100% top quality, but “getting by” works for many shops. TO do so, takes less time, cost less and is more profitable right? That’s why we do it. Since we are talking about real world, I’ll also say, None of us want to come out and say “we squeak by”. We don’t really “want”to just squeak by, but we do it a lot. The screen print “scientist”of our industry, the magazine contributors, the techs, the sales people and the product specialist for suppliers”, all know who you are. [/font]

[/size]They love you anyways, but they have to only teach us what is optimum or “the best way”.[/font]

[/size]That’s a lot of typing above, to get to my point and I haven’t even done that yet. You may be asking, “where are you going with this?” Hold tight. I needed you to see the “tone” of this post, for what’s coming up in the next post.[/font]

Dot-Tone Dan Campbell

[CBCB]

Love this. I am super interested in the tipping point. When does LPI stop making a visible difference? Stuff like that.

Laser looks really interesting though. Biggest savings seems to be head replacements with consumables close behind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ABuffington]

CTS encompasses many types right now.  Wax, Ink Jet, Focused LED, Blu Ray Laser.  As far as Min/Max Quality there is a wide range here.  All CTS can make a decent print, some may capture more data, same is true of the emulsion and mesh.  If a shop's prints are spot color mostly they can go with far lower res quality as long as customer doesn't care.  If you are a printer of tour merchandise for a famous act, your printing has to be the best it can be.  The one area you many be over looking is the retail apparel industry.  The term 'sell through' determines your future.  Your stuff doesn't sell, your work may go to someone else who can print better quality just based on a buyer's thoughts on what caused poor sell through.  If they examine a spot color print and it is saw toothed, or pinholes have appeared and not caught by the workers, buyers can use any reason to switch vendors.  It may not be the print in our eyes, but it will become an excuse for a buyer.

On emulsion.  Sure go ahead and underexpose the emulsion.  The whopping 40 seconds you save here will be paid for with a press that needs a new screen that has broken down and take far longer.  Pinholes to blast out, labor+supplies, $.  If you under exposed an SBQ pure photopolymer and used screen opener or hot solvents to wash up the inks, then that 40 seconds will become 4 minutes of hellish reclaiming since the emulsion can be locked in.  Print Quality.  Is it more important to save the minimal amount of time it takes to completely expose the emulsion  or is an ink gasket, mesh bridging, and EOM more important?  Underexposure washes away product you paid good money for.  Discharge?  Underexposure will require hardeners, in some cases the screen is un-reclaimable, or worse the emulsion peels off every 200 prints.  If a screen room has to under expose to get enough screens out, then this is a lack of equipment issue, or not enough space.  The benefits of proper exposure outweigh under exposure. 

As far as the edge quality of the image itself.  Prints are sharper with higher resolutions, but does the customer care?  I doubt most customers inspect a shirt like we would.  But if I was a salesman for a competing screen print company, print quality would be a selling point to show why a vendor change would benefit the client.  I worked for Nike for several years.  You can't imagine how many screen printers wanted to print for us.  The quality printers, with on time delivery got the orders and they often weren't the lowest price.  Quality is a long term success strategy.  It takes a bit more time in art, pre-press and production to develop a screen/print recipe that yields maximum hourly output at the highest print quality. 

So you can cut corners, but again if the screen room needs to underexpose, they lack equipment or personnel, lowering quality standards limits new sales.  You'll lose old customers due to attrition, retirement, and the competition and need new ones to survive.  When we go for a job interview we wear our best clothes,  as a printer when we bid on a job, our prints should be the best as well.

My largest clients, my most successful clients focus on quality first, everything else plays a supporting role to get there.

In halftone work I will agree that 35-55 lpi is far easier to print.  65-85 requires patience that can be hard to come by in a fast paced shop.  So while it may seem that 65 or even 85 should produce more details and higher quality, it will often lose tonals above 60-70 where the negative dot is hard to hold, especially when base plates are introduced.  Then meshes also need to have a higher thread count and opacity can suffer, color shift can occur, and in some cases the ink won't print well through too high a mesh.

With the subjective nature of screen printing, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  A PE shirt doesn't need high end imagery but tour merchandise may need every bit of detail and quality you can bring to the press.

[Dottonedan]

Thanks for chiming in.


For the record, I’m not for cutting corners at all. I’d rather spend extra time and do it the best way and when you do it the best way all the time, you get more efficient at that.  But I’ve worked in shops where corners were cut and I had no control over that even after suggesting and providing information/documentation as to more feasible methods. Some people just don’t want to hear it or believe it. I’ve been down that road of fighting the good fight.


When all is said and done, more commonly, I’ve seen that we have to show tangible $ savings, or a physical change that gives a reason for them making more $ by increasing cost of the finished garment. If the extra effort is only in the small amount of differences or the  “look”and that improvement is not noticeable for the average person or to the naked eye, (but it’s going to last 3 years longer), they don’t care.  I’ve seen people “sacrifice”quality over more immediate visible/noticeable things (actual money being saved) that mentally impact the owners. Like getting the order out today in one hr less...than to run the dryer slower at a good temperature to assure it’s being cured properly. I’ve seen people (become aware of a problem) and then “choose” to send a job out incorrectly, in order to not slow down production. I don’t think that shop I worked in was the only one in the industry (as I’ve seen it before) and I’ve worked in and have been in many many shops.


A lot of the business mentality is "Show me the money, but show me the money now. Not “show me the money" at the end of the year or three years down the road.  Internally, showing how you can save money by using tighter screens and higher mesh with more open area can be spelled out. But to many owners that are not printers but “business people” or Financial people, they are blind to that. They may see that the new set of 100 screens cost 10% more than the regular screens and choose not to sign the purchase order and re-order the regular ones.


I’ve also seen that it didn’t impact their business in both retail and custom. Sure, there is a customer base out there that looks for optimum quality, but most shops have customers that would never know the difference. (.  On the flip side, I’ve worked for Disney, where I’ve seen them choose price and timeliness over quality. Bottom line is always PRICE.


We’ve seen the crap that we know we could have done better that is out there selling in big name retail stores.  I've seen the crap licensed products out there as equally as I’ve seen top of the line prints in retail out there. No matter the size of the Co. the garment quality comes first, The price is 2nd, The timeliness of the production and getting the order into the customer (retailer) or distribution center is 3rd, and the print quality is a 4th thought.  It’s a first for us, (or should be) as that is how we compare ourselves to other shops.

[Dottonedan]

CONTINUATION OF “WHA TIS THE MINIMUM OR MAXIMUM IMAGE QUALITY NEEDED FROM A DTS/LTS MACHINE"?

I realize where the argument comes from on this idea that we need higher resolution to form good dots.  True. I’m with you all on that.  By not using these high end methods, we are lowering the bar and dumbing down the industry as it pertains to the desire for quality.  But hasn’t that always been the case yet the vast majority doesn’t need or won’t do all of that?  My point, is there is a machine for you out there or rather, there is a machine - for the most of us.



Here is where I’m coming from.  I’m looking to assist people in making a decision based on what you get, what you need for your shop, and what you pay for. This pertains to why you should use this or that machine and the true results, and benefits of one over the other after paying the price for this machine or that one.

As a printer with scientific levels considered, I can see why one like Mark Coudrey would make the statement “You need higher resolutions to form better dots[font=system-ui, -apple-system, blinkmacsystemfont, .sfnstext-regular, sans-serif]”[/font]. Some in here on Theshirtboard have said they just can’t stand the look of the 1-5% dots on the 600dpi wet ink machines and therefore prefer the wax. It makes sense. It does.  It’s prettier and in theory, works better.
He, and others like him, fall back to my previous post about the “best practices” described by the scientist of the screen print industry, and the sales people, and the technical consultants of the manufacturers and suppliers. They provide you with information that is the best thing to do or the best case scenario for production purposes for you to be cost efficient with better prints.

Like in the previous post, we know that most or let's assume an average of 70% don’t do that even though they know they should These 70%’rs tell themselves, they don’t really need that for their shop and their customers.

So in the case of “Better dots” from higher resolutions or from using Lasers or wax ink, I’m saying, “do we really need that"?  My belief and experience says that a vast majority of us  including myself (do not). This, is not one of the “selling points” for most people to base their decisions on.


As we all know, the best printers of today, that (10-30% of the industry) would agree with you. Those “best printers”look at and consider the quality of things like ink well, edge definition, ink transfer/deposit, thixotropy, Rheology, they measure moisture in the screen and control that moisture in the screen (on up to the screens use on press). They measure the stencil thickness with the proper measuring devises, They color correct their monitors in the art room and on the color print/proofs and to the monitors out in production, they have plenty of (400-600) screens to enable them to allow the screens with exposed images to dry for the optimum desired time to provide a fully dried, fully cured stencil for the best reproduction to name a few of the more high end and optimum scenarios.



In a nut shell, the top 20-10%, are the industry scientist, of our time. We all like to say we follow through with what we need to do and read in the articles about process control, but the reality is that that maybe only 10%-20% of the industry really go through all of the “scientific”steps/processes and purchase the right equipment to do so, like stencil thickness gauges, densitometers, hygrometers, air conditioning, moisture content meters, weighing ink deposits for ink consumption, Color monitor calibrators, and the like. You make the process a science as it needs to be, to reach a point of producing prints at a quality level of  A Mark Country, Mirror Image, Target Graphics, Andy Anderson and the likes of those guys. That’s perfect, and it’s the best practice. I agree.  It’s not what most of the industry do. I totally understand that within that 70%-80% range, there are sub levels of what we determine as quality within the industry. It’s all over the place really and for different reasons in each shop.



The difference is, The vast majority, (the 70%’rs) of the industry doesn’t need or won’t see financial or visual benefits in the shirt print because they’ve paid $10,000-$30,000 or $50,000 more than what a lower costing DTS machine would be and provides on the shirt.

Those who have any type of DTS, all know the benefits of going from film to digital DTS.  It’s an obvious no brainer, so getting any one of them is a major advancement. I consider the price and what we get from that, because I have to ask myself this question.

I would be able to make a good argument that the results of the dot shape or image quality from either WAX or LTS does not translate enough on the shirt by itself, to justify paying $10, $30 or $50k more. For most of us, or (the 70%’rs) for this to be considered as a key selling pint or carrying any weight in the decision process, should be a moot point. Having said that, Let's say that there is a measurable and visible impact and let us quantify that.

The results on the shirt, or -the amount of image improvement- may be a visual 2-5% improvement and maybe even for top shops, Maybe it’s 7% I’m just assigning a pretty good hypothesis to that. This is assuming the separations are equal and let's even say we are comparing using the same sim process separations of a 10 color print. Much of this “improvement” still stems from being a better printer overall, but let's assume there is a measurable 5% increase (on average) simply due to the fact that you are using a hihgher resoltion or a better, more rounder, more well defined dot wether that be wax over a wet ink or a laser over a wax ink etc.

To me, It’s like (the difference of) stepping back in time 15 years and the top 20-10% of the best printers... using true wet chemical imagesetters that print film at 2400dpi-3600dpi versus an Epson 3000 film output devise at 600dpi. Yes, there were quality differences in the print, but most of those visual improvements comes from the separations and printing quality…and not the machines halftone quality output. Any improvements of dot (in the print results) were minimal, similar to the idea that there might be 3%-5% or 7% improvement as a result of using high end film.

With the results of a WET, WAX or an LTS, we assume there is some return or ROI. Will that affect the end price of the shirt? Will we be able to increase my shirt price? No. Does the amount of image quality from any of them make a financial impact on the salability of my shirts? No. Will a customer increase their shirt quantity based on the printed shirt results of WET INK, WAX or LTS? That answer would be no, or, at least it’s a for sure no for the 70%’rs.

So the amount of increased image quality with WAX versus WET or WAX versus LTS or WET versus LTS, on the shirt measures out at very small to no impact on sales.
Let's looks internally and exclude our customers.

Does wet look better than wax or LTS on the shirt?  Arguable maybe but I can tell you that other “scientist of our day” have judged printed shirts at many screen printed shirt competitions that came from wet ink and wax ink and found them placing 1st, 2nd or 3rd place in sim process or process using wet ink for sure, and I’d assume wax as well…and eventually LTS will be in there. The DTS or LTS type however, is of no consideration when judging. They don’t ask themselves, was this using wax or wet ink DTS. The same goes for the press type. The fact that the print was printed on an M&R press or a Anatol press is not in the equation. They look at the print results only.  So if “image quality” is already good enough for the scientific type judges scrutinizing every inch of a print comparing prints that have had screens made from both wax and wet ink, it should be easily considered that the print quality of the dots of a 600ppi wet ink machine would be a viable decision (for the masses) or the 70%’rs,

As we all know, it’s already hard enough to charge more when compared with the "middle of the road" printers and the "top level[font=system-ui, -apple-system, blinkmacsystemfont, .sfnstext-regular, sans-serif]”[/font] printers results. Customers lean more towards price over quality but of course, they would prefer quality also and both are highly desired.

In the end, all we really have to look at is the main cost up front, and cost savings or expense levels of consumables and compare those. What do we pay for the -main cost- of the machine, and -how much- do we pay out in consumables in a year and -how often- do we pay that consumables cost when we do it? Does this justify the increased cost or the amount of saving on the main cost of the machine that I’d pay for one machine over another? There are other things to consider also, like an easy operation, work flow etc. Various options in the RIP, print speed etc.


As you know, very few end user customers (of yours) or anyones customer, will really know or see the difference of a well formed halftone dot on a printed shirt. For those in the top 30% of the industry, our shirt will look better over all when compared to 70% of the industry regardless of what type of DTS machine you use. It’s not the machine in this case of the top 10-30% of the industry. It’s the combination of all things considered.

Therefore, (for myself), I consider “higher resolutions” than 600dpi  as a selling point for one machine over the next, for more rounder dots to be of little concern for the masses (and myself) when deciding what machine type to choose.

I am a scrutenizing high end simulated and process color artist and separator. I’m all about the cool stuff. But knowing what I know (for me), I will not need to print 75-85 lpi halftones for myself nor my customers. More than likely, I will not ever “need” a more clean, more rounder and more perfect dot at 75lpi to 85lpi even though, I can achieve this using wet ink already.  It’s nice to say you do it (internally), but your end customer doesn’t care, doesn’t know why it’s so cool and they really won’t pay anything more for using 75-85lpi. It’s nice internally, because it’s difficult to achieve and it’s a bragging point to say you can. But do you need to?  Does it sell more shirts? Is it easier in production?

[ABuffington]

All good points Dan.  There are multiple points on both sides that have validity.  What is your market?  What type of art?  and like you say does it really matter to the customer?  In some ways many of us can't accept average.  We push to make it better, even if it is just to plursue making it a better print.  Wax vs Ink Jet, quite a difference above 55 lpi.  But like I said it takes patience and finely tuned screens and presses to make it work well and in the end the one color dive bar shirt makes a ton of money while a 600 pc 12 color sim process may just pay the bills.  From a business perspective we sought out markets with the 1 color work to support our crazy ideas on how to do 10 color discharge prints with puff foils for Disney.  In the end the Disney orders($) dwarfed the AYSO and league work and led to a lot more big box printing with Disney as our client. 

If you strive to be the best, it opens doors eventually.  Pushing the envelop does pay off.  It allows you to approach clients and once you get an "oh wow, look at this", sales is a piece of cake.

I'm not disagreeing with you however, for many printer's it is more about making money with the money makers, like spot color and distressed printing.  However I got into this trade to explore and experiment and be the best screen printer possible, and sometimes after investing in top of the line everything the net profit might have been better if I had focused on simpler work.  Our highest profit item was Massimo shorts.  Those fluorescent shorts with an M printed in Nylon Ink, one color, cut piece.  They didn't want to pay more than .33 cents per print.  No problem.  We set it up with double load stations and printed 4 at a time, one color, at 1.32 per print stroke, no base plate, simple spot printing. You could use a sun exposure unit, hand cut ruby, and a Filbar press, manual rotary load, all for 10k vs a 100k to do higher end work right.

But with all the bells and whistles there wasn't anything we couldn't print, and many items and styles other printers could not print.  That for us was the selling point on top of the line everything even though the debt servicing might be tough for awhile, in the end it paid off.

[Dottonedan]

I think that’s an important part of the decision to buy this or that.   It’s not necessarily needed in every case to purchase the best with the highest price.  Like exposing in the sun to print a 100,000$ order, or making a very successful business off of printing 1-3 color vector designs geared towards schools. How many of those shops are out there?  Thousands?  60-70% of the industry maybe?  Hard to come up with an exact number to figure out.


The marketing theory for most people is to sell everything you make, to everyone. Thats what this was all about. The short of it is, there are a lot of people that don’t run a business to be THE BEST QUALITY PRINTER to be told they need the X, if they don’t do X type of work.  For example, the industry tells us we should use a $300-$2000 densitometer to assure the our halftones are correct while most have never heard of one nor know white you would use one today, and it was far more than that 20 years ago, and most printers still printed halftones.  Would it be better?  Yes. Is is possible to print halftones without one? yes. Do you know if they are correct? No, but nether does the customer and they still paid for the shirts.


The post is not to say, “Mediocrity is ok and it’s not to promote being where you are (if being where you are, is in the middle of the quality list). It’s only to point out the elephant in the room that nobody seem to talk about. Those 70%’rs that aren’t pushing to win awards. They just want to complete their orders well with minimal expenses.   I’m not saying (minimalism) is a great way to do business. I’m just saying, there is a large number of them.

[ABuffington]

The difference in cost in consumables however can be below 1/1000 of a cent per print for top quality products.  Growth is the one area that quality does help.  Growth happens organically, word of mouth, and visual word of mouth are like sales people out there.  You can hit current shop capacity and need more units per day, the challenge is to maximize current production to 15-30 minute job changeover and run as close to non stop as possible.  Production yield is press related primarily.  When a press runs non stop without breakdown, you have a much better chance of survival.  When a press stops, labor and overhead don't.  They still cost a lot.  Hourly, daily, yearly production yields often determine one's ability to grow.  Top quality products do have a benefit to the bottom line in terms of lowering cost of goods with better production yields.  Even one color printing isn't immune to press breakdown.  Something as simple as mastering S mesh base plates in a large shop can yield substantial savings in white ink over a years' time. 

There are different niches of business in our industry and outside of our industry that use screen printing.  Electronics, medical devices need the best quality possible, no corners are cut, the cost of inks, labor, and QC inspection issues drive this industry to make better screens and production techniques.  Textile printing however has many layers from garage to huge print houses.  However jumping up a level often requires re-tooling.  We buy autos to go faster instead of manuals. Why invest in good employees who can drive the shop? or buy better blanks, and then cut corners in many cases where a company can least afford it.  Consumables is not an area for price cutting, it is for profit generation.  When you are more productive per hour, your pricing can be more competitive, when you are less productive you are boxed into not being able to lower price and needing to raise prices to make ends meet.  Growth is inevitable, being prepared for it is an individual decision, how we prepare will affect growth, and it will come often whether we go looking for it or not.

[ZooCity]

600 ppi/dpi min. for general quality near your typical film output.   High res film output will outperform by a little here, depending on the art and may offer more control of low and high percentages.  Adjusting low percentage dots won't really be possible across the whole curve, the curve will naturally need to be compressed somewhere. See why in the next paragraph.

900 ppi/dpi minimum for in-rip control of your curves across all percentages.  Lower than this ppi/dpi and you simply don't have enough units (pixels) to add or subtract to the dot shape.   i.e., if, say, your 3% dot is outputting as 1px, you get stuck in a situation where you can trim it to zero or you can double it's value.   900 provides the "material", the pixel, on a level that's granular enough to dig in and control over the entire  0-100% value range.

1200 ppi would prob be a sweet spot for DTS and textile printing.  A little bit overkill perhaps but in a good way, imho.  I like clean, smooth dot shapes whenever I can get them and if you can get in-rip control with a good adjustment range across all percentages you can ease up on the magic mojo required in pre press. 

As you go up in LPI, your ppi/dpi resolution needs go up for the same reasons, you need more pixels per inch to make (and control) smaller and smaller dots spaced closer and closer together.  All of the above applies to the 55-65lpi range. 

Regarding LPI, I would put 55lpi as a minimum across all applications, if you had to pick one number here.

For max LPI,  I can't really see an improvement past 55 until you get to about 85.   Past 85lpi I think we'll start bumping into diminishing returns on most textile weaves which would frustrate any print method without a solid, bridging underbase I imagine.

[Dottonedan]

Zoo,


Very ON POINT! Totally agree in all areas!  Thats my perspective anyhow.  I’ve recently ran into a couple others that don’t agree, but not everyone can afford the best and the highest price.


I’ve had some discussions with a few of the guru’s and (in general), they seem to feel as if everyone should be reaching for a 2400 or 3500 dpi printing device or go laser.  Like, if you have to get a DTS (and you should), you should go laser. Like you, overall” they feel you should strive for the best.


To your point on the LPI. I (in my shop now) and for the past few years have been sticking to 55lpi myself. No matter if it were film or I-image for sim or for true process printing. Even now, recently, I’ve dropped to 40 and 45 and 47 dpi to avoid mesh/moire interference due to inconsistencies with our mesh and the prints look just fine. Could be better, but looks good none the less and maybe partially because our the printing is so goos also.


Having said that, I’ve recently spoke to two industry guru’s that tout that they do and promote everyone to be trying to achieve literally a 300lpi (Line per inch) halftone print on apparel. Now, they didn’t tell me, but I assume they really didn’t do that on a mass scale or large production orders so I find that while it’s possible, doesn’t mean we should.  Now, in order to achieve that, they had to do two things.


1, Use Silver based wet film imagesetters of 3600dpi or higher.
2, They also must use extreme tonal compression.  Even Mark Gerveis who prints in China in a super mega shop, who prints at 85lpi on low mesh must use tonal compression.


For this reason, I am not concerned with the word tonal compression and don’t see it in a negative manor, but I see no reason to take more time in art either. You need more time and test, and additional saved settings and changing this out for different prints adjusting for super high line counts when the flow can work so much easier using 55. At extremely high lpi, you need to consider this more in art as you are building it. This is me tho, (for my shop).  Everyone is different and there are some out there that may want to go to the extremes and their prints may look (guessing) 5-10% better overall for it.


So I weigh out the added work needed to achieve that...and is the ROI better for that time and effort and cost of machines?  For me and our shop here, no. Thats why I say, I can run an I-Image all day long with what we do here.  It’s for this reason, they may obtain extremely higher end customers that demand more, like for museums reproducing paintings for apparel (I assume).


This is where I’ve been headed with my statements for a long time. A few months back, I stated that (if/when I choose to get DTS and need to choose between an I-Image using wet ink, or A Douthit Wax machine getting rounder, more perfect dots in the smaller range,  I’ll go with the wet ink, knowing what I know.  The 55 or even 65 is going to do what I want it to (because I know what I can really get out of it and I can prove it on the shirts with my customers.  The differences, are only going to be a bout a 3-7% increase in image quality on the printed shirt that more often than not, those differences get buried/lost in the variables of the printing process.


For me, a wet ink I-Image S, is near 30k and we already have an exposure unit. So we don’t need to go with more more cost, more heads (printing faster screens) and exposing on the machine. Those are faster, but that’s not what I need.


For those who are in search of the holy grail and want to consider the putting a good 1% on the screen (not that it can be printed anyways) but we can use that 1% as a bench mark (onto our screen). If you can out something there, A blob of wax or a speckle of wet ink, that there other percentages should be able to be help as well, providing your exposure and coating is on par.


For those that want to print that 3% - 7% range being held perfectly with higher dpi, and LPI, you may want to consider those other options like the laser DTS. That make more sense than the wax or wet ink.


For me, and I’d guess a very large portion of the industry or those who most commonly already only print solid spot color, collegiate, distressed type or work with good result of the simulated and 4 color process printing, and including the sold logo work, they don’t need all of that. If they have it, and can afford it, the best of the best would be great. Most of us don’t want to spend more than they really need.


In truth, (inserting my opinion here0, while the multi color sim process and process work is cool and I love that work, the meat (from a business perspective) is in the spot colors.  That might not be who you want to be, but for me, I’m fine with it. I’ve reluctantly learned that myself over the years. So if $ and a bigger Co and a streamlined operation is your goal, then kick out the collegiate work. If the goal is to be considered one of the best, and the higher end “museums need to look for you” kind of Co. than you might consider the opposite direction and go laser (if you want to get the perfect dots).


Wax isn’t even there for accuracy in the small dots either (like many think it is). Many wax users say they like the wax for it’s rounder dot shape. You are able to hold it in the screen and print it on the shirt easier.  It’s more rounded in the small dots (and better rounded than wet ink) in that respect. Ok, Great. If that’s what you want. I think you should know though, what you are really choosing and more importantly why.  If your choice is WAX, because rounder (not perfect, but rounder) is your goal for a DTS machine, and not accuracy, then you may want to go wax.


Those small dots aren’t able to be corrected using a densitomitor either. Similar, but opposite of wet ink, There is a finite physical limitation of the wax. They are in fact, fatter, than they should be. The opposite of wet ink. The wet ink is more precise in it’s delivery to the screen (as a result of the more flowing state and the liquid consistency and can achieve duplicating the crappy 600dpi output far more accurately. It’s for this fact, that the 600dpi wet ink is considered less than the wax.


 Both file single color digital types are at 600dpi.  Both, output using that 600dpi image. The same files, can be used in either machine type.  The physical results (on screen) after printing, are vastly different. The fact that the wax cannot reproduce the size of that 1-7% dot accurately, is simply due to the thicker consistency of the wax itself. It blobs it down onto the screen rather than precisely duplicating what it was given in the digital file unlike wet ink. This blob, is controlled to a degree, but it can only go so far. This in turn reflects on the LPI. The higher you go in LPI, the less % it can produce accurately in the small dots.  As you get up higher into the percentages (like wet ink), the tones or dots are better represented in both shape and size.


While the wax can only put down a blob representation of that 1% that may actually read out as a 3% or 5% or 7% (for example).  You may think , “well, you can compensate for that using densitomitor. For this reason, people tend to think that the wax holds better dots and due to the being fatter, it does. For us printers, we are the benefactor of this result. If we grade the prettiness of the shape, the WAX wins. If we grade the accuracy of the %.  The wet ink wins yet neither are accurate in tonal percentages in the lower end of a halftone at higher dpi due to their makeup of the 600dpi printer.


So NOW, one might say, well that’s why a 1200 dpi wax printer is now better.  Still, not so much. The same issues that hold the wax back at 600dpi, still hold the 1200dpi back. That is the thickness or consistency of the wax itself. If they could improve the wax to be better at 1200, then why not improve it to be better at 600 for the sake of those 1-7% ranges.


For example, print and read (with a densitomitor) a 1% halftone fill inside of a  3” square at 55lpi. and print and read the same square at 85lpi with a densitomitor.  The dot (size will be very similar if not the same...and neither the 85 or the 65 will really be 1%. If you calibrate it with a densitometer, it physically can’t get much smaller only due to the wax consistency itself. Think of it like printing molasses out of the print heads. They can only push out so much detail while the wet ink is more like water and more accurate.  It’s the fact that the WET INK printer regardless if it’s an M&R or  some other brand using the same print head is still only at 600dpi that is the problem with the quality of the wet ink Lower percentage halftones. For wet ink, if they went to 1200dpi, you would see a much better formed, or more precise dot “shape”because the wet ink could duplicate that image detail more all that much more accurately. Still that’s not better than 2400 or 3600, but it would be better. I believe Laser to be best for DTS if the more perfectly shaped (“rounder”dot is desired (along with % accuracy) is what you desired.


Lastly, none of this is to say that Wax is proven to be bad or that wet ink is now proven to be bad. Any shop can use either depending on what your needs and desires are for your shop. Neither, equal a laser print. The downfall of the laser, is only that the price is still significantly higher and that the production you get out of it is a decent percentage slower than either wax or wet ink. If you don’t need speed, and can afford laser, and desire the more accurate capabilities at higher dpi small dot reproduction, than the laser is a no brainier.  Lastly, back to extremely high dpi, even with laser, (due to the on press variables) of printing overall, you still need tonal compression to enable that highly to work on press.


These are just my thought on it. I can be proven wrong and won’t hold it against anyone if you correct me and prove otherwise.

[CBCB]

In my research the different between wax and ink is $15k, between entry level units.

That $15k spread across a loan isn’t a huge number. If it can get ink onto screens with less fussing or maintenance that seems like a small price to pay. If the workflow is smoother then that’d pay for itself pretty quick too. But 15,000 is not a small chunk of change for anyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dottonedan]

Excellent points.  When it comes down to it, after I knit pick between the differences, it comes down to the price and how that weights out, the ease of use for your most freshest employee to be able to learn quick and then the end result on the shirt.

[Dottonedan]

Excellent points.  When it comes down to it, after I knit pick between the differences, it comes down to the price and how that weights out, the ease of use for your most freshest employee to be able to learn quick and then the end result on the shirt.

And I can tell you, I have no clue what one is the 15,000 less or more.

[CBCB]

If the price gap is bigger though, things change quickly. There are almost no used wax machines on the market. But there are definitely used I-image units. When the price gap is 20k+ then the returns diminish a LOT. I really wish there was a stepping stone in between. Going from under $1000 for film to over $40k for CTS is a big jump. I guess it’s the same as manual press to automatic though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dottonedan]

The price on the I-Image S (single print head) is near 30k. Not sure of the exact price. I’ve heard 27 and I’ve heard 32. Might be who you get it from and what deal you strike.  Its the same machine as the I-IMAGE, I-Image1 and I-Image2. The only difference is that it’s deigned to only be a single head (can’t upgrade to two heads or three heads) and you cannot expose on the machine. Not built for it.


This to me, is a great selling point for those shops who already have an exposure unit and don’t (Don’t do 200-400 screens in a day).  HT price is very low for CTS and this machine is geared for up to 100 screens per shift. It’s a great alternative for small shops wanting to take advantage of all of the other benefits of a CTS.