Trying 85 lpi 4 color process

[cbjamel]

Many insist that when you are this serious about resolution and detail, capillary film yields the most consistent results.

Agree 100%.  What light source do you have?

M&R MSP3140

Shane

[Sbrem]

I made the mistake of outputting films at 85 LPI for a job that we now print twice a year or so. 355 will do it, with a trade off here and there. We used to have some 420, but really just couldn't get plastisol through it well enough. Good luck.

Steve

why not just re output the film?

The customer loved the shirts, and we could repeat it, so we left it alone. When I did a later job for her, we output them correctly (Dan did seps on that
one for me) and they were at 55 lpi. More intense color I feel at the lower lpi. Many years ago, I had a customer bring me his own seps at 100 lpi. I told him "no way", but he insisted, and was willing to pay. They came out sort of OK, all kinds of tonal issues, but if you didn't know the image, you might just buy it. No, I haven't tried it since...

Steve

[Printficient]

Many insist that when you are this serious about resolution and detail, capillary film yields the most consistent results.

Agree 100%.  What light source do you have?

M&R MSP3140

Shane

I have always said that trying to hold a consistent dot below 10% was not worth the effort as a 5% dot in a blended sep is really not noticeable to the average person, why fight it.  With that said doing a print like you're talking about would to me be fun.  I love the challenge.  A 3140 is a nice unit but emulsive material choice will be critical.  Good luck and let me know if there is anything I can do to help.  One more thought....DTS? 

[blue moon]

Many insist that when you are this serious about resolution and detail, capillary film yields the most consistent results.

Agree 100%.  What light source do you have?

M&R MSP3140

Shane

I have always said that trying to hold a consistent dot below 10% was not worth the effort as a 5% dot in a blended sep is really not noticeable to the average person, why fight it.  With that said doing a print like you're talking about would to me be fun.  I love the challenge.  A 3140 is a nice unit but emulsive material choice will be critical.  Good luck and let me know if there is anything I can do to help.  One more thought....DTS?

I'll strongly disagree here. Halftones under 10% are needed to create smooth transitions and subtle color blending. The example I often give out is the gold color. If printing 4CP, it consists of pretty much solid yellow and about 3-4% of magenta. If you can not hold that size dot, your gold will actually look yellow. The only way to introduce that color would be to add separate ink.

pierre

[Printficient]

Many insist that when you are this serious about resolution and detail, capillary film yields the most consistent results.

Agree 100%.  What light source do you have?

M&R MSP3140

Shane

I have always said that trying to hold a consistent dot below 10% was not worth the effort as a 5% dot in a blended sep is really not noticeable to the average person, why fight it.  With that said doing a print like you're talking about would to me be fun.  I love the challenge.  A 3140 is a nice unit but emulsive material choice will be critical.  Good luck and let me know if there is anything I can do to help.  One more thought....DTS?

I'll strongly disagree here. Halftones under 10% are needed to create smooth transitions and subtle color blending. The example I often give out is the gold color. If printing 4CP, it consists of pretty much solid yellow and about 3-4% of magenta. If you can not hold that size dot, your gold will actually look yellow. The only way to introduce that color would be to add separate ink.

pierre

Pierre, You misunderstand.  I am simply saying that the chances of holding an even consistency of 3-5% dots is beyond most shops.  Hence the uneven spotty dots seen on shirts.  I am guilty of that as I have tried with the wrong combinations of emulsion and light source and screen prep.  A stochastic dot is to me preferable as they are all the same size.  Hold one hold all.  These are used on index seps quite a bit.  Maybe a little word from Dot Tone or Tony Pep here would help.

[RICK STEFANICK]

I made the mistake of outputting films at 85 LPI for a job that we now print twice a year or so. 355 will do it, with a trade off here and there. We used to have some 420, but really just couldn't get plastisol through it well enough. Good luck.

Steve

why not just re output the film?

The customer loved the shirts, and we could repeat it, so we left it alone. When I did a later job for her, we output them correctly (Dan did seps on that
one for me) and they were at 55 lpi. More intense color I feel at the lower lpi. Many years ago, I had a customer bring me his own seps at 100 lpi. I told him "no way", but he insisted, and was willing to pay. They came out sort of OK, all kinds of tonal issues, but if you didn't know the image, you might just buy it. No, I haven't tried it since...

Steve

Steve, I know that joe clark has wrote several articles about this high end process. I believe he was the guy behind teaching target graphics to do it out of the gate.NOW THEY ARE THE MASTERS. They actually work with 120 lpi and call it high res. I know there are spot plates and many designs can be 10 plus colors. check out some stuff by joe clark or mark coudray and i think you will learn alot.

[ZooCity]

Perhaps others have a better inkjet setup than I but there's no way I would attempt anything over 65lpi without imagesetter films. Eliminate one of the major variables right out of the gates. 

I used to really believe in the cap film but lately I really prefer the Aquasol HVP because I can blast out all the little dots with even sweeps of the pressure washer on a fan spray, no closer than 6", the length of a dollar bill, away.  Much more consistent screen to screen and no motivation-damaging washout and/or breakdown of the cap film.  Film is also a no-go for wb or discharge.  Truth be told though the cap film, applied properly, almost guarantees you have perfect, even eom and rz across the stencil.  You can measure this on your trough coated stencils with the right tools of course but can you know your stencil is perfect across it's entire image area? 

Kiwo One Coat is a lot like Aquasol, maybe a little "softer" or more pliable at the finished stencil.  It should do fine though many recommend the wider latitude of diazo-sensitized dual cures.  Kiwo's Poly Plus Z was impressive when I tested it but that stuff takes a comparative century to expose next to the pure photopolymers. http://www.kiwo.com/Product%20pages/Diazo%20Photopolymer%20emulsions.html#PPZ

I really like Tony's concept of riding the discharge ink's ability to melt up during the steam off in the dryer.  That stuff should honestly be where it's at for high end sim process.  It's water based and flowy so there's your WOW on press and then it steams together during the cure. 

Let's keep in mind the actual goal here is not to hold crazy high lpi and low %age dots, the goal is to make a tight looking print that's on hue and holds all the detail of the original.  Nobody but us printers give a damn about the close ups.   

Post it up when you get around to it!

[cvreeland]

I know this is a zombie thread, but I print at 85 line as a matter of course on white shirts. I did a lot of testing with emulsions and meshes, & found an emulsion that'll get me the 2-3% dots. The Chromaline UDC 2 is doing the trick right now, & our Richmond Solarbeam lamp is a 10,000 watt metal halide. A good lamp is important.

The trick to shadow density for me has been to go with a 355/31 micron mesh. If you just order "355" from your supply house, they'll probably send you 355/34 which has a much smaller open percentage & your prints will look spotty.

Standard angles won't work -- bad moire -- but you can hit 3 angles that'll work if you experiment. It varies from one output house to another. Pick a provider, decide on a set of specs for your film, & keep those consistent once you find something that works, and it'll all be good.

[Dottonedan]

cvreeland,  I like your blog. How do I follow that?  I'm on wordpress also. Couldn't locate a link to follow.

[cvreeland]

I honestly have no idea  . I had a hard enough time doing the basic Wordpress install - I have yet to figure out syndication /RSS. I have me a Wordpress book - maybe I should read it.  I just manually copied & pasted links to all my friend's blogs when I made my blog roll.

[ebscreen]

Would you rather hold a smaller dot or a higher LPI? Just a thing I think about from time to time.

[ZooCity]

Would you rather hold a smaller dot or a higher LPI? Just a thing I think about from time to time.

I'd rather have good looking dots across the broadest range.

I think that's partially why 55 lpi is so popular.  You can easily get consistent dots over a wide range of percentages without having to go all ape poo with your pre and on-press to hold the smaller dots.  IMHO, it makes a better overall print to have tight, consistent but larger, dots from 4-96% than to have gorgeous, tiny, perfect little dots from 7-94% and the rest of the range is spotty or not even there or gained out. 

Where the h. are these pics of the 85lpi 4cp? 

[tonypep]

Whoever posted about the image setter is right. Thats what Andy A uses.

[ZooCity]

From what I've seen- forget about anything over 60lpi on our 4800 w. accurip, it's not even close enough to bother with tweaking the film-ink-droplet-blah-blah-blah.  Maybe worth going after with a high end rip and media, not sure.   Inkjets are a lot more convenient than a pallet sized tank that needs chemicals and maintenance though.

On netseps they advertise $10-15 per color for imageset films.  A no brainer if you ask me. 

[cvreeland]

From what I've seen- forget about anything over 60lpi on our 4800 w. accurip, it's not even close enough to bother with tweaking the film-ink-droplet-blah-blah-blah. 

The problem with inkjets is the stochastic spray of the little picoliter dots. If you look at a halftone printed on an Epson 4880, each halftone dot is made up of a hundred or so random inkjet dots, so because of the randomness of the stochastic spray, each actual dod it a different shape from the others.

On imagesetter film, if you look at a field of 10% dots, each one is exactly the same shape. There's just no comparison.

I only go 55 line on my Epsons, & then pretty much only for gradients in spot color jobs. I never use them for continuous tone images unless the customer has been given the "budget printing" disclaimer. We're not a budget printer, so that's rare.

Also, with the Epson, even at 55 line, I can't resolve a dot below 6-7% on my screens, vs 2-3% on imagesetter film. Seems to me there's a couple factors here -- the inkjet dots are not as opaque at the edges, so they literally fade out, and the inkjet film is not as transparent as imagesetter film, so if you decrease screen exposure times, you lose your shadow dots. Both factors contribute to an overall loss of screen exposure latitude.