CTS Wax - Taking the plunge

[bimmridder]

Please DON'T call him. He was just trying to show a half tone made with a wax machine. It was a freaking test screen! If you look close, there is a line through the image. The machine was being fine tuned. Who give a rat's ass if it was a 95%  20 LPI dot on a 40 monofilament mesh. He was showing the dot. Guess what, he runs both kinds of machines and has reasons. None of which will be shared because they will certainly offend almost everyone in some way. There was a day it it felt great trying to share experiences with others. It won't be called knowledge, because he's not that smart. But those days are gone. Is this where he drops the mic?

[Dottonedan]

So, for educational purposes, I will start to get this back on track and lay out some photo's of wet ink examples to discuss. You can knock on them, and I can dispute the argument of the ugly dots.
Wax Density being of any higher Dmax than wet ink having any impact, has been debunked already as should be clearly defined in a few post back with the link referring to Dmax needing to be 3.0 or higher and wet ink default settings already being of 4.3 - 4.8.

I remain Dot-Tone-Dan, like him or not.

[Dottonedan]

These black and white prints are on vinyl and all at 65lpi, Not on emulsion for the sake of capturing the most accurate replication of what is going onto emulsion from the print heads. Here they are in all their nakedness. Very good solid area, but the camera picked up a lot of reflection and color blowout, but you get it.
The one that looks like bird tracks is a 5% halftone fill in a .5 line stroke. Mighta been a 10% fill. I can't remember exactly.The 6 pt helv reg type is pretty good, (not perfectly smooth, but would print well and (once on the shirt), you wouldn't see any imperfections anyways. The shirt does just as much.
Sure, it has imperfections and sure, the small dots are not 100% consistent nor are the larger dots perfectly round, but as I stated many times, "shape" doesn't matter, percentage matters. Does it represent whats needed "correctly enough" once it's burned and washed out. If you've done your job well in dot gain compensation and linearization, you have no worries. Some will say "oh, look at those crappy small 1-3% dots. Some aren't even a single dot, but two side by side.  Makes no dif.  I get the same thing from Epson 1430 and AccurRip, but the prints can be great. Customers never complain, Judges never notice and kick it out.  They resolve just fine, density is beyond what is required.  I'm ok with using them.

[Dottonedan]

Here are some images on emulsion.  Auto coat with a 1:1 coat with the sharp side on a Satti 305 mesh (at this time of photo). We had changed to an additional coat later on on the back side after these photo's.Pics are a little blurry. As you coat a little thicker, the edges/walls of line art and dots become sharper.
I had to increase the resolution to enlarge them. The images were about 2" wide.

[jvanick]

Dan -- these pics prove exactly what the others were saying about rough edges on the wet-ink CTS machines... whether that's noticeable (likely not) when printing on a t-shirt that's mostly air or not, is a different question...

We've had an original I-Image (epson based)
We did a very solid evaluation of an I-Image S (as well as an I-Image ST refurb)
We now have a Douthitt unit that was refurbed (came in at around 5k under the cost of the I-Image S).. I can tell you that under a loupe, the wax machine is far superior, but when correctly calibrated and, the printed shirt isn't a whole bunch different than the I-Image... the key here is proper tuning... and I feel that the wax machines have a far wider tolerance to improper tuning than the ink machines.

Also, the Harlequinn Rip is FAR superior for creating calibration curves, and even doing color-controlled 4-cp seps than the M&R rebranded Kohari I-Block/Color Print stuff, to be fair tho Harlequinn has been doing this for MANY more years in environments that are way pickier than ours.

All that being said -- in a high-production shop, my current preferred combination would be:

Image-ST with 3 heads (no on-board exposure as I feel single-point is still the way to go)
Wax machine for higher detail work.
and for the Andy Anderson type prints, an ImageSetter. (we don't do any of this style of work right now)

For the record, when the laser machines are ready for prime time, that's where I'll be spending our next $$$.. I don't feel they're quite ready yet.

[Dottonedan]

(I had to add this part in after I posted and wanted to touch on the "rough wet ink dots".


Dan -- these pics prove exactly what the others were saying about rough edges on the wet-ink CTS machines... whether that's noticeable (likely not) when printing on a t-shirt that's mostly air or not, is a different question...


Agreed on the dots are rougher than wax.  I've said that, but it doesn't matter. The rougher dot doesn't matter to me. It could be pointy star shaped. This is kind of like saying you can't use a hybrid stochastic square dot with traditional dots of varying sizes.  It's ok. You can still produce great prints.

Agreed on the laser. Great detail/better then all other options, but not there yet for production and cost.  This kind of brings me back to my point of my specific choice at this time.  Cost over ROI.  A laser is just way too expensive over wax or wet ink at the moment, taking production out of the equation. Why wold I buy a laser (even tho it's better).  It's just not good business sense (for me).  So, I have this nice used I-Image 3 head STEll available at a very good price. It will be able to handle any production I would encounter for years to come.  The quality results (better or worse than wax, does't matter. It's good.  It does what I need even if I were to want to go after awards. So, in my mind, I'll take the used I-image.  Take the tech experience out of it.  Knowing the real story of the I-Image issues and capabilities, there is nothing about the I-Image that would deter me from this decision.  Wet ink "issues", Dot density, dot shape, satellite dots, environment, mechanical, electrical, computer parts/boards, (any issue you might encounter) are all less than major factors to sway my decision.

I can get all that I need done with a used I-Image STEll. Good seps, good screens, (The fact that IF, it were to ever have any issues, I can fix stuff on it is a bonus) etc. But, I'm not mechanic. I was an artist and always had been. I can't fix a carburetor on my car, but they are easy enough to work on and understand. It doesn't take a mechanical or electrical guru. I'm a simple man.  I don't need the exposure on it either, (We have a star-lite already, but the used one happens to have it. BUT, having the STE;;, enables me to decrease used up space from the star-lite. They talk about the foot print of the wax machinesbeing smaller. That parts is good, but depending on what wet ink machine you get, you can remove your exposure unit as well. So there is that.



I understand, and can appreciate, "and agree with you" in your post in all points. I'll clarify tho, that I-block is not something The I-Image family uses since they drifted away from the Epson guts you were using. They quit working with Epson years ago, like well before I got there 5 years ago.


I agree with the RIP too. I know the Harlequin is/would be a better more fun and detailed RIP. Agreed.  I have never used one, so I don't know all of the options. Kind of the same story with the user interface on a Roque press and a M&R press. The M&R is not as flashy, Roque has some extra fun features. But I can also say that "everything" anyone would need to do in their rip for screen printers "can be" done in the Color Print Rip that the I-Image family uses and it's easy.


Operation and flow is easy. Can auto drop, can auto archive a copy, etc. You can do cmyk seps with the different angles in two methods.
1, set up a different auto folder for each color set at a different angle. 2, you can load the cmyk file in manually, then change each cmyk color individually in the options once you double click on the loaded file (before it's ripped).  It's not flashy, Pretty basic level, but also detailed. It's say, (three times better than your typical screen print rip), and Harlequin is the low level, most cost efficient option for off set printers that a screen printer can take advantage of and find to be exceptional. The color print rip just does what It's supposed to do. Nothing fancy about it.


It would be cool to see a full list of things needed to be done and all available options in each.  Like, I can do a vid on the Color Print rip, and you can do one on the harlequin. Step for step and compare how they are done.

[DannyGruninger]

Dan -- these pics prove exactly what the others were saying about rough edges on the wet-ink CTS machines... whether that's noticeable (likely not) when printing on a t-shirt that's mostly air or not, is a different question...

We've had an original I-Image (epson based)
We did a very solid evaluation of an I-Image S (as well as an I-Image ST refurb)
We now have a Douthitt unit that was refurbed (came in at around 5k under the cost of the I-Image S).. I can tell you that under a loupe, the wax machine is far superior, but when correctly calibrated and, the printed shirt isn't a whole bunch different than the I-Image... the key here is proper tuning... and I feel that the wax machines have a far wider tolerance to improper tuning than the ink machines.

Also, the Harlequinn Rip is FAR superior for creating calibration curves, and even doing color-controlled 4-cp seps than the M&R rebranded Kohari I-Block/Color Print stuff, to be fair tho Harlequinn has been doing this for MANY more years in environments that are way pickier than ours.

All that being said -- in a high-production shop, my current preferred combination would be:

Image-ST with 3 heads (no on-board exposure as I feel single-point is still the way to go)
Wax machine for higher detail work.
and for the Andy Anderson type prints, an ImageSetter. (we don't do any of this style of work right now)

For the record, when the laser machines are ready for prime time, that's where I'll be spending our next $$$.. I don't feel they're quite ready yet.

Great post, I have calibrated over 25 cts machines and this is absolutely true.... The harlequin rip gives you the ability to fine tune better, and the wax gives better control..... In the fine tonal ranges our curves for the i image were pretty odd in order to get our densitometer readings close.

I wish I could get some really good photos of our stuff because after fine tuning its a world of difference.......

[inkman996]

I feel I may be one of the lucky few that has bought an I Image that also had a supply rep that spent a great amount of time in our shop calibrating everything. We are not a shop with all the fancy tools nor knowledge to go through all the calibration from screen to print. But since we bought our I Image through Martin AKA Tubelite our rep was here during the install and spent several days with me fine tuning everything, not just the machine but everything from density, angles, exposure, on press etc. That I feel is not something most shops that are not doing their own calibrations will ever get unless they are as lucky as we are. That I also feel is probably why my results with the I Image are far and above what we ever got with film printing. So in a typical smaller shop like us they can get an I Image installed and that is it, would their quality increase dramatically with out all the extra help we got? Probably not.

I would reccomend anyone going to the point of investing in a CTS of any kind also invest in having someone with the tools and knowledge to come in and fine tune all the variables and have get the best out of that machine you invested so much money in.

[Dottonedan]

Dan -- these pics prove exactly what the others were saying about rough edges on the wet-ink CTS machines... whether that's noticeable (likely not) when printing on a t-shirt that's mostly air or not, is a different question...

We've had an original I-Image (epson based)
We did a very solid evaluation of an I-Image S (as well as an I-Image ST refurb)
We now have a Douthitt unit that was refurbed (came in at around 5k under the cost of the I-Image S).. I can tell you that under a loupe, the wax machine is far superior, but when correctly calibrated and, the printed shirt isn't a whole bunch different than the I-Image... the key here is proper tuning... and I feel that the wax machines have a far wider tolerance to improper tuning than the ink machines.

Also, the Harlequinn Rip is FAR superior for creating calibration curves, and even doing color-controlled 4-cp seps than the M&R rebranded Kohari I-Block/Color Print stuff, to be fair tho Harlequinn has been doing this for MANY more years in environments that are way pickier than ours.

All that being said -- in a high-production shop, my current preferred combination would be:

Image-ST with 3 heads (no on-board exposure as I feel single-point is still the way to go)
Wax machine for higher detail work.
and for the Andy Anderson type prints, an ImageSetter. (we don't do any of this style of work right now)

For the record, when the laser machines are ready for prime time, that's where I'll be spending our next $$$.. I don't feel they're quite ready yet.

Great post, I have calibrated over 25 cts machines and this is absolutely true.... The harlequin rip gives you the ability to fine tune better, and the wax gives better control..... In the fine tonal ranges our curves for the i image were pretty odd in order to get our densitometer readings close.

I wish I could get some really good photos of our stuff because after fine tuning its a world of difference.......

Is that a photo of wax or your old wet ink images. "Don't shoot me", They are not labeled, so I just want to understand what I'm looking at.  They looks clean.

[DannyGruninger]

Dan -- these pics prove exactly what the others were saying about rough edges on the wet-ink CTS machines... whether that's noticeable (likely not) when printing on a t-shirt that's mostly air or not, is a different question...

We've had an original I-Image (epson based)
We did a very solid evaluation of an I-Image S (as well as an I-Image ST refurb)
We now have a Douthitt unit that was refurbed (came in at around 5k under the cost of the I-Image S).. I can tell you that under a loupe, the wax machine is far superior, but when correctly calibrated and, the printed shirt isn't a whole bunch different than the I-Image... the key here is proper tuning... and I feel that the wax machines have a far wider tolerance to improper tuning than the ink machines.

Also, the Harlequinn Rip is FAR superior for creating calibration curves, and even doing color-controlled 4-cp seps than the M&R rebranded Kohari I-Block/Color Print stuff, to be fair tho Harlequinn has been doing this for MANY more years in environments that are way pickier than ours.

All that being said -- in a high-production shop, my current preferred combination would be:

Image-ST with 3 heads (no on-board exposure as I feel single-point is still the way to go)
Wax machine for higher detail work.
and for the Andy Anderson type prints, an ImageSetter. (we don't do any of this style of work right now)

For the record, when the laser machines are ready for prime time, that's where I'll be spending our next $$$.. I don't feel they're quite ready yet.

Great post, I have calibrated over 25 cts machines and this is absolutely true.... The harlequin rip gives you the ability to fine tune better, and the wax gives better control..... In the fine tonal ranges our curves for the i image were pretty odd in order to get our densitometer readings close.

I wish I could get some really good photos of our stuff because after fine tuning its a world of difference.......

Is that a photo of wax or your old wet ink images. "Don't shoot me", They are not labeled, so I just want to understand what I'm looking at.  They looks clean.

This is a screen I went and snapped in production that we are currently using........ Douthitt machine, xitron rip and lots of my time spent making it as clean as possible......... But I do agree with you the shape of the dot isn't super important unless your doing super high end 4cp with rosette work as our i image used to print clean but not in the shape of a dot but still could produce amazing quality prints..... Also food for the thought with our current rip settings we do not print round or eclipse shape, we print euclidean shape which for us here has produced the best results on finished garments......

[Dottonedan]

Dan -- these pics prove exactly what the others were saying about rough edges on the wet-ink CTS machines... whether that's noticeable (likely not) when printing on a t-shirt that's mostly air or not, is a different question...

We've had an original I-Image (epson based)
We did a very solid evaluation of an I-Image S (as well as an I-Image ST refurb)
We now have a Douthitt unit that was refurbed (came in at around 5k under the cost of the I-Image S).. I can tell you that under a loupe, the wax machine is far superior, but when correctly calibrated and, the printed shirt isn't a whole bunch different than the I-Image... the key here is proper tuning... and I feel that the wax machines have a far wider tolerance to improper tuning than the ink machines.

Also, the Harlequinn Rip is FAR superior for creating calibration curves, and even doing color-controlled 4-cp seps than the M&R rebranded Kohari I-Block/Color Print stuff, to be fair tho Harlequinn has been doing this for MANY more years in environments that are way pickier than ours.

All that being said -- in a high-production shop, my current preferred combination would be:

Image-ST with 3 heads (no on-board exposure as I feel single-point is still the way to go)
Wax machine for higher detail work.
and for the Andy Anderson type prints, an ImageSetter. (we don't do any of this style of work right now)

For the record, when the laser machines are ready for prime time, that's where I'll be spending our next $$$.. I don't feel they're quite ready yet.

Great post, I have calibrated over 25 cts machines and this is absolutely true.... The harlequin rip gives you the ability to fine tune better, and the wax gives better control..... In the fine tonal ranges our curves for the i image were pretty odd in order to get our densitometer readings close.

I wish I could get some really good photos of our stuff because after fine tuning its a world of difference.......

Also, with you knowing both machines well, is there anything unique about the Harliquin Rip that the Color Print Rip does not include?  Like folder setups, auto archiving etc?  Stuff like that.

[blue moon]

We’ve been back to film for a while now and keep trying to figure out why we should fix our CTS. The replacement parts have been here for 6 months and the only reason to fix it has been so we have redundant systems. Our 4800 seems to be producing better screens and it’s easier in the workflow...
Pierre

Curious about this. Easier in the workflow? A big selling point for CTS is the registration. Were you not seeing the CTS give those registration gains in production?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We are a small shop, 50 screens a day, so our labor division does not work that well with CTS. If the artis, who has extra time during the day, prints the films, then the screen guy can just grab them and place them on the screen and burn. It is  very quick and efficient. Placing the screen into the CTS and having to wait 2 min to image the screen is disruptive and does not flow very well. We also could not get it to work well with the preregistration system so the time savings we were expecting did not materialize.
We are also seeing the variations in the ink deposit/density throughout the week. Not sure whats causing it, but it’s there. Additionally, the surface of the emulsion is not flat so the dots fall into the valleys or sit on top of the hills and distort. There is also the issue of ink pooling in the valleys and being darker there than on the top of the strand of mesh. My experience has been that we get a far superior dot on the film and as a consequence, the dot in the emulsion is better. It is also more consistent over time.

When we get our CTS back up, it will be for the spot color work only. While, i think a newr CTS than ours Will probably do better, the ROI is just not there until we can get the registration system working, which does not look like it will happen as long as we still keep using our MHM with pins on the frames. Once we get rid of it and replace it with another ROQ we should be able to remove the pins from the screens and get it all going. Considering we only use the MHM for the sleeves, it will be few years before that happens.

Pierre

[DannyGruninger]

Dan -- these pics prove exactly what the others were saying about rough edges on the wet-ink CTS machines... whether that's noticeable (likely not) when printing on a t-shirt that's mostly air or not, is a different question...

We've had an original I-Image (epson based)
We did a very solid evaluation of an I-Image S (as well as an I-Image ST refurb)
We now have a Douthitt unit that was refurbed (came in at around 5k under the cost of the I-Image S).. I can tell you that under a loupe, the wax machine is far superior, but when correctly calibrated and, the printed shirt isn't a whole bunch different than the I-Image... the key here is proper tuning... and I feel that the wax machines have a far wider tolerance to improper tuning than the ink machines.

Also, the Harlequinn Rip is FAR superior for creating calibration curves, and even doing color-controlled 4-cp seps than the M&R rebranded Kohari I-Block/Color Print stuff, to be fair tho Harlequinn has been doing this for MANY more years in environments that are way pickier than ours.

All that being said -- in a high-production shop, my current preferred combination would be:

Image-ST with 3 heads (no on-board exposure as I feel single-point is still the way to go)
Wax machine for higher detail work.
and for the Andy Anderson type prints, an ImageSetter. (we don't do any of this style of work right now)

For the record, when the laser machines are ready for prime time, that's where I'll be spending our next $$$.. I don't feel they're quite ready yet.

Great post, I have calibrated over 25 cts machines and this is absolutely true.... The harlequin rip gives you the ability to fine tune better, and the wax gives better control..... In the fine tonal ranges our curves for the i image were pretty odd in order to get our densitometer readings close.

I wish I could get some really good photos of our stuff because after fine tuning its a world of difference.......

Also, with you knowing both machines well, is there anything unique about the Harliquin Rip that the Color Print Rip does not include?  Like folder setups, auto archiving etc?  Stuff like that.

The harliquin(xitron) rip that we are currently using has everything automated which is nice. Our art department just opens the art in illy and hits save as. The art then goes into the rip and it can auto underbase what we tell it to, trap or choke any pre sets that we have and then hits the cts machine. Once the file is printed on the cts it goes into a rip storage folder. Everything is setup where its an automatic function within the rip. I remember when using the I image we had the colorprint software and the printer control software which had some nice features but there were more steps for the artist to get the file imaged as they have to bring it into colorprint so its an added step. Artist goes from art program to colorprint to printer control where with the xitron the artist just saves the file from the art program and everything is auto from there. I remember something as basic as when we used the i image with roq presses we had to image the screens upside down because the rip or printer control didnt have the option to image on the opposite end of the screen, our artists had to actually flip the artwork in the psd or ai before sending to colorprint where as on the xitron rip our artist saves the file normal and xitron flips it and positions it on the screen where we need it. Much less brain damage for our artists when they can just setup a file like normal and not have to worry about flipping it. Overall the workflow has been better for us and to be 100% honest we have not even scratched the surface of what this rip can actually do. I feel like I need more education on the rip as it has options that are over my head. I'll try to dig in more when I get time as it's something I need to do regardless.

[Dottonedan]

I feel I may be one of the lucky few that has bought an I Image that also had a supply rep that spent a great amount of time in our shop calibrating everything. We are not a shop with all the fancy tools nor knowledge to go through all the calibration from screen to print. But since we bought our I Image through Martin AKA Tubelite our rep was here during the install and spent several days with me fine tuning everything, not just the machine but everything from density, angles, exposure, on press etc. That I feel is not something most shops that are not doing their own calibrations will ever get unless they are as lucky as we are. That I also feel is probably why my results with the I Image are far and above what we ever got with film printing. So in a typical smaller shop like us they can get an I Image installed and that is it, would their quality increase dramatically with out all the extra help we got? Probably not.

I would recommend anyone going to the point of investing in a CTS of any kind also invest in having someone with the tools and knowledge to come in and fine tune all the variables and have get the best out of that machine you invested so much money in.

That's a BIG one!  Probably the most important post on here.  It's also probably why Mark Dieli (spelling) does so well. The machine alone, is not what makes it a great choice. It's the training and customer service that comes with it. Kind of like Rich Hoffman installing and selling a press himself. He's knowledgeable enough to do the things you mention "about the machine".  I don't know what his emulsion and exposure knowledge is like, but I hear he goes above and beyond and stays with you and spends several days. That's key.  A good sales person that is capable of doing this is gold.


I do consulting for the Art Dept for separation and process/screen room I-Image re-training, calibration etc. and can even install after market, but can't do repair due to insurance reasons.  I don't do much of it or promote it due to my recent schedule over the last couple years but I like doing that a lot.

[Dottonedan]

Dan -- these pics prove exactly what the others were saying about rough edges on the wet-ink CTS machines... whether that's noticeable (likely not) when printing on a t-shirt that's mostly air or not, is a different question...

We've had an original I-Image (epson based)
We did a very solid evaluation of an I-Image S (as well as an I-Image ST refurb)
We now have a Douthitt unit that was refurbed (came in at around 5k under the cost of the I-Image S).. I can tell you that under a loupe, the wax machine is far superior, but when correctly calibrated and, the printed shirt isn't a whole bunch different than the I-Image... the key here is proper tuning... and I feel that the wax machines have a far wider tolerance to improper tuning than the ink machines.

Also, the Harlequinn Rip is FAR superior for creating calibration curves, and even doing color-controlled 4-cp seps than the M&R rebranded Kohari I-Block/Color Print stuff, to be fair tho Harlequinn has been doing this for MANY more years in environments that are way pickier than ours.

All that being said -- in a high-production shop, my current preferred combination would be:

Image-ST with 3 heads (no on-board exposure as I feel single-point is still the way to go)
Wax machine for higher detail work.
and for the Andy Anderson type prints, an ImageSetter. (we don't do any of this style of work right now)

For the record, when the laser machines are ready for prime time, that's where I'll be spending our next $$$.. I don't feel they're quite ready yet.

Great post, I have calibrated over 25 cts machines and this is absolutely true.... The harlequin rip gives you the ability to fine tune better, and the wax gives better control..... In the fine tonal ranges our curves for the i image were pretty odd in order to get our densitometer readings close.

I wish I could get some really good photos of our stuff because after fine tuning its a world of difference.......

Also, with you knowing both machines well, is there anything unique about the Harliquin Rip that the Color Print Rip does not include?  Like folder setups, auto archiving etc?  Stuff like that.

The harliquin(xitron) rip that we are currently using has everything automated which is nice. Our art department just opens the art in illy and hits save as. The art then goes into the rip and it can auto underbase what we tell it to, trap or choke any pre sets that we have and then hits the cts machine. Once the file is printed on the cts it goes into a rip storage folder. Everything is setup where its an automatic function within the rip. I remember when using the I image we had the colorprint software and the printer control software which had some nice features but there were more steps for the artist to get the file imaged as they have to bring it into colorprint so its an added step. Artist goes from art program to colorprint to printer control where with the xitron the artist just saves the file from the art program and everything is auto from there. I remember something as basic as when we used the i image with roq presses we had to image the screens upside down because the rip or printer control didnt have the option to image on the opposite end of the screen, our artists had to actually flip the artwork in the psd or ai before sending to colorprint where as on the xitron rip our artist saves the file normal and xitron flips it and positions it on the screen where we need it. Much less brain damage for our artists when they can just setup a file like normal and not have to worry about flipping it. Overall the workflow has been better for us and to be 100% honest we have not even scratched the surface of what this rip can actually do. I feel like I need more education on the rip as it has options that are over my head. I'll try to dig in more when I get time as it's something I need to do regardless.

You hit the nail on the head for most shops. Just look at film Most have never had the time to dig into their digital film printer setup to know thy can do dot gain control or even should do dot gain control. They think that's what they get. I never used much of what Color Print was able to do. With this same scenario, there are things in Color print "options" that do enable you to do a flip this in the folder setup.  (Perhaps you needed something more unique about your press and flipping it that was outside the capabilities of Color Print. Not sure.

You can flip, rotate, Move to the left right, top, bottom a specific distance, (whatever distance you put in) for example. At my last job for example, we dropped pocket prints into a folder that would flip it, and move it down .25" for me. You just go into the folder setup and do the initial set up one time the exact way you want it to repeat. Then that becomes your pocket folder. back print folder, Tote bag folder etc.  Drop it and forget about it. Auto rips, auto loads into Print Production and auto archives (if you set it up to do so).  That is an area where I think M&R lacked. They didn't train "long enough" and in detail enough. They rely on the customer to do their own digging. Same for dot gain. They would rather you build your own custom curves.