TSB
screen printing => Screen Making => Topic started by: Doug S on December 15, 2015, 05:55:44 PM
-
After doing side by side exposures using the amerigraph 150 Brandt gave me and the Lawson led unit, I most definitely will use the metal halide for any halftone work and most definitely discharge screens. The led I will use for most of the everyday stuff we do but there is no comparison when it comes to exposing and maintaining halftones with the metal halide.
Using a 150 s mesh with no linearization I was able to keep all of the halftones down to 4% with 45 lpi. With the led, I could achieve down to 8% but lost some at 80 and above.
I'm modifying this because I know this is common knowledge but this is the first time I've been up close and had access to both types of exposure units in my shop to test. I've heard this mentioned several times but seeing is believing.
-
After doing side by side exposures using the amerigraph 150 Brandt gave me and the Lawson led unit, I most definitely will use the metal halide for any halftone work and most definitely discharge screens. The led I will use for most of the everyday stuff we do but there is no comparison when it comes to exposing and maintaining halftones with the metal halide.
Using a 150 s mesh with no linearization I was able to keep all of the halftones down to 4% with 45 lpi. With the led, I could achieve down to 8% but lost some at 80 and above.
I'm modifying this because I know this is common knowledge but this is the first time I've been up close and had access to both types of exposure units in my shop to test. I've heard this mentioned several times but seeing is believing.
Not all LED exposure units are the same. If you get a chance compare your exposure against a Starlight.
-
Rich, I'm sure the starlight is better by far than the one I have. That is one of the times I wish I had waited a little longer instead of biting at the first one. The starlight hadn't came out yet when I bought it. In fact, that is the only piece of equipment I have that doesn't have M&R stamped on it.
-
Rich, I'm sure the starlight is better by far than the one I have. That is one of the times I wish I had waited a little longer instead of biting at the first one. The starlight hadn't came out yet when I bought it. In fact, that is the only piece of equipment I have that doesn't have M&R stamped on it.
I understand. Just clarifying for others that all led will not perform the same. We have people holding way more dots than 8%.
-
After we got our emulsion thicknesses under control, the starlight has been awesome.
4% to 95% linearized (printed) 50 lpi dots are no problem at all...
(actually even with the thicker coatings we were still ok with the halftones)
-
We won first place in the 2014 Impressions Awards for True Color Process Printing; CMYK on a DC underbase. All screens were burned on our Starlight.
-
"In fact, that is the only piece of equipment I have that doesn't have M&R stamped on it"
That and the Amergraph ;)
-
The Lawson sounds like it's as strong or stronger than the Vastex. If you're holding those dots with your LED then that's better than what we can get consistently with the Vastex, but there are other variables at play so it's not exactly apples to apples unless we had them both here at our shop. To hold anything under 10-12% over 50 lpi on the Vastex requires severe underexposure. I know there seems to be at least one exception to the lackluster results of LED expo units so that's good news but overall, IN MY OPINION ONLY, LED has not come close to living up to the hype. I know everyone is wanting LED to be the greatest thing since sliced bread and perhaps one day it will be for all the units out there. I still get upset thinking about our unit and whether or not something as simple as putting an expo calculator on a screen and testing the unit actually happened. We've got our stuff dialed in around here and the fact that we can't achieve decent halftones tells me that a few balls were dropped before the release of our exposure unit to the public.
-
The Lawson sounds like it's as strong or stronger than the Vastex. If you're holding those dots with your LED then that's better than what we can get consistently with the Vastex, but there are other variables at play so it's not exactly apples to apples unless we had them both here at our shop. To hold anything under 10-12% over 50 lpi on the Vastex requires severe underexposure. I know there seems to be at least one exception to the lackluster results of LED expo units so that's good news but overall, IN MY OPINION ONLY, LED has not come close to living up to the hype. I know everyone is wanting LED to be the greatest thing since sliced bread and perhaps one day it will be for all the units out there. I still get upset thinking about our unit and whether or not something as simple as putting an expo calculator on a screen and testing the unit actually happened. We've got our stuff dialed in around here and the fact that we can't achieve decent halftones tells me that a few balls were dropped before the release of our exposure unit to the public.
You need to get a Starlight, you're opinion on LED will change.
-
I understand the M&R is better, and I always try really hard to preface my comments by excluding from the negative remarks I'm about to make... but it doesn't usually work. It has to be far superior to the Vastex but there are still Starlight users that have had a few of the exact same screen failures as I've had. That doesn't mean it's still not by far the best LED unit it just means it's not a perfect expo unit. If we're holding up a 7-10K metal halide unit as the highest (relatively speaking of course) quality light source for all of our needs then every LED unit BESIDES THE M&R isn't even close. Where does the Starlight fall in that comparison to the big metal halides? I haven't a clue really, but I don't believe it's on par with them. Just my opinion which shouldn't upset anyone, it's just an opinion from someone who doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things.
-
I think the LED really excels when paired with a DTS...I used it both ways and we could NOT be happier with our Starlight paired with the DTS. using a diazo emulsion as well.
-
I think you need to be a pretty big shop to have an exposure unit as a production bottleneck, if it is, then LED may just be the answer, although I'll put my old converted 3K Nuarc fliptop with an 8+ year old bulb in it up against just about anything for speed on just about any emulsion.
If you're looking at both MH and LED new, and the costs are similar, as well as the finished product, I see no reason to not go with LED, but so far we've heard and seen mixed reviews of LED, and with used MH readily available at great prices, it's a tough sell to many shops.
-
I'd say something is not calibrated on your units. I also own a starlight and I-Image and I couldn't be happier. I actually feel we hold more detail now with this set up versus film and MH.
-
And on the other end of the spectrum, we used the Vastex unit without problems and are now on a cheap SAATI unit that Alex was having problems with. It is closing on 6 months now without any issues. We are holding a calibrated 4% dot at 55 lpi. Results were very simar with the Vastex. Using the PHU2 we are running discharge without any issues. With both units we only tested using the photo polymer emulsions. The other factor might be that our screens are bone dry (below 20% humidity) when developing.
Pierre
-
Emulsion thickness plays a HUGE role in how your screens will behave with a LED unit.
If you're over 25% EOM you'll have a ton of issues, many that may be covered up with a MH unit...
-
The Starlight demo I had here in the shop went great, I can't say if the screens would have held up on a long run because I only did 5 screens and none of them were for longer runs, but the initial results that you can see right away showed it performed much better than the Vastex. I don't think I ran the exposure calculator on any of the Starlight screens unfortunately, I wish I would have looking back but at the time I thought I was going to be selling the Vastex and turning around and buying the Starlight. I had 3 screens that I put the expo calculator on and shot on the Vastex to show the M&R guys the results and of course they weren't impressed at all.
Hopefully within the next few months I'll have a Starlight in here and I can see just how close it is to a good metal halide unit. I'll be sure to do a very thorough writeup and document the comparison. But I've got to get rid of the Vastex unit before I do anything and who knows how long that will take. I sure don't help my cause with my posts but I can't not tell the truth about it to sell ours, that's not how I operate.
-
I think you need to be a pretty big shop to have an exposure unit as a production bottleneck, if it is, then LED may just be the answer, although I'll put my old converted 3K Nuarc fliptop with an 8+ year old bulb in it up against just about anything for speed on just about any emulsion.
If you're looking at both MH and LED new, and the costs are similar, as well as the finished product, I see no reason to not go with LED, but so far we've heard and seen mixed reviews of LED, and with used MH readily available at great prices, it's a tough sell to many shops.
I pay a lot of attention to the discussions on this topic; we don't have a bottleneck in production with screens, so I have trouble justifying the high cost of CTS, no matter how you expose it. As we start to think this over, the new Epson printer that has been under discussion has more of my interest than CTS.
Steve
-
The CTS debate is unfortunately a lot more shop-specific than the discussions on it portray, that's why so many say they wouldn't do this at all if they went back to film and shops like mine would have a hard time seeing a quick ROI and would benefit in the quality of work environment more than with bottom line benefits. That's a huge gap that doesn't make any sense to a lot of the good people that just lurk and don't have the time to drill down on this subject to see if they fit the prime profile of a CTS shop or where they'll benefit the most or other areas they won't benefit as much. Think about how our shop does almost 80% repeat jobs and a fairly high proportion of those 80% is reprinted within 4-8 weeks of the last order. Film still makes sense in some areas although the lower pricing of CTS units can affect things greatly. 5 years ago it made zero sense for a shop doing 25 screens a day to buy a CTS machine but today it can make sense. I know as we creep above a 30/day average the ROI numbers look more appealing but our better setup times this month versus 12 months ago means we'll see less time savings during setups so we're still back to a morale/quality of work-life meaning more than a bottom line benefit.
-
Ahhhhh CTS and LED are never ending debates.
-
Well, I'm not trying to start any debates (too late, already did) but I love shiny new equipment, I drool over new toys. But I still can't make sense of spending 40K or so to put an image on a screen unless I'm producing an awful lot of screens a day, and we are in Alan's category, 25 - 30 a day. We have tons of film that gets used repeatedly, which of course is 0 ink cost on a reorder. We run an MHM, and the setup on those, if you have the FPU made for it, and why wouldn't you(?), is pretty damn fast. 5K MH burns 2 up in wall mount vacuum frame, but certainly much longer exposure times than LED. Making films is cheaper today than it was in the '80's when we used silver based films. Now, I'm pretty sure we can tape films on and get burning faster than a screen can be imaged, but we can't touch the reported LED exposure times; as I see it, screens exposing a lot faster than we can wash them out is a different type of bottleneck, but again, we're never sitting around waiting on a screen except in an emergency. One caveat, we can burn any size screen we want up to 50 x 30.
Of course, this may be because I've been burning screens since 1972, I find it hard to change, but that's really not it, I like change that works for me. Alan, maybe you could PM me your findings if you have the time, but only if it's not an inconvenience. Thanks everyone for all of your input.
Steve
-
Film has zero ink cost but remember you have time to find it, time to dig it out, time to re file it and so on. That costs something.
The debate will never end.
-
... but just think of all the savings in tape.
* if I had to go back to film, I'd quit this industry... [disclaimer -- we did not have a REAL tri-lock type system before we switched, so maybe I'd have a different opinion if I had that before we switched].
Between no film, faster setup, quicker and better screens, no registration marks, no taping (especially on press), etc... it's a no-brainer in my mind (and we ARE at that 20-25 screens per day #)...
-
We bought a CTS when we were doing about 50 screens a week. We are doing 100-140 screens a week now. Guess we grew into it pretty quick. LOL
-
One thing that seems to get over looked on the CTS "I can't justify it" thread is...when we ran a FPU, we had to have a skilled person, aka"someone that gave a sh*t" to do it...you had to be super accurate, and understand how the process works. With a DTS, we can stick ANYONE in in that spot and have them cranking out spectacular screens. The exposure time is already set in stone -thanks to our Starlight- the mesh count is called out in the file and all you have to do is put the screen on the machine. We aren't even talking about reg time / film / ink/ tape / labor time or any of that savings....but I don't want to go into the things you can save on that you have NO idea about.....
-
:-X
-
One thing that seems to get over looked on the CTS "I can't justify it" thread is...when we ran a FPU, we had to have a skilled person, aka"someone that gave a sh*t" to do it...you had to be super accurate, and understand how the process works. With a DTS, we can stick ANYONE in in that spot and have them cranking out spectacular screens. The exposure time is already set in stone -thanks to our Starlight- the mesh count is called out in the file and all you have to do is put the screen on the machine. We aren't even talking about reg time / film / ink/ tape / labor time or any of that savings....but I don't want to go into the things you can save on that you have NO idea about.....
8)
:-X
;D ;D ;D
-
We came from films. They did the trick. But with our event printing and our custom back printing program even our massive collection of in house designs don't seem to get reprinted very often. Our film costs were nearly $1500 a month. That doesn't even take into consideration the giant PITA of cataloging them and handling them.
Sure, you could pop the films on and be ready to wash out the image in about as much time as it takes to mask a full 15x17" design...but once you get smaller than that the time savings of films diminishes. Not to mention the fact that we couldn't replace just one film, but the entire job all at once. Watch out for water! Registering to carrier sheets, almost forgot about that.
We are currently on our 3rd and 4th CTS (Douthitt CTS-30 and CTS-52) and couldn't imagine being without them. Granted, on a slow day we do 100 screens, peak season can get up to 200 a day. For that kind of volume it just makes sense. If we were only doing a dozen screens a day there is no way I'd have ever gotten approval for one of these, let alone two to replace the previous two (of brands I'd rather never discuss ever again).
All said, I'll be putting in my order for an Starlight Gemini by the end of the day but if we didn't have this kind of volume we'd probably still be exposing on the same fluorescent light table we were using 20 years ago and we'd have no idea about the level of quality and repeatability that we were missing.
-
That doesn't even take into consideration the giant PITA of cataloging them and handling them.
This is a point that gets glossed over by the ones defending film. IMO the time in that is no joke.
Not to mention the fact that we couldn't replace just one film, but the entire job all at once. Watch out for water! Registering to carrier sheets, almost forgot about that.
This too. One thing that has been great for us is if we pop a screen or have a issue on screen choice or we can just output another screen on the CTS in seconds really, no need to go chase back down the films that are either already put back up or not right in front of you as screens were often made days ahead or many hours at least in many cases in shops. I walk to the CTS, click the file, print right to the screen and im burning in 30 seconds later. I am not sure how it could be much easier.
-
I walk to the CTS, click the file, print right to the screen and im burning in 30 seconds later. I am not sure how it could be much easier.
it sure does make it easy to do 'same day' jobs... and I LOVE the 200% markup that comes with same-day contract printing... we plan 3 hours per day now for those types of jobs as we have a few 'contract' clients that will call to 'see if we can get a job in'... sure at 3x our normal rates, NO problem.
-
250 screens a day, 40-50 jobs. Film? No thanks
Now :-X
-
250 screens a day, 40-50 jobs. Film? No thanks
Now :-X
You know you want to add a lot more!
-
Bottom line is CTS is right for some and not for others, like Steve I would love to have all the new toy's just to keep up with the Jones, if our shop was was busy say setup at 7a.m. printing start's at 7:45 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. printing all day yeah I would say CTS and it would move production so much faster. I just talk with a guy yesterday and they have a room dedicated to nothing but film storage dating back many years and I told they could really benefit from the CTS machine and keep years worth of art on a thumb drive.
-
I think CTS is one of those things were you don't know what you are missing until you have one. Just that simple.
-
Just want to chime in a bit on the whole film vs CTS thing from the perspective of someone who uses film and would have to grow a ton to justify CTS, but also as someone who frequently does the same day orders and occasionally remakes screens to adjust something etc. I use a DIY FPU that is modeled on Alan's and it does not use carrier sheets, positions the screens in the exact same place and makes positioning the film exactly in the same place very quick and easy. I literally do not use my micros when setting up on press unless my press is in need of zeroing/recalibrating or something shifts mid-run, so rarely...
I definitely get that CTS means someone who has no attention to detail and is unskilled can do the same, and obviously you are saving on the film cost and time to print the film then place it on the screen, but I disagree with the idea that without CTS you can't remake a perfectly aligned screen ad hoc vs having to remake all of them. I've never gotten the whole "time to catalog and find films" thing either. I can find a film for a job in the same amount of time it takes me to find the digital file on my computer. I also keep films next to my FPU until the job is completed in case I do have to remake a screen for any reason. Obviously I am not a large shop so I am not relying on dumbasses to make my screens and suffering setbacks and slowdowns as a result, but I think that is a tangental issue from CTS vs Film. With a few "best practices" and some attention to detail, I think they function similarly when it comes to registration and the ability to reshoot screens in alignment. At least, for a small shop like mine that is currently going through 50ish screens a week max, it is hard to justify the cost vs just being smart about using what I already have.
-
When your orders pick up and time in your day becomes very thin, you would see the difference. There is no such thing as, "a dummy" can use CTS. I don't let anyone touch ours yet. If you don't lock your frames in perfect, you will have issues on press. Also, if the person using the CTS isn't careful there are other things that can go wrong, too rough, may pop a screen, loading a dirty frame makes messes. Roller frames that may have fabric pop up in the corners while imaging can cause head strikes. Basically, the operator of the CTS MUST pay attention to detail. The upside of a CTS over films way justifies the investment. If you are going through more than 20 screens a day, even if those are reshoots, there is no way that its not worth it, even to a small shop. We are a prime example of this. I was very skeptical at first but took the money back guarantee challenge and actually paid that sucker off in less than 2 years. Ive stated this a ton of times, you just can't know how awesome having one is, an how much you will kick yourself for not going CTS sooner until you have one. A guy in Orlando went to M&R last December the same days my wife and I did. He was looking at a new press which he got, 16 co GT3. He was DEAD SET AGAINST CTS. Even after he spent time with one at the factory, he was still not convinced. His shop does amazing work, and tons of work, so much they are running 3 autos 40 hours a week and expanding to 15,000 square feet. Mainly sim process jobs, big and smaller runs, receiving pallets of shirts a day. Bottom line, he took the chance and can tell you that there is noooo freakin way he would go backwards. That being said, it's not cheap but you just can't go off of people ROI calcs on one of these units. If you had a chance to get one or run one for a full week of jobs, it's a no brainer. We were 2 years with an Epson based model, and now in our 3rd year of CTS with the I-Image ST. No way would I go backwards, I thought at one point I might have to when we had some issues with the Epson and I didn't know if we could afford the move up, but weighing out the film bla bla bla stuff, no brainer, move up from there.
-
My point was to specifically address the idea that you can't remake a screen with dead on alignment ad hoc.
I also think CTS would only be a good investment if you already had a good auto, fast exposure unit, nice dryer, and a handful of other items that will make your shop more money and help out quality of life and product etc a lot more. I see it is a worthy upgrade eventually, but it definitely isnt as important as other stuff in the process, and it would be reaaaaallly hard to justify for a shop that didn't have tens of thousands of dollars to spend without being able to upgrade other things.
Having seen Alan's setup I also know he wouldn't see the same drastic and immediate benefits that other shops might, but that is only because he already worked through a lot of those issues by nailing down his film storage and FPU setup. Seeing a few of the setups in other large shops around Austin, I can definitely see how it would help some of them A LOT though. I went into one shop (which I wont name) that had 3 auto's and was clearly spending money like crazy, that had probably about the most ghetto and chaotic screen department I could even imagine. Films everywhere, dust everywhere, screens everywhere, employees that couldnt have cared less, etc.
-
One thing that seems to get over looked on the CTS "I can't justify it" thread is...when we ran a FPU, we had to have a skilled person, aka"someone that gave a sh*t" to do it...you had to be super accurate, and understand how the process works. With a DTS, we can stick ANYONE in in that spot and have them cranking out spectacular screens. The exposure time is already set in stone -thanks to our Starlight- the mesh count is called out in the file and all you have to do is put the screen on the machine. We aren't even talking about reg time / film / ink/ tape / labor time or any of that savings....but I don't want to go into the things you can save on that you have NO idea about.....
OK, and I'm not arguing here, but my screen guy gives a crap and has been making screens for over 30 years, so not an issue, and if super accurate means lining up films on an MHM FPU, which might take about 15 seconds on a bad day, that's not an issue, and because of what we use, registration is also not an issue. Film needs to be printed once, whereas CTS has to be printed every time you need to make it. Tape? Seriously? $50.00 a year over 4000 jobs? Ink? 2 to 3 pints a year at $90.00 total? And you still have labor anyway, and if someone is there 8 hours a day, then you're paying it out whether they are setting up and burning or washing out or coating and all the rest. Daily cataloging the films is about 15 minutes, in a small room that was formerly our dark room, with a process camera and film processor. Now, if we were in need of considerably higher screen output, I wouldn't even bother typing this. Someone like ScreenDan is producing 200 and up, 100 on a slow day, it's a total no-brainer. The Starlight I can certainly see, which is not tens of thousands of dollars. Now Brandt mentions mentions imaging the screen and being ready to burn 30 seconds later; so it can image a full size, say 12 x 15 image in about 10 seconds, because you have to take it out of the CTS and put it in the Starlight, start the vacuum, wait the short drawdown and begin burning? Well, that's mighty impressive but I suspect a little embellishment. However, I'm very interested to understand the savings that I have NO idea about. What could that be?
Steve
-
Now Brandt mentions mentions imaging the screen and being ready to burn 30 seconds later; so it can image a full size, say 12 x 15 image in about 10 seconds, because you have to take it out of the CTS and put it in the Starlight, start the vacuum, wait the short drawdown and begin burning?
if you have a I-Image STE or STE2, it exposes the screen immediately after it makes it... so no need for moving it to the starlight. Also... no vacuum needed with CTS screens... you don't need glass either...
(We expose 160S screens at 12 seconds with the starlight... actually had to get a SLOWER emulsion because the one we were playing with at first was a 2.8 second exposure and just too fast)
on our epson unit, it typically takes about a minute to image a screen, 5-10 seconds to move it to the starlight and we're good to go... 2 minutes from opening the file to putting it in the soak tank.
-
An Epson based unit is slower than the equivalent film, image for image.
We can gang up films and print 4 feet of it continuously.
-
One thing that seems to get over looked on the CTS "I can't justify it" thread is...when we ran a FPU, we had to have a skilled person, aka"someone that gave a sh*t" to do it...you had to be super accurate, and understand how the process works. With a DTS, we can stick ANYONE in in that spot and have them cranking out spectacular screens. The exposure time is already set in stone -thanks to our Starlight- the mesh count is called out in the file and all you have to do is put the screen on the machine. We aren't even talking about reg time / film / ink/ tape / labor time or any of that savings....but I don't want to go into the things you can save on that you have NO idea about.....
OK, and I'm not arguing here, but my screen guy gives a crap and has been making screens for over 30 years, so not an issue, and if super accurate means lining up films on an MHM FPU, which might take about 15 seconds on a bad day, that's not an issue, and because of what we use, registration is also not an issue. Film needs to be printed once, whereas CTS has to be printed every time you need to make it. Tape? Seriously? $50.00 a year over 4000 jobs? Ink? 2 to 3 pints a year at $90.00 total? And you still have labor anyway, and if someone is there 8 hours a day, then you're paying it out whether they are setting up and burning or washing out or coating and all the rest. Daily cataloging the films is about 15 minutes, in a small room that was formerly our dark room, with a process camera and film processor. Now, if we were in need of considerably higher screen output, I wouldn't even bother typing this. Someone like ScreenDan is producing 200 and up, 100 on a slow day, it's a total no-brainer. The Starlight I can certainly see, which is not tens of thousands of dollars. Now Brandt mentions mentions imaging the screen and being ready to burn 30 seconds later; so it can image a full size, say 12 x 15 image in about 10 seconds, because you have to take it out of the CTS and put it in the Starlight, start the vacuum, wait the short drawdown and begin burning? Well, that's mighty impressive but I suspect a little embellishment. However, I'm very interested to understand the savings that I have NO idea about. What could that be?
Steve
No need to vacuum here, also my CTS and Starlight basically are touching, so no walking really either. Yes image size would affect print time of course, just a loose number I forgot we gotta be real specifc around here haha. But the ST prints pretty fast. Certainly faster than our Epson unit did and our 4880 did. Our shop we have a cycle, start a screen imaging, one is burning while your doing that, your washing one while both of those are going. Move one to the next. Our exposure times are in the 30-50 second range depending on screen. They are not really waiting on anything in most cases it just continues to move every 30-50 seconds. For what its worth most of our shirt backs are 15x17.
-
Thanks Brandt, and Homer and the rest too, I really do appreciate it. I do see a Starlight in our not too distant future, a great step for us for sure. As we make a push for a newish 5 year plan, I also see the need for CTS, just not quite yet...
Steve
-
for me - and I think Steve has a better set up than we ever did - we were HORRENDOUS at filing films. We couldn't do it once a day which would have been the proper way to do it. we waited a week or more. Sometimes once a month before we could file it. That makes a huge impact on us right there. And then we would get one wet or loose one in the pile, it was a mess...SO I needed a solution to that and this has done it.
What I mean by some one that gives a damn - and again, this is MY shop....there are only 5 of us here. not all of us can do each others' job. Out of the 5, 2 can print on the auto... So those guys should not be doing the films / exposing. BUT Everyone can expose screens. What we had happening is the printers were reg'n film, exposing screens and so on. I want those guys printing! SO moving to DTS allows a window for those less skilled / knowledgeable guys to jump into screen making. I am NOT saying they couldn't use an FPU, it just takes a bit more time and has a higher learning curve. With the DTS, Mike is right, it's not an "any idiot can do it" but you take a ton of the problems we had with an FPU and solve them with a click of a button...skill is still needed, but no where near as much....
40k is a spicy meatball to invest into a system that isn't broken,I totally get it...Look at Al, I think he knows his numbers and still can't see any benefits. My point is for MY shop, we can not go back to the mess we called film.... I would if I had to, it wasn't hell on earth, honestly. But this is better.
Things you have no idea about? well, those things will show up when you install your DTS. One thing I never thought about, it made me get more organized. That in itself is huge....but again, results may vary...
-
Once you have CTS and a Starlight, you will see you can't afford NOT to have it! That big of a deal, and I am a small shop, I would probably quit before I gave up either of those machines.
-
What is the highest tonal percentage you can hold on a CTS? in the 85-95% range? Not the lowest percentage but can you get a hard dot on high tonal percentage on 55LPI?
And to make it even more fun, At the opposite end of the tonal range, if you can hold a 4% dot whats the highest tonal percentage on the other end you can image and have a good strong dot that will not come off in print?
-
I've done 85 Lpi myself and printed samples on the shirt. We held a strong 3% but the highlight was bumped up to output more like 5%. The shadow tones need adjusted more in the shadow tones with each higher lpi. At 84 lpi the shadow tone is opened up so much 99% area cut back to more like 70% in order to maintain some shadow detail at the 95% range. You reach a point diminishing return since the negetive space gets so much smaller and smaller. That's also dependent on how many heads you have. You may get 100lpi with a 1 head versus a 3 head (as it pertains to the I-Image. For example, you can get very good results using the M&R standard 80/60 curve when only using 45-50 lpi. Anything higher and you need to test and open it up more for each jump.
To do this, you have to work with the options you have available.
Print pass modes. 6 pass = fastest production but least accurate for high end sim process and thin line work detail. It's very acceptable for the every day prints. Best for solid vector work and basic halftones is say 45 lpi. Every pass higher than that like 12, 18, 24 get better and better, but slower and slower print production. When I say slower, 12 pass is double the time of a 6 pass print but we are taking about 6 pass having a print time of 15 seconds and 12 pass having 30 seconds. The 30 seconds is a small fraction of film print time. Most of my customers opt for the 12 pass.
Different curve based on the lpi you want to use.
# of heads: 1 head prints slightly slower than a 2 or 3 head, puts the coverage down slightly thinner but prints the finest high end halftones. Most 1 heads work best at 12 pass.
Most importantly, is to test your exposure using a fine halftone test file that turkey matches up with the lpi you are using so that you get both an accurate exposure as well as holding the best dots with your adjusted curves.
Coating technique is another factor. A 2/2 coat on high mesh may be too much emulsion to hold the finest dots. It's been proven that when the emulsion is properly exposed, it's already durable enough for long runs of the average shop using poly of orders in the 75-150 range and even in the 1000-5000 shirt range. If you are needing discharge/waterbased emulsion then those numbers may change and exp time obviously changes but the theory of coating all mesh the same (when you have 230 and 305 in the mix is not feasible with thick coats and trying to hold the finest dots. If you don't need 4-5% dots in the 55lpi range then it's a moot point.
All of these can be a player on image detail.
-
Thanks for the great info Dan
-
Compare this to what your doing now. Then use ROI calculator. Ours has already paid for itself...and we've almost had it a year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UifJ3t6ziKs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UifJ3t6ziKs)
-
Compare this to what your doing now. Then use ROI calculator. Ours has already paid for itself...and we've almost had it a year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UifJ3t6ziKs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UifJ3t6ziKs)
Cool video.
244, what do you think about an operator having the uv blast hit them like that throughout the day? think it's bad for the skin, or not enough time to bother the human body? Just curious. Looks like wearing shorts standing next to that thing for several exposures could give that guy a tan left calf ;D but serious about the possibility of uv damage on the skin?
-
No sun-tan I am afraid...cus I am still white as all can be. Different type of light ;)
The UV light actually isn't very effective past where the screen is. We could hold one out at about 1 foot from the light and get it to exposeish...but not that great.
-
No sun-tan I am afraid...cus I am still white as all can be. Different type of light ;)
The UV light actually isn't very effective past where the screen is. We could hold one out at about 1 foot from the light and get it to exposeish...but not that great.
That's good to know!! I saw that one screen near it while one was still burning and figured it must not bother it being a little bit away. I guess if that's you in the vid burning the screens, you'd know if you were getting a sun burn or not lol. I know you can feel the heat from my tri light if you get any direct light. I have our's rigged like a pizza over to put 2 frames in at a time no glass, but this year want to add an led unit and save some space in the room. Those 1-5 second exposure blow my mind, that's awesome. Do you do any longer exposures for emulsion use with discharge? What's your time looking like on such an exposure?
Thanks man
Mike
-
No sun-tan I am afraid...cus I am still white as all can be. Different type of light ;)
The UV light actually isn't very effective past where the screen is. We could hold one out at about 1 foot from the light and get it to exposeish...but not that great.
inverse square law.
for every doubling of distance from the light source, the 'energy' is half.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law)
-
Those 1-5 second exposure blow my mind, that's awesome. Do you do any longer exposures for emulsion use with discharge? What's your time looking like on such an exposure?
we had to change to a slower emulsion here because Saati PHU was WAY too fast on our starlight (3 seconds for a 160 mesh screen) and we didn't have the latitude to adjust (2 seconds was too short, 4 seconds was too long)... changed to PHU-2 (12 seconds for a 160, 9 seconds for a 230)
Diazo emulsions are definitely slower on the Starlight tho... (around 50 seconds or so for a white 160 mesh).
-
I suppose things just got a lot more interesting now Exile is about to release a CTS unit for under £10k.. I have an MHM X type plus with the Pru and I am still blown away that I can load 2,3 and 4 colour jobs multiple times all day and not have to touch the micros.. I have even blown a screen on a multicolor job and been able to burn a new screen and have it register instantly.
I would not see a dramatic benefit using CTS because the MHM is so good so could not justify £30k but at £10k I'm thinking about it,not to mention it will look nice next to my new starlight :).
-
No sun-tan I am afraid...cus I am still white as all can be. Different type of light ;)
The UV light actually isn't very effective past where the screen is. We could hold one out at about 1 foot from the light and get it to exposeish...but not that great.
That's good to know!! I saw that one screen near it while one was still burning and figured it must not bother it being a little bit away. I guess if that's you in the vid burning the screens, you'd know if you were getting a sun burn or not lol. I know you can feel the heat from my tri light if you get any direct light. I have our's rigged like a pizza over to put 2 frames in at a time no glass, but this year want to add an led unit and save some space in the room. Those 1-5 second exposure blow my mind, that's awesome. Do you do any longer exposures for emulsion use with discharge? What's your time looking like on such an exposure?
Thanks man
Mike
I wished it worked like a tanning bed. Could open it up for the public while we aren't using it lol. Flipping it on its side is the way to go, the space savings and the ease of use (especially with heavier rollers). However M&Rs new unit that is already vertical may peak your interest instead of my JimmyRig ways...
Yea, virtually no heat is a nice addition in the summer time. We've tried a couple DCs and we were around 30 seconds. Hadn't dialed them in. We'll do more testing with WR-14 this winter and report back.
Use chromablue right now and are hovering around the 3.5 second mark. Seems to do alright for the majority of the work we do. On orders over 1,000 pcs we always come back and throw a couple screens on there and Post-expose for another 30 seconds. They've lasted through 15,000-20,000 impressions.
-
Compare this to what your doing now. Then use ROI calculator. Ours has already paid for itself...and we've almost had it a year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UifJ3t6ziKs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UifJ3t6ziKs)
Cool video.
244, what do you think about an operator having the uv blast hit them like that throughout the day? think it's bad for the skin, or not enough time to bother the human body? Just curious. Looks like wearing shorts standing next to that thing for several exposures could give that guy a tan left calf ;D but serious about the possibility of uv damage on the skin?
I tanned the back of my legs years ago while cleaning the huge vacuum frame; the Violux 3000S we used at the time had a broken shutter, and remained open when it powered down after the exposure; even on low power, I burned my legs in about 10 minutes (just slightly, no pain). The distance I see here should pose no problems, as the inverse square law dictates. I do like the speed I see here a lot.
Steve
-
When I received my first 8k Olec and shot 100 screens I was stoked to watch the diazo emulsion change color so quickly.
At the end of the day I had 1/2 sun burnt face and 1/2 not. Yes it was an improvement and led to many bar conversations that week.
At least I knew the UV was good and strong. Seriously though UV light is nasty stuff at any wavelength and any milliwatt exposure.
Your eyes may not notice the damage now, but when those cataracts start forming 10-20 years down the line it isn't fun or cheap.
-
When I received my first 8k Olec and shot 100 screens I was stoked to watch the diazo emulsion change color so quickly.
At the end of the day I had 1/2 sun burnt face and 1/2 not. Yes it was an improvement and led to many bar conversations that week.
At least I knew the UV was good and strong. Seriously though UV light is nasty stuff at any wavelength and any milliwatt exposure.
Your eyes may not notice the damage now, but when those cataracts start forming 10-20 years down the line it isn't fun or cheap.
Agreed, the eyes are a different story. I would like to think that no one would stare at the light anymore than they would stare at the sun, but...
Steve