TSB
screen printing => Screen Making => Topic started by: Gilligan on May 17, 2012, 04:58:27 PM
-
Ok, so the topic is wishful thinking. But here are my thoughts. If everyone could dump in all the emulsion they have tried out and their exposure times and EOM (even if estimated) screens put on, exposure unit wattage/type/model and such I will compile it all into a spreadsheet that HOPEFULLY with a little math magic allow us to see how one emulsion stacks up to another.
Even if Joe Blow has only used Chromaline Chroma Blue and Ulano Orange (hot topic right now)... if they feel that they had a consistent EOM and document their exposure times then I SHOULD be able to do some "extrapolating" with Billy Bob that used Ulano Orange and QTX and WR-25 and come to some COMMON ground variable made up estimated exposure time as well as other data associated with it.
Certainly it wouldn't be definitive or rock solid or anything... but it would be interesting to look at and compare and I don't mind doing the data collecting and math.
Also give your opinion on the product and it's strengths, weaknesses, and such (don't forget how you used it... WB, Discharge, Plastisol, Solvent).
-
I've made it slightly easier by creating a template to start adding data to on Google Docs.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgdPJ7c6eSh6dFZ4bVBSTFVXZzZ5eFNvX3JyVk9vQ0E
Lets use and not abuse this please, I'd hate to have to lock this down and start granting permission.
Remember Light Units is kind of a relative term due to calibration. I know time is as well (due to bulb life and such)... but it can be a TINY bit easier to extrapolate or cross reference between different users and emulsions if we have a common variable (time). I do like those that have put both LU's and Time.
-
We got a few on the list so far.
I think there is definitely some interest in this... even if some of you more experienced shops don't see the use for yourself try to realize how much benefit it will bring for all the other users and to our community here. Please lend your experiences and pitch in what you can. You guys will be able to provide the most useful information.
Thanks to everyone participating and thanks in advance to all those that are going to participate!
-
I just added some of our info (and the mesh count column). Good idea, will help many!
pierre
-
Just saw this, I have been trying several different emulsions as of late. I will add some this week when things get slower, great idea very useful
Sent from samsung gem(the worst smart phone ever)
-
I will work on ours and post the results. I am reworking all of our exposure times and I will measure EOM for each mesh count.
-
Excellent.
I also just added to the "Method" column that we should probably be at least noting if we are using the round or sharp edge to coat with. That way it will be a little easier to "assume" some sort of EOM from the info given.
-
Also, I think it would be wise to not only have the exposure unit, but the wattage as well. I don't know what a lot of these machines have...also, mine has a high and low setting, 2,000 or 7,500.
-
Also, I think it would be wise to not only have the exposure unit, but the wattage as well. I don't know what a lot of these machines have...also, mine has a high and low setting, 2,000 or 7,500.
Added that to the header, hopefully people that have those options will comply.
So far this looks pretty active and looks like everyone is playing nicely... I guess we all realize the benefit to the project.
-
i added what the screen guy has written down - i believe that all our coats are 2:2 - if i find out different, i will change the value.
-
i added what the screen guy has written down - i believe that all our coats are 2:2 - if i find out different, i will change the value.
Hey could you time out one of your burns so we can estimate what the light unit numbers represent for your exposure unit?
Also how do you like the emulsion? Obviously you keep using it so you must like it... just curious though.
-
i can time it out - obviously with the integrator its going to change a week from now or in a month when we put in a new bulb...
the screen guy seems to think that one light unit = 30 sec.
the emulsion seems to be working for us - we used 100 gallons last year.
for the occasional discharge job we use Plus 8000, but have been trying others - Nazdar sent us three quarts to try, and so far they have been holding up better than the Plus 8000.
i also dont know the EOM - dont have any measuring tools
-
It's hump day... or in this case "bump day".
-
Bumping this sucker for a little more love to the "database"!
-
I haven't contributed anything yet, I should get a shot at it tomorrow.
-
Tisk tisk you guys.
Just looking at making an order from a shop because they have reasonable shipping on the AWT Coater and I figured I'd flesh out the order to stretch my shipping dollar.
They have this Kiwo emulsion I hear a lot about... so I go to the google docs "database" to see which "model" everyone likes and what do I see.
NOTHING... no one has added to it and there is no one talking about the Kiwo on it.
This seemed like such a great idea that would have served so many in the community and it now looks like a complete failure.
Thanks for all those that contributed to it... it started off on fire, just fizzled out quickly.
-
Just because I use this brand, coat this way on those kind of screens and use that kind of exposure for those amounts of light units..
Does not mean you will get the same results so please, use what you like and test test test then test some more until your combination of techniques results in the best possible outcome your shop can achieve.
Then document what you did and put it in the shop procedure manual. That way you can measure in the future and show the new guy exactly how you want it done.
-
Speaking of emulsion, I have not contributed to the list at all because I basically saw it one day and then forgot all about it. I have a ton of info I can add to it, just haven't done it. I'll get to it one day soon.
I just found something on one of my supplier's website as a monthly special, Kiwo One Coat, 5 gallon bucket for $197!!! That's a hell of a deal and I just jumped on it. I called and the guy on the phone said they hadn't changed the price in their system but they would honor the 197 on the front page of the website, but he acted like that might have been a typo so if anyone wants that price, they better take advantage of it today, before they change it. That seems really cheap for that emulsion. I guess I should start a thread on this.
-
Just because I use this brand, coat this way on those kind of screens and use that kind of exposure for those amounts of light units..
Does not mean you will get the same results so please, use what you like and test test test then test some more until your combination of techniques results in the best possible outcome your shop can achieve.
Then document what you did and put it in the shop procedure manual. That way you can measure in the future and show the new guy exactly how you want it done.
Well... sure, that does WORK.
BUT. If say Alan does his data dump on the page and talks about how he coats Chromaline Blue this way and it takes about 30 seconds for him to burn a screen coated 3:1 blah blah blah. Then later in his data dump he talks about some other stuff that he coated the same way and it burned in the same time frame on the same 3:1 well then I know I could start in the same place to start my testing. OR if I'm looking for something that burns faster and I see X burned twice as fast for him as Y did and I use Y well then I know X would probably be twice as fast as Y for me as well.
As long as the people putting in their data have a fairly consistent technique/standard for coating their screens then those that have tried lots of different emulsions can really contribute to this thread.
THEN, even those that haven't used that many can also give some expansion on it because say another guy has only used two different types. Well, if he used X emulsion and then he used Z emulsion, well now I can transpose that data and look at for Alan's use of that emulsion he got 1.5 minutes and this other guy had 5 mins but for the Z emulsion he got 3 mins well then knowing that Alan got 1.5 I can imagine what Alan would get using Z emulsion even if he never used it before.
All of this data will be useful for those that want to use it.
For those that want to just kick it around and dog it out... have fun... but easier if you just pretended no one was talking to you about it. Let us nerds play.
I'd venture to say that if we had 5 major players put their observations/data dumps in here we could really start getting some usable data that could save some of use a good bit of money and time (= money) when looking for that "something else".
-
Hey does anyone have any information on using a 3140 (old four leg style if it matters) with Chromaline Chromablue (PP)... like how many light units they use?
I'm about to start experimenting with my 3140 finally and I'd like to have a decent starting point as to not waist time/emulsion totally guessing.
-
Have you ever used this exposure unit?
What emulsion?
Have you ever used any photopolymer emulsion?
Do you have an exposure calculator?
-
Damnit, I still haven't contributed to the list...maybe tonight I can get to it.
-
Have you ever used this exposure unit?
What emulsion?
Have you ever used any photopolymer emulsion?
Do you have an exposure calculator?
Keep Step Wedge Man in check Andy. No, I haven't used this exposure unit at all yet... this is why I'd like to get a starting reference point.
I do have a step wedge PDF that I'll be printing out with my new setup and I will be doing said test. I just want a starting point. I don't know if I need 10 light units or 100 light units to even START to get some cross linking going.
I currently use the emulsion that I am asking about (Chromaline ChromaBlue, as stated. I'm only changing ONE variable at a time here. ;)
-
Light units should be the same on all exposure units. How much time needed to get to the specific number of unit should be what changes from one to another.
I needed around 17-18 light units for ChromaBlue on my 40-1K exposure unit on 110 mesh. PC701 emulsion needs around 15 units.
Hope that helps
-
Not true.
Light Units can be calibrated in some systems and on my older 3140 you can tilt the sensor up and down so it will read more or less light as a way of "calibrating" your light units.
Alan's unit for example uses only like 10 light units or something ridiculously small like that to expose a screen. I'm sure it has something to do with the much larger bulb but I'd also venture to say that maybe that setup was designed for things that typically need longer exposure times (more units).
So even from a 40-1k to a 3140... or even an older 3140 to a newer 3140 they will be different. How much? I don't know. That is why I specified that I had an older 3140. I'd LIKE info from a user of an older unit. But any 3140 info would be at least A starting point.
-
Calling all 3140's. Anyone?
:)
-
Late night bump for the insomniacs!
-
1" measured with one tape measure should be same as measured with your tape measure.
Light unit is a measuring unit, and should be the same.
I said SHOULD. Which light units they use I do not know, but two screens with the same emulsion and same EOM should be exposed with the same amount of Light units on any exposure unit. The only think that should change is the time because of the units power (UV strength).
-
Maybe some are done in "metric" light units. ;)
-
On my system, when it is calibrated or recalibrated, I set it so one light unit equals one second. I use a photocell and integrator. As the bulb ages, a light unit will take longer in real time. An exposure that was 36 light units took 36 seconds with a new bulb. After six months, the time to do 36 light units might now be 44 seconds. The units stay the same, but the time increases. This is also a way I decide when to replace the bulb
-
Right which is why light units will vary even with same brand/model.
What I'm looking for though is some basic numbers of starting with. I've been using a 400W MH bulb and this is 1200Watt and it's old. So really no time reference will work.
I find it odd, I easily got advice on what time I should start trying with (which was perfect to fine tune my times) when I was using a home built system with an arbitrary distance vs right now when I'm trying to find out a starting reference point to one of the most popular exposure units around.
*sigh*
-
Try step wedge with 5 LU increments. Start with 50 and go down. 50, 45, 40 ,35, 30, 25, 20 ,15, 10, 5
Find which area washes out the best and then try it again around that number with smaller increments. If everything washes out, start with a higher number.
Is that too hard to figure out or you do not want to waste one coated screen?
You will need to waste a few coated screens anyhow ;)
-
While I agree that it would be great to have a close idea of howto set things, you have plenty enough to make a stab at a test that by its nature includes a wide leeway on both ends.
You have your times and distance from your old unit.
You can figure that your new times will be half or less (figuring in distance as well)
Determine your light unit to time ratio, and pick a screen to sacrifice its life for a good cause.
Repeat if necessary.
-
Sure, if I didn't have 10's of people on here with a 3140 that could ball park me, I'd agree... it's just what you have to do.
Problem with it is that this bulb is 2 years old (at least, from what I was told).
So... do I do what Dennis suggested, or would my exposure times be 3x that. I understand that I'm going to have to waste some emulsion and some screens... I'm just looking to not completely waste a screen or two with numbers that just aren't even close.
If I knew that 30-60 would be a ball park and I'd get a usable number out of that then at least I could be narrowing it down from there. But if I do 30-60 and nothing washes out... well that was WAY too long. If I do 30-60 and EVERYTHING washes out then I wasn't even close and now I have to pick another essentially arbitrary practically random number to try. I could easily waste two complete screens just flat out guessing and getting ZERO usable results.
Maybe I'm spoiled because Andy gave me some good times to start with last time and I was able to get my exposure time on the first wedge test I ever did.
-
Sure, if I didn't have 10's of people on here with a 3140 that could ball park me, I'd agree... it's just what you have to do.
Problem with it is that this bulb is 2 years old (at least, from what I was told).
So... do I do what Dennis suggested, or would my exposure times be 3x that. I understand that I'm going to have to waste some emulsion and some screens... I'm just looking to not completely waste a screen or two with numbers that just aren't even close.
If I knew that 30-60 would be a ball park and I'd get a usable number out of that then at least I could be narrowing it down from there. But if I do 30-60 and nothing washes out... well that was WAY too long. If I do 30-60 and EVERYTHING washes out then I wasn't even close and now I have to pick another essentially arbitrary practically random number to try. I could easily waste two complete screens just flat out guessing and getting ZERO usable results.
Maybe I'm spoiled because Andy gave me some good times to start with last time and I was able to get my exposure time on the first wedge test I ever did.
You are contradicting yourself again. (Or just asking too many questions)
Per your posts, we have determined that every unit is calibrated differently. If someones unit is calibrated to have LU for (lets say) 8 seconds and yours is 5 seconds, the numbers that person gives you will not help you. Bimmrider said that he calibrated his unit as 1LU=1Second, so not every 3140 will be the same.
Trial and error my buddy :)
-
Not really... in my first response to you on this subject I said:
Not true.
Light Units can be calibrated in some systems and on my older 3140 you can tilt the sensor up and down so it will read more or less light as a way of "calibrating" your light units.
Alan's unit for example uses only like 10 light units or something ridiculously small like that to expose a screen. I'm sure it has something to do with the much larger bulb but I'd also venture to say that maybe that setup was designed for things that typically need longer exposure times (more units).
So even from a 40-1k to a 3140... or even an older 3140 to a newer 3140 they will be different. How much? I don't know. That is why I specified that I had an older 3140. I'd LIKE info from a user of an older unit. But any 3140 info would be at least A starting point.
Basically, that they would be different.
BUT, not everyone calibrates theirs... example the older units as I mentioned can't really be calibrated but only the sensor angled. Well, it's not likely someone pointed the sensor the other way completely. Again this is just a way to give me a smaller target to start off with.
You are a WHOLE lot better at playing pin the tail on the donkey if you can take a peak with one eye after they spin you... even if you are blind folded. In my pin the tail on the donkey metaphor, I'd like to be within 1 foot of the target vs 5 feet from the target on my first "stab".
So maybe instead of me "contradicting myself again", you are just being a stubborn ass, again. ;)
-
But seriously Kevin, besides the fact that you struggle with coating a screen, now that you see no one is jumping in to rescue you from this chore, what's the big deal?
Don't look at it as a wasted screen(or two) but a tool used in a really important process. The "bad" exposure examples often give a really useful look at the process.
Get a coated screen and use a little less than the time with your old unit as a low end start and go up from there. (You've already determined the relationship between light units and seconds now, right?)
With the right calculator, you of course can do twenty steps or so in one shot. If needed, you can even block off whole sections of your screen and do four or even ten times as many variable all on the one screen.
Without a proper calculator, you know the drill as well.
Just do it! (apologies to Nike)
Man, this part of this thread almost needs to be on it's own as it's raising an issue of its own rather than your "Grand List". The list is a great idea, but in this instance would also short change you of a really valuable learning opportunity.
-
I agree it deserved it's own topic.
But it was an opportunity to bump it up again and get it in people's face a bit as well as it served as an example where the list could have solved this issue for someone.
Even if Pierre would have put light units vs seconds (I'd love to have both for those without integrators but similar wattage), then I could have used that as a spring board to start with. If someone would have a 3140 and used Chromablue then for SURE I'd have had a starting point to cast my net.
This list could be so valuable in many ways, this just being one... one that I honestly hadn't even thought of when I started the list!
Also, I'm still plumbing up my washout booth so I'm not ready to expose just yet. Might as well see if anyone chimes in. (I was actually on here to sneak one last look at Mooseman's solids tank before I drilled my last hole). ;)
-
Not really... in my first response to you on this subject I said:
Not true.
Light Units can be calibrated in some systems and on my older 3140 you can tilt the sensor up and down so it will read more or less light as a way of "calibrating" your light units.
Alan's unit for example uses only like 10 light units or something ridiculously small like that to expose a screen. I'm sure it has something to do with the much larger bulb but I'd also venture to say that maybe that setup was designed for things that typically need longer exposure times (more units).
So even from a 40-1k to a 3140... or even an older 3140 to a newer 3140 they will be different. How much? I don't know. That is why I specified that I had an older 3140. I'd LIKE info from a user of an older unit. But any 3140 info would be at least A starting point.
Basically, that they would be different.
BUT, not everyone calibrates theirs... example the older units as I mentioned can't really be calibrated but only the sensor angled. Well, it's not likely someone pointed the sensor the other way completely. Again this is just a way to give me a smaller target to start off with.
You are a WHOLE lot better at playing pin the tail on the donkey if you can take a peak with one eye after they spin you... even if you are blind folded. In my pin the tail on the donkey metaphor, I'd like to be within 1 foot of the target vs 5 feet from the target on my first "stab".
So maybe instead of me "contradicting myself again", you are just being a stubborn ass, again. ;)
Not being a stubborn ass again.
I just thought that you have been on this board long enough to learn something. This is a same thing as when someone ask what are the settings on their conveyor for white on black shirts (I believe you asked that before, I'm sorry if you did not).
NO ONE CAN TELL YOU THAT!!! Everyones ambient temperature is different, everybody prints differently, uses different ink, different shirts, different moisture in the air and shirts, different EOM on the screens, different squeegee........... and so on....
Same thing with exposure unit. (Only different things change)
But I'm guess I am the only "stubborn ass" that is telling you that and everyone else is being politically correct.
Move your ass and do a proper wedge test and you'll be OK!
You wasted enough yours end everybody else's time on this subject, you could have it already dialed in by now.
From now on I'm done being a "stubborn ass". You can struggle and wait for "settings" as much as you want
-
Dennis, as I stated, I'm still plumbing up my washout booth.... so I can't expose anything anyway. Currently waiting on some gorilla glue to cure, so I'm not wasting any of my time here.
Funny you mention the dryer. My dryer (old Chaparral) has suggested starting settings in the manual. They suggest hight of panels, speed of belt and temp. I've seen this in several places since my time of asking (fyi, at the time, I didn't have the manual on my unit). Because though (and it's stated) this won't work for everyone, it's a good starting point. From there you can adjust things like speed, height and temp to get where you need to be. My dryer goes from stop to probably 30' per second, height is a HUGE adjustment (over a foot to almost right down on the garment) and the temp is a big ole swing as well (multi hundred degrees).
So do I start 12" off my garment at 500 degrees and 30' and work my way back from there? When experimenting you should only change one variable at a time... this would mean LOTS of changes and lots of trials and errors.
OR, given the settings of 4" 800 degrees and 8' per second do I come to the conclusion that I need 900 degrees and 7-8' per second at 4" in a MUCH shorter time!
I'm certain that these starting points saved me a few scorched garments and probably hours of frustration (I had enough of that repairing panels under a time crunch).
-
If someone would have a 3140 and used Chromablue then for SURE I'd have had a starting point to cast my net.
Though not from personal experience with the two, I gave you a very reasonable starting point. Cast away!
I will reiterate. Even when you have a number that is almost certainly accurate, it is good to see the results on each side of that number as well. It will provide, through visual references, important information that you will use in the future.
This goes directly to the same point that I tried to make in the thread about crap coming off of some auto presses. Good equipment or not, some folks don't seem to have a handle of just what is happening and why, so that when things get screwy, they are stymied.
It will eventually happen in this part of the process as well.
Get that sink plumbed, and have at it. You may even enjoy the lesson. ;D
-
I'm with you Andy. I'm not looking for "exactly 35 units"... I'm gonna do a wedge test and it certainly won't be my last.
I've got to learn out to coat consistently before I can even really begin to log what mesh counts mean what to me. Right now no matter what mesh count I use 1 min seems about right. Yellow mesh pushing that to 1:20 and that wasn't long enough, slime on the back... I did that on the fly given the 30% number as a guess... I had to get the job done... it worked, but I knew I needed to increase it next time... then of course I forgot. ;)
-
I finally put in some info on it. Not much but it's a start.
-
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD GILLIGAN, TAKE A FKING SCREEN AND EXPOSE IT. we all had to start at zero to figure out our times, pay your dues and figure it out! I'm not handing over my info that I spent YEARS to figure out. . . exposure calculators are FREE.
ok, now back to my chips-n-salsa.
-
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD GILLIGAN, TAKE A FKING SCREEN AND EXPOSE IT. we all had to start at zero to figure out our times, pay your dues and figure it out! I'm not handing over my info that I spent YEARS to figure out. . . exposure calculators are FREE.
ok, now back to my chips-n-salsa.
Man Jay, for someone that likes to frequent a forum that was built for sharing screen printing knowledge you seem to think everyone should "pay their dues" and you don't like to hand out information for "free".
Just as a follow up, I completely wasted a screen as I got nothing underexposes... from 20 light units to 64 light units, nothing underexposed and I probably could have washed out everything if I would have realized how much pressure I could hit it with.
Also, I googled around and found some people mentioning 35-45 light units for their 3140's and pure photo polymer. I found mine to be good at 35 as well.
AGAIN, half of the point of me proposing the question was (I had time to kill as I plumbed up my booth) and it demonstrated how valuable this "database" could be for helping people start out when they have nothing to go by.
Now I see why you haven't participated in said database. Sad.
-
Actually Gilligan, even many of us seemingly helpful ones may only be giving you a small percentage of our hard earned knowledge. Who knows?
Homer is not alone. Some of these hard learned lessons are what separate the chaff from the wheat in the future, and make for the truly great printers.
Merely sharing knowledge, and truly helping, are not always the same. Like giving you the answers from our "homework" because you went out to a movie instead of doing it yourself, as in school, that kind of help will eventually show its false value on test day, when you (or probably your low paid worker) has an exposure problem in the future.
Remember that I gave you a way of easily establishing a starting point, and told you that you are shortchanging yourself on this one by not seeing a number of under exposures and a number of over exposures to really compare under a loupe, linen tester, or magnifying glass to really get an understanding on the variables. That was real help.
-
Your homework example is a good one and I believe in exactly what you are saying.
But I wasn't looking for the EXACT answer... I wouldn't have just run with it anyway... even if Rich Hoffman himself would have said "USE 35", I would have used that for a middle ground for my testing.
Speaking of... you say you wanted me to see different steps.
Well, I took my 8 step test and duplicated it making it a 12 step test. I DID want to see as many variances as I could... hence why I started at what I thought was too low (20) and went all the way to what I knew was too high (64). I had timed out 50 light units and found it to be (from a cold start) 1 minute and 23 seconds (the last 20 light units kicking off at about 1 per second). I know I have a 1/3 of the power at home and my distance is a tad bit greater so I figured that was on the long side.
But VISIBLY the light didn't look all that bright so I figured 20 light units was pretty low... in reality it wasn't.
I should have started at 10 and gone to 54 like I did in my second test.
Those of you quick on the math would have noticed I used increments of 4 light units past my base and by stepping from 20 to 10 I ended up hitting the in between numbers on my second test (20,24,28... on first test and 18, 22, 26,30... on my second test)... thus giving me even more data than on one test.
In the end though... 32-48 seemed like it would have all washed out well. So I opted to err on the side of caution and use 35 (oddly enough, the number that was found in my googling).
So, did running two test really help me? No, not at all. One test from 10-54 would have been PLENTY and I would have arrived at the same conclusion.
-
Anyone use chromaline dc-521? It claims its good for both water base an plastisol and is cheap as all get out, $30.00 a gallon. Anyone?
-
Anyone use chromaline dc-521? It claims its good for both water base an plastisol and is cheap as all get out, $30.00 a gallon. Anyone?
where did you find a gallon for 30 bucks?
-
I couldn't find it at all at first in my Chronaline info, and then see that it's one of their Image Mate labeled line.
At any rate, yep, it;s a dual cure good for just about any ink systrem. check out the user guide.
http://www.ikonics.com/pdf/user-guide/image-mate/imagemate_DC521.pdf (http://www.ikonics.com/pdf/user-guide/image-mate/imagemate_DC521.pdf)
-
Anyone use chromaline dc-521? It claims its good for both water base an plastisol and is cheap as all get out, $30.00 a gallon. Anyone?
where did you find a gallon for 30 bucks?
Atlas screen supply
Sent from samsung gem(the worst smart phone ever)
-
I couldn't find it at all at first in my Chronaline info, and then see that it's one of their Image Mate labeled line.
At any rate, yep, it;s a dual cure good for just about any ink systrem. check out the user guide.
[url]http://www.ikonics.com/pdf/user-guide/image-mate/imagemate_DC521.pdf[/url] ([url]http://www.ikonics.com/pdf/user-guide/image-mate/imagemate_DC521.pdf[/url])
thanks I will let You know how it is. I think with a cupon code I had I paid below $30.00 yipppy!!!
Sent from samsung gem(the worst smart phone ever)
-
My CCI rep just told me I can get a gallon of one of their emultions for $25 and that includes shipping to az. It's a dual cure and also good for waterbase and plastisol. Not sure if Iwill try it. Aquasol hv is hard to get away from.
-
I just added a couple. 1 has been done a bunch on there. The other is a newbie to the chart.
-
Awesome... Actually repeats are really good for the chart. Not everyone will have the same exposure unit or coating method or whatever. EVEN if they did... it would STILL be great to see any variances between two users that did things essentially identically.
I'd love to have everything in there MANY MANY times even the same exact setups. At some point I'd have to harvest the data and move it to a more user friendly environment for people to use but it would be super valuable to people looking to play around or just getting into things and wanting to understand what one does vs another.
Example, I have only tried ONE emulsion (chroma blue), it's what my buddy uses in his shop so I used it that way if I had issues I could ask him and go visit to see what is not working for me and how it works for him. Obviously it's a good emulsion as well since he could use anything and chooses that and has decent results. But I'm at a point where I want to experiment. I have NO clue where to go from here though. I don't know what I'll gain from one vs another, ups/downs anything. I can look at spec sheets but lets face it Chromaline alone has like 20 different emulsions. LOL Analysis Paralysis is my biggest enemy when given that many variables with nothing to go on but "marketing hype". This DB gives me something a lot more concrete and takes me less time to go "This looks like a good choice to try out!"
-
I just added our info to the chart. I hope that someone can benefit from this info.
-
I am a little surprised that out of all the members, there's only 28 entries and I have two.