TSB
screen printing => Ink and Chemicals => Topic started by: Fresh Baked Printing on June 30, 2011, 11:03:07 AM
-
Anybody have a physical Pantone card of 226U and 226C? Is the actual difference in color THAT noticeable? Unions mix is slightly different for each.
-
There should not be any difference. The U is formulated for Uncoated stock and C is formulated for Coated stock. The color should be the same. Cards are a bit off, but that is because of the paper stock and coating. On screen, they are indetical
-
The difference is always a bit of an illusion, as the "c", of course, stands for coated(stock). It's shiny and reflects light. To me, it often appears a little darker, and a lot "richer"
I have always found it a little crazy that the coated examples are what our mixing systems purport to match.
Myself, I have often shown the two swatches and explained to the client that my mix would probably be somewhere in-between, as shirts, of course, are not coated.
-
Frog, it has nothing to do with shiny vs. non shiny, it's how the ink is absorbed. After dating a girl whose dad ran an offset company, I understood it a lot more. Certain colors will change more on uncoated stock due to how the ink is absorbed and how it dries. Take a look at PMS 123 C&U, HUGE difference. It matters nothing that shirts are "uncoated".
Screen printing ink doesn't change color depending on what it is printed on, otherwise white underbases would throw off every color in the book.
Take for example inkjet ink. Print on plain paper, and then print on photo inkjet paper. the difference is night and day.
Bottom line, the colors are different, I always match to C unless the customer's color specifically states U. The finish of a t-shirt matters NOTHING.
-
printing on uncoated stock makes the ink soak in, and get dull and lose it's saturation. We only match the "C" for customers. If they really need it, then we mix the "C" version, and add a little white or black, depending on what you're trying to get. Either way, the color is somewhat degraded. We keep an uncoated PMS book too, for reference...
Steve
-
Obviously the swatches in our books are the same (offset) ink formulas shown on the two different stocks with their resulting differences.
I still contend that for the most part, our ink mixes do not look exactly like the coated examples.
I also have never seen a plastisol system that lists formulas for the uncoated versions.
It's a compromise, and screen printers are best advised to warn clients that some of these colors are more of a compromise than others.
-
Wilflex MX has formulas for C and U of each color. There IS a difference.
-
Correct. The U colors absorb the C reflect and there can be a dramtic difference in some instances not so much in others. If you have an ink company match a PMS color for you you better believe they will want you to specify U or C. The substrate; whether it be paper stock (coated or uncoated) or fabric (underbased or not) play a significant role in how an ink will appear to the naked eye. When you printed for Nike, for instance, each season they would submit their color pallete which the screen printer had to match a. direct on white fabric and b. on dark fabric that is underbased. You can bet the formulas were different. The bases and pigment ratios change. Now that said I think most of us use the C range as a typical customer doesn't care about all this but if we want to stay technically accurate.....well.
Speaking of color I recently had to explain to a customer what metamerism is. A shiny nickel goes to the first correct response!
-
Had to look it up, pretty deep reading, but it's starting to look like something I already know, but don't have a name for. Thanks Tony, and no nickel, I cheated ;D
Steve
-
I will still warn my clients that exact matches may not be possible, and when it is critical, I have them sign off on them.
And as Tony said, most jobs and clients aren't super critical, hence my explanation to them of a resulting mix somewhere in-between, and this is partly due to the non-reflective nature of our inks on our substrate.
I suppose that if someone specified a "u" color, (haven't had one yet) I would fake it and kick in a little white or gray or something as my Union system does not list uncoated versions (at least last I looked)
-
Different color when you change light spectrum? Artificial to Natural or neon bulbs to normal bulbs
-
Thats the short answer yes. The term "Metameric Failure" applies when two colors match when viewed under one light source and not another. It's sometimes reffered to when a given color appears different when surrounded by two different colors. Probably not technically correct but close enough I suppose. I don't have two nickles to rub together so Bauman you're out of luck but wait.....tomorrows Payday! JK of course but your'e still not getting your nickle ;D
BTW I hate Smileys
tp
-
My customer specified a 226U. On a white shirt. Would I want to use the U version just because a shirt is uncoated? A C version on an underbased shirt?
What if the customer specified a C, wouldn't that throw the color off on a "uncoated" white shirt?
I wish I had a U and C swatch card to see the actual diffidence. I have the C swatch cards.
I'm thinking about implementing a new policy that says "Customers can pick any ink color they want as long as it's black". :)
-
I suppose that if someone specified a "u" color, (haven't had one yet) I would fake it and kick in a little white or gray or something as my Union system does not list uncoated versions (at least last I looked)
Wilflex MX is much more robust than it's union counterpart. One of the many reasons I switched. For instance..877C Silver is a primary color in one of the major energy suppliers in TX. It is also a primary or secondary color in logos of two very major organizations in Dallas. When I called Union to get a match, they said NO. Wilflex. Sure no prob, here is the formula. Threw the union book in the trash right after that.
-
Fbaked not to get get all high and mighty but black isn't technically a color. Neither is white for that matter.
But we all know what you mean!
-
Fbaked not to get get all high and mighty but black isn't technically a color. Neither is white for that matter.
But we all know what you mean!
Funny you mentioned that. Back in Home Economics class, back in the day, one of classmates gave me a really hard time that my sewing project was using black fabric. "That's not even a color, man. It's an absorption."
I should have remembered that!
-
Fbaked not to get get all high and mighty but black isn't technically a color. Neither is white for that matter.
But we all know what you mean!
Yes, but as printers, y'all need to stay away from such technicalities, or customers will argue paying against for white and black screens as extra colors.
Just
Sayin'
-
Actually, black is no light, so no color, and white is all colors... that used to make me shake my head, until I shook something into place and it made sense all of a sudden. FBaked, get a U swatch card. As mentioned earlier, it grays all colors down. Print a nice image out of your computer onto some photo grade glossy paper, then print it on cheap copier paper, you'll get an idea from that what happens on paper. The shirts have no coatings, but most of our inks are fairly opaque, so you're really trying to simulate the color on the swatch.
Steve
-
You actually have that backwards. White is the absence of color. Black is all colors. Easy to prove try mixing a bunch of primary colors together. I promise you the end result won't be white. This of course is the application of color. Not the theory of light and refraction which is what you are refering to. Different rules and theories.
Also U has been the standard for printing on textiles for the last 20 years. C is intended for offset printing. You will never match a C on a t shirt. to the original color. Unless of course you modify it then you might as well just mix by eye to begin with.
-
ink, you have that backwards. black absorbs all colors of the spectrum and white reflects them back...all together.
-
actually we are talking about two concepts. Reflective and transmittive or also called additive and subtractive color. In one case all of them combined create black (ink on a shirt, absorbing all the reflections) or white (think pink floyd prism, all the colors combined create white. Think RGB monitor or TV).
So technically, you are both correct!!!
-
As far as what I remember from my Color Theory class back on college in Serbia, Black and White were considered pigments and not colors.
I wish I can remember the two color wheels (the names of people that invented them), one as primary colors have Red, Blue and Yellow; while the other one had Green added to those colors. I guess, with combining Red, Blue and Yellow you could get any color possible.
-
You actually have that backwards. White is the absence of color. Black is all colors. Easy to prove try mixing a bunch of primary colors together. I promise you the end result won't be white. This of course is the application of color. Not the theory of light and refraction which is what you are refering to. Different rules and theories.
Also U has been the standard for printing on textiles for the last 20 years. C is intended for offset printing. You will never match a C on a t shirt. to the original color. Unless of course you modify it then you might as well just mix by eye to begin with.
No, not to be argumentative, but white light is the presence of all color, and black is no light at all. That's why a prism splits sunlight into a rainbow. You don't see rainbows at night. It's about light, not ink. You can't see the ink without light.
Yes, of course, if you mix inks together, like paints in a paintbox when we were kids, you get browns. You won't get absolute black that way either. But the discussion is about color first, and matching it. I've been printing t's since '75, and U has not been a standard, since almost no ad agencies ever ask us for it. If they ask for 185 red, they expect it to be saturated, not dulled down, at least that's been our experience. 185U is definitely duller than 185C, but more importantly, it's grayer, because that's what happens on plain paper.
Now, we're aren't printing paper, so the reference swatch card is simply a reference color to be matched. Coated or uncoated doesn't figure in since we're not using paper, or offset inks, or an offset press. One needs to understand the basics of color theory, based on light, to then have a foundation to work from for working with pigments.
For instance, in theory, 100% of C, M, and Y should give you black, but since the pigments in the inks are imperfect, that is, contaminated with other colors, they don't. That's why the K or black printer was added to print in the shadows to add contrast and help make images pop. So, when theory breaks down in practice, we have to come up with workarounds that give us, and the customer, what they are looking for. I don't separate the light from pigment, because without light, you can't see what you're doing anyway. One can't mix a color under greennish fluorescent lighting and expect it to look the same in daylight, and when this pops up, understanding the light theory helps you figure out what's going wrong. Sorry, didn't mean to go on, I really like this discussion.
Steve
-
And to make the whole discussion even more complicated and convoluted..... what about the variances in the way different people perceive color?
My bride will say "there's too much green in that"... and I'll say "Green ???? that's gray"
-
According to one of our artists, a lot of men have that issue. And yeah, as if it weren't convoluted enough, perception comes into play and ruins everything... ;)
-
ink, you have that backwards. black absorbs all colors of the spectrum and white reflects them back...all together.
This is the winning answer. Unless you are looking at a light SOURCE, all colors you see are reflected off objects or particles. Light wavelengths get absorbed by an object, the ones that get reflected are the color of that object. Grass, for instance, absorbs the entire spectrum and reflects the colors that make green.
-
I knew I could get one right.
-
actually we are talking about two concepts. Reflective and transmittive or also called additive and subtractive color. In one case all of them combined create black (ink on a shirt, absorbing all the reflections) or white (think pink floyd prism, all the colors combined create white. Think RGB monitor or TV).
So technically, you are both correct!!!
Yes this is what I was refering to. Which is why I stated application and theories are different depending on the medium. White will never be made out of "solid" primaries which is what ink is. Light is different than solid which is why light does create all the colors through a prism and why space is black.
Also, I'm surprised to hear that U is not considered a standard. I've been in the business since 87 and ran some of the biggest shops in So CA. Giant, Bugle Boy, Creative, Dimensions etc. U has always been one of the few consistent things through all these shops until recently when GAs from other industries came into the biz.
-
I get that we are talking light and pigment, and of course wouldn't begin to think that we could make white by mixing all of our other ink colors together. Obviously, we all know that. Ink, as far as U being a standard, well I guess I missed that. It's just that I hardly ever had that request, which is why I was surprised when you wrote that. Where you were, they apparently were much more in demand, so sorry if I offended. Getting back to the original question, I still think the way to go is to mix the C then add white or black to gray, or mute, the color down to simulate the effect of offset inks on uncoated stock. I think someone said earlier that Wilflex's system has formula's for the U colors. If you wouldn't mind what are the differences between the U and C formulas from the Wilflex system? (We use the Union, which doesn't have the U color formulas) I can't believe I'm typing this on a Saturday night on a holiday weekend, boy am I getting ooolllddd
Steve
-
Your typing this on a Saturday night and feeling old is about par for the course, as you also are saying much the same as I did! And yes, I'm old and typing on a Saturday night..
I'm also curious about the difference in formulas for the U and C, though Tony already warned us that some vary way more than others, the formulas for this 226 would still be an interesting study.
-
The Union ink mix formula has the same 4 inks, just in different proportions for the 226 U and C versions.
-
Where is this formula?
I'm looking at what I though was current, Uni-Match 2.2.1 software version of the formulas, for U versions and I only see formulas for C in the Mixo, Auto, and Mach systems.
-
(http://www.freshbakedprinting.com/temp/226u.jpg)
(http://www.freshbakedprinting.com/temp/226c.jpg)
Right?
-
That looks great, but what the hell version of the software is it?
I have 2.2.1 installed, and that is also what the website offers.
In it, it even makes this statement:
The PANTONE MATCHING SYSTEM®, developed by Pantone, Inc., is the most widely used in the graphic arts industry. PANTONE® Colors are identified by three or four digit numbers followed either by a C or a U. PANTONE numbers followed by a "C" have a glossy finish and PANTONE numbers followed by a "U" have a matte or dull finish. Union Ink formulas simulate the brighter PANTONE "C" Colors because that is what nearly all textile screen printing customers request.
Why am I being deprived of this new option? Why didn't I get the memo? :'(
-
Okay, I solved the mystery on my own. I use Mixo.
Apparently in the Mach series, though there is not a "U" section, but there are a few "U" formulas interspersed with their "C" equivalents. Only a few though.
-
My old boss and I often had this discussion.
The bottom line is that most everyone uses coated as a reference point. With that said, anyone could us a U color and that would be your target.
The kicker us ghat you can take any C color and make it a U based on how you treat it on the substrate.
Likewise, you can take any U color and make it glossy depending on what you want.
It's a matter of aching your target. Sometimes a U look is just a matter of application or technique.
-
A fair turnaround for the deeper Cerise over the Neon Magenta in the U formula, I suspected it would be darker, but I thought it would darkened with black. Cool...
Steve
-
My old boss and I often had this discussion.
The bottom line is that most everyone uses coated as a reference point. With that said, anyone could us a U color and that would be your target.
The kicker us ghat you can take any C color and make it a U based on how you treat it on the substrate.
Likewise, you can take any U color and make it glossy depending on what you want.
It's a matter of aching your target. Sometimes a U look is just a matter of application or technique.
Again, I think this only further proves that it's rather ambiguous as your experience of "most use C" is the complete opposite of my experience.
-
My old boss and I often had this discussion.
The bottom line is that most everyone uses coated as a reference point. With that said, anyone could us a U color and that would be your target.
The kicker is that you can take any C color and make it a U based on how you treat it on the substrate.
Likewise, you can take any U color and make it glossy depending on what you want.
It's a matter of achieving your target. Sometimes a U look is just a matter of application or technique.
Again, I think this only further proves that it's rather ambiguous as your experience of "most use C" is the complete opposite of my experience.
That may be true. Since we are using the topic of exp. as a gauge now, My exp. is apparently the complete opposite of yours. I ask you to consider this as food for thought on the topic...
I, work with (other printers) from all over. Some are small garage shops and some are 300 employee shops. It's part of my job to work with art for all of these shops and part of my job to decipher color in the art. I have even worked with providing art as well as separating art for company's over seas who then work with other large well known US retail company's. Of all that I have worked with, none (zero) have ever required me or even suggested that I call out pms colors from the Un coated chart. None have ever said, "You know, I would like to see PMS 187 in a U this time rather than a C"
It's true though. Like I posted earlier on another web site. One mans "good quality print" may not be the same as what I consider "a good quality print", much like "One mans experience is not the same as another."
I was being a bit gracious when saying that "MOST use C. I have to say "most" due to the fact that I do not know for a fact that ALL or everyone (outside of my own experience) uses C. It is my own extensive experience, that tells me that ALL or 99.9% of MY customers use C. Last year alone, I completed a very large number of jobs (for other screen printers). I have been doing art for other screen print shops for well over 20 years. All of those jobs combined, give me a very good reading on "what the average is.
I can tell everyone for sure that the average shop uses C.
The average small shop uses a PC rather than Mac.
The average large shop uses MAC.
The average large shop uses Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop.
The average graphics design department does not know what Corel Draw is but maybe they've heard of it.
They all have heard of Corel Painter but most Mac users don't know CorelPhoto Paint exist.
I can also tell you that most all design houses/departments think that ALL tee shirts are printed using CMYK no matter what garment color it is.
-
I printed the 226U for the customer on white tees and they liked 'em. I used a scale to mix it and the color looked reeeeeal close to the 226C swatch I had. The 226U I mixed looked just ever so slightly "brighter" than the 226C swatch I had.
For some reason, all of the Pantone matches I've had to do have been for several shades of pink and green. Brighter colors requested in general.
The customer is a design firm and those peeps have eagle eyes for detail on anything graphic (typos not included).
Good customer. Good print. Good color match. Winning!
-
this has been a fun discussion. However, I'm a little surprised to hear the the 226U seems a little brighter than the 226C. I've been on vacation this week, so I can't wait to go in Monday and check out the Pantone Uncoated book against the Coated. I'll take a pic and post it. The best reference is the Pantone swatch books for sure. Making design firms happy can be difficult, but I've found that most are OK once they know you're on their side, and are trying to get them what they want. Dealing with folks who understand design, but not reproduction, is a bit like walking on eggshells, and it takes some open conversation to show them that you're not trying to pull the wool over their eyes, but may have limitations due to the process.
Steve