A subject that is coming to the forefront more than ever before.

I crosses several subjects and i starting to become something that I know is very workable in some situations.

I started in several places and with several parts but is just now coming together for several shops in a very profitable way.

Here is where it started.

Small shop of one person and limited occasional help, moves to a new location where wash development and reclaiming screens is an issue, reclaiming screens is almost impossible because of a new private sewage system.

The first answer this shop had was simple, just don't reclaim and tank the development water to be processed off sight by a public/commercial sewage collection service. This shop was collecting more than enough in charges to cover a new screen for each color - the answer was to buy screens, coat, and expose, then print and after use an on-press wash and set the screen off to the side to be discarded later. This presented a small storage issue, but a huge gain in production time available - zero time reclaiming screens. The screens are heavy and shipping was an issue. Of course I flinch at the thought of a screen "trash canned" like that and tried to convince the shop to at least sell them on e-bey, that failed, they did not want the designs to go to other shops (fair enough).

Final answer we worked out involves several steps and would not be a great fit for every shop but once all the cost and profit were reviewed with the gains in hours used for production rather than reclaim the results were dramatic. This is in action in several small shops currently.

Here is how the procedure works.

Base retensionable screens with table, three days of production.
Insert panels of mesh.
Degreasing chemical and/or chemical stain remover.
Capillary film preparation chemical.
Capillary film.
Quality positives for full exposure and lowest time and water use in wash development.
Current Manual printing equipment.
On-Press Wash of customer preference.

Shop did choose to use a hybrid frame and table with mesh panels, the needed mesh is chosen and locked onto the frame and brought to full tension.

Mesh is prepared for wet application of cap film by first an application of a mild stain remover and short pressure wash (less water use), mesh is then sprayed with a cap film preparation chemical and the necessary choice in cap film applied using the wed roll-on method (this saves a dry step).

Once the screen has the cap film applied it is dried in a high airflow drying cabinet and then exposed, washout is with a light mist and then high pressure wash out with a pressure washer in fan spray, this is where a quality positive lower water use.

Screen is dried then blocked out, dried, (often the block out is skipped) taped with a screen tape and used for printing.

Once the job is printed, rather than reclaim the screen the ink is dry-wiped then a mild on-press wash is used and the panel is removed with the screen table, the frame is placed in storage for the next use.

The snap in panels are a quick ship, light weight item that has a total cost lower than shipping heavy frames each job, possibly they could be sold or even reclaimed later if needed.

At first I thought the idea was heretical and insane until I reviewed the profits captured, efficiency wins, it's not for every shop but it does work, very well in the correct application.

So is it screen printing heresy? or in the right situation just good profitable business?

Recently there have been several machines capable of applying ink, wax, or other media directly onto a screen's layer of emulsion to replace the positive. Basically everything we need from the positive without the film. More on this later.

Without waxing poetic about the past or pontificating too much lets look at the issue of positives, RIP software, and exposure.

Back many years ago when many of us were foolish enough to think that we could get away with "laser printer" positives, we tried to replace our far superior silver/chemical based film positives. Our camera shots, even the PMT shots had both darker "blacks" (a higher D-Max) and a clearer base film (D-Min) than vellum or the frosted film. We thought that we were saving time and money by shooting toner based positives quickly from a laser printer, we sprayed them with a repackaged artist-fixitive (something that always worked better than hair spray - it was the evaporative solvents that did the "melting" of the toner) and passing the quickly printed vellum to the screen room.

Of course this only cost the "screen room" time and effort - far more than we were saving in the "art room" we were soon forced to shoot paper positives with the old manual cameras to make reasonable positives. This did not last long, and as soon as we were able to justify to the ownership we needed an image-setter, life was good. We had more time for more artists to print more product. Production with excellent positives shot to the roof, and that was when a Harliquin RIP and a VLR image setter with chemical developer was a 48K investment.

In the industry there has always been the old argument over what was more important D-Min or D-Max. the REAL issue is CONTRAST it is not just the clear of the film or just the dark black but BOTH. We want the best of both, simply better is better, high quality always trumps mediocrity.

Discounting the need for a good D-max is showing a basic misunderstanding of how electromagnetic energy or "Light" works and how emulsion is exposed. Light waves never "slow down" - light is light and it either is blocked, bent, (refraction), or filtered. Light continues on - always the same speed - the speed of light. Reaction times change in emulsions based on the volume of light energy.

The lower the D-Max the less light is blocked (more accurately filtered) and the more electromagnetic energy passes through the dark areas. The dark areas of the positive control how much light is filtered, the lower the density/opacity the more light will pass through into the emulsion layer. Regardless of how powerful or fast the exposure the light always is the same speed and any light that passes into the dark areas of the positive and is not filtered continues on to the emulsion and starts the exposure reactions in the emulsion.

Here is an example of a poor black on a positive, even with a ridiculously thin coating of emulsion to compensate by shortening the exposure - it clearly did not work. A correct and full exposure has this and other negative results with a poor positive.

It is always in the facts, the microscope tells all, poor positive, poor results or you are forced to underexpose.

What does this have to do with a RIP?

Inkjet printers without a RIP in front will only deposit a particular pre-determined amount of ink on each dot from the piezo head, this is measured in picoliters (One millionth of a microlitre; 10-12 liters) a very small amount of ink, and that is always set at about 3 to 4 with the free software for the printer.

Epson printers have this setting infinitely variable via the information sent by the printer driver, in other words Epson left their inkjet printers open to performance modification by software.

To modify the inkjet ink deposit you have to have software that will change the ink deposit. The free driver supplied by the manufacturer is designed for ink deposit to give pleasing or accurate color and will be limited in ink deposit volume to about 4 picoliters per dot including the black inks.

With a RIP the printer is "told" to "squirt" enough ink to fulfill the demands of the user, and the RIP makes this much easier to adjust often with settings from 6 picoliters to 27 picoliters or more per machine dot printed - that is each machine printed dot not the formed "dots" you would adjust as "LPI/frequentcy" in your vector or raster program. Contrary to assumptions a RIP not only converts the image but tells the printer EXACTLY WHERE (so it holds registration) to put a dot and HOW MUCH INK to deposit.

With a thin, poor black as the dark areas (D-Max) the black becomes like the darker areas of an exposure calculator - not dark enough to block or filter all of the light energy and some of the emulsion is exposed behind the black, the more full and complete the exposure the more the open areas under the black are exposed leaving remnants after wash development and forcing the user to "blast" the open areas excessively leaving ragged edges.

With the poor covering of ink from the standard driver you do not create a black that will block sufficient light to keep the emulsion from forming a skin of slightly exposed emulsion over the face side UNDER THE BLACK. To then open the stencil we would have to put enough pressure on the open areas in wash development to "break" the edges of this "skin" off and that will result in an edge that is rough and will present a less than desirable printing "gasket edge" against the product.

Professionals use professional tools, using a RIP has other advantages, the biggest one in art production is using the graphic tools we have correctly. No real graphics professional wants to go back to breaking jobs up and fidgeting with photoshop to get dots or separations, directions for this procedure you can find on the internet for free, but the results are a poor D-Max and the resulting problems.

Postscript a beautiful thing, no serious artist is going to go back to the days before the introduction of Adobe separator (a program that is now imbedded inside of Illustrator and has been for over a decade).

Not using good quality film, quality inks, and a good adjustable RIP, a printer cannot get the real and required contrast from D-Min to D-Max to get positives that will allow professional results with full and complete exposure. The combination of special film for positives, ink designed for positives, and an adjustable RIP are the tripod of good positives with an inexpensive inkjet.

You may have seen the debate about this, and because of a recent post about this subject I wanted to review a bit about the inexpensive drum tension tuner...

In fact, there have been several small screen printing supply companies who have used this exact type of tension meter. They often removed the original dial and replaced it with a new dial calibrated to NCM to use as a screen tension meter...

One of the draw-backs to the use of a drum tuner is that the drum tension tuners are deflection meters that are non-directional, unlike the screen tension meters where a base is machined with parallel ridges and a matching bar/ridge on the plunger to measure tension in a particular direction (Even with the ridges and bar there is some residual directional effect in the cross direction).

If you were willing to look for a tension meter (say from a friend) and calibrate a new dial for one of the inexpensive meters for yourself and live with the fact that the dial will only be circularly (omnidirectional - all directions) tension reactive...

If all you need or desire is basic tension in the center of the screen to prevent bursting the mesh then it could give you a reading more accurate than your finger or thumping and guessing, but not much more than a basic reading.

There are some who advise retensionable frames for beginners (and I would be one of them) many choose to propose that 110 mesh is hard to burst so you can live without a tension meter - possibly true. I on the other hand consider handicapping yourself with the typical 110 white mesh beginner albatross to be one of the reasons a new business can fail.

You will soon come up against the limitations with using retensionable screens and not using a deflection tension meter measured for NCM (newtons per centimeter) - quickly reaching bursting tension of the mesh and breaking the mesh (sadly the higher the mesh count the more expensive and more easily broken).

Choosing a press, I just returned from a regional show.

One of the first questions - what press do I start with. A good question and one difficult to answer well because so much background information is necessary.

Most customers orders are for one and two color prints, making up over 60 percent of all orders in most cases, the other 40 percent is 3 or 4 colors making up about 39 of that remaining 40 percent, additional colors make up the last two percent.

Four color four station presses are ok most of the time but of course don't be suprised if it limits you from time to time, many of the orders for additional colors can be contracted out to other printers.

The exception would be when you desire to print your own line of shirts and need additional colors for extensive designs.

I would suggest that you look for a good deal on a 6 color press - UNLESS - money is just that tight.

If you are on a limited set of funds, by all means get a 4 color and when you make some money then get a stand alone 6/6 or save up and get an 8/8.

If you get a good quality 4/4 you can, and will, make money with it, but there are benefits to 6 and 8 color presses, such as pre-set up of front and back or multiple one and two color jobs...

Good luck - I know this is all a big step - think hard and make the best choice you can.