# Why hasn't Chromablast replaced conventional garment sublimation?



## CUSTOM UK

Hi. One of the biggest criticisms of conventional sublimation onto garments (other than ink monopolies), is the lack of variety in polyester garments, when compared to cotton. This limits the range of sublimation garments we can offer to customers.

I am curious as to why if the Chromablast system is capable of sublimating direct onto cotton, more people haven't moved over to this system.

Cotton shirts are more readily available, can be purchased from a wider range of suppliers and with a significant cost saving. With the exception of sport orientated clothing, the general opinion is that cotton tees are much preferred over polyester garments.

I have read about the 'overprint' disappearing after one wash? In practical terms would this mean the item would have to be washed before it could get sent out? Is it this, or some other reason why people are still sublimating onto polyester tees.


----------



## MotoskinGraphix

Isnt chromablast inkjet transfer technology and not actual dye sublimation?


----------



## Dingbat

David is correct. Chromablast is not sublimation. After pressing, it has a "feel" while sublimation does not. Chromablast wears and fades like other transfers.


----------



## CUSTOM UK

Hi. Thanks for that guys. The people that sell my sublimation materials have recently sent me details of the Chromablast system, with one of my orders. Their literature which originates from Sawgrass is as follows;

"_Where the ink chemistry and the media coating chemistry touch, there is a cross-link reaction under heat and pressure that chemically bonds the image to the cotton. The cross-link creates a very strong and nearly permanent bond. Remove the paper and the image area is tattooed into the shirt itself_".

It is the latter part of that wording "tattoed into the shirt itself " that gives the impression it is some sort of sublimation process. If it is only a glorified transfer sytem, then the wording is very misleading. The Chromablast ink is over £60 ($120) for 55ml per colour, so it would be a very expensive transfer process.

If it does wear and fade as Ed suggests, then it would not be commercially viable to use.

The one good thing about these forums, is that you can get independent opinions from people that have actually used, or had experience of using products, rather than reading the sometimes misleading and inaccurate literature put out by some manufacturers.


----------



## sid

I think the problem with Chromablast is that you are still limited to white and lights. Haven't used it but thats my understanding. If it is the case then it would have to be a product that is far superior to the other transfer papers that are out there to justify it's cost. If anyone has more info please ad to the post. Would love to hear from someone other than a salesperson trying to sell me the system.


----------



## splathead

sid said:


> I think the problem with Chromablast is that you are still limited to white and lights. Haven't used it but thats my understanding. If it is the case then it would have to be a product that is far superior to the other transfer papers that are out there to justify it's cost. If anyone has more info please ad to the post. Would love to hear from someone other than a salesperson trying to sell me the system.


I have ordered a sample on a cotton shirt previously from them, and you still have the polymer window over the design to deal with too.


----------



## prometheus

From my understanding, isn't more expensive compared to other inkjet technology? Not sure about compared to Dye Sub.


----------



## CUSTOM UK

Anyone that has practical experience of using Chromablast recently, your comments would be more than welcome on this topic. Also if anyone is using Chromablast alongside sublimation, your comparisons between the two systems would be of great value to people on this forum. 

Unlike sublimation, there seems to be much less clarity about what Chromablast actually is.


----------



## DAGuide

Ok, I am at the Chicago ISS Show this week and have been printing sublimation and ChromaBlast. ChromaBlast is an acceptable product for a white t-shirt just like most transfers for a specific market...but it still has a hand to it. The ink does have some binders in it, but it also uses a low polymer transfer paper to seal the ink to the shirt that creates a hand. I do have a white ChromaBlast shirt that I have washed over 20 times. The print has held up just like most of the other light transfers. Unfortunately, the shirt has bad filbiration (which is not ChromaBlast ink) and has made the design look worse than it is.

There is a post on this forum from Adriatic Blue where we did some transfers using colored bamboo fabric. You can definitely see the polymer window on the colored shirt. The window does decrease and is not noticeable on a white shirt... but is on any color shirt. 

And yes, ChromaBlast is a light transfer application ...so it does not work on dark colors with color distortion. But, sublimation is a light transfer application as well. Ultimately, a ChromaBlast transfer can be around twice the cost or more as a standard inkjet transfer depending on which paper and ink you are using.

Hope this helps.

Mark


----------



## CUSTOM UK

Thanks for the clarification Mark. If it still has a hand, then it offers no real advantage over the better quality inkjet transfers.

Diversifying off the subject slightly, but if people have managed to 'cobble together' a cheap DTG system from an old inkjet printer, then apart from the obvious need to use a transfer paper, aren't manufacturers missing a massive opportunity in the market place?


----------



## Threads of Steel

I just purchased a Chromablast system (I won most of it, so not a huge investment) and just pressed out an order this weekend on natural colored organic tee's. The window is noticable. I like the print quality OK, but I am a newbie and may not know better. 

My question is what is the better quality ink and transfer paper choices? We are having fun with the Chromablast, but when it comes time to refill, that is going to be an issue. We are using an Epson C88.


----------



## CUSTOM UK

Thanks for sharing the pictures with us. The Polymer window is a lot more noticeable than I thought it would be. It is obvious that you would have to use a contour cutter, or be real nifty with a pair of scissors to use Chromablast effectively.

It has however answered the original question that was asked, _*'Why hasn't Chromablast replaced conventional garment sublimation'*_. Bearing in mind its relative cost, I would be hard pushed to see how Chromablast offered any real advantage of decent quality inkjet transfers.


----------



## lben

I made this T-shirt with Chromablast. It had a slight hand until the first washing, now no hand. The picture doesn't feel any different than the rest of the shirt. This pic was taken after 2 washings now. Picture hasn't faded at all, colors are still just as vibrant and the trace around the image isn't noticable anymore, but it was before the first wash. I had trimmed it to about 1/2 inch around the image. 

I know now that I need to trim it in as tight as I can. Yeah it's a pain, and expensive at that, but the shirts I've made with regular transfer paper don't come close. Those have a heavy hand and they start to pop off the material after a few times in the washer.

The only faults I can find with it are the cost and that yellowish ring around an image that can be trimmed way back. But that does come out in the washer. I heard that we're supposed to wash the shirts after printing anyhow. Did I hear wrong?

Not sure why the pic is gray, but it's a white shirt. Must be bad lighting (and to think I used the flash on my $400 camera!!!)


----------



## CUSTOM UK

Thanks for the pictures Loretta. Nice to see some examples of Chromablast rolling into this thread.

With regards to washing after printing, the official manufacturers directions are _*'The overprint area from the media does physically transfer, but washes away because it has no ink to react to in the non-image area. The area around the image has a very light feel that becomes nearly imperceptible after one wash'*_. 

Not quite sure how customers would react to receiving a shirt with distinct overprint area. If selling on EBay for example, you could well end up with negative feedback issues, even if the overprint does supposedly disappear after one wash. I somehow couldn't see a busy print shop washing a 200 shirt order before despatch, nor a customer accepting 200 shirts with overprint on them?

Anyone with experience of Chromablast, you are more than welcome to add your own thoughts to this thread.


----------



## lben

I'm not sure how customers would react either. I know if I paid some serious cash for a T-shirt and it came with a ring around the image I'd be a little upset, unless it came with some kind of information or instruction sheet that said to wash it before using to get rid of that ring. Kind of like opening a near empty bag of chips and reading that "some settling of contents may have occured during shipment". Like that much settling happens during shipment...

One time I bought a pair of pants from a catalog that came with one leg 6" longer than the other and the side seams hadn't been sewn together yet! That was the last time I bought from that catalog company and they were a big nationwide company at that time what with catalog ordering and pick-up stores. Funny, I can't even remember their name now, no not Fingerhut either. 

You can't sell garbage to your customers and expect to stay in business very long. That would be my fear of send one off to a customer without washing them first. It also wants you to dry them in the dryer. I did and it shrunk my T, but that's cotton for you.


----------



## splathead

Well, on the sample they sent to me, the overprint never has washed out, and I have washed the shirt at least 10 times now over the last year.

As a consumer, I am not sure what would be worse; receiving a shirt with an overprint on it or getting a shirt someone has already washed.


----------



## lben

You've got a point. If it was washed, one would assume it had been worn at some point in time. So we're back to square one. Maybe Chromablast requires lighter pressure or less time or lower temp in order for the overprint not to show up so much for so long.

Now that the sun is shining, I took a closer look and the overprint area around my image is still visible, but barely. You have to know it's there.


----------



## DAGuide

You will want to use heavy pressure with ChromaBlast. It is recommended that you have a swing away press for uniform pressure.


----------



## lben

I have a swing-away press, but I thought Ts had to have light pressure. Does the heavy pressure make the overprint area more noticeable or less? Wouldn't that scorch it? Also, what time do you recommend for a heavy press on Chromablast?


----------



## DAGuide

Heavy pressure will help drive the polymer into the shirt. The excess is less noticeable on a white shirt, but is still visible on a color shirt as shown by the picture above. It does not scorch the shirt. Here is what I use: heavy pressure, 375 degrees F and 37 seconds.


----------



## Girlzndollz

lben said:


> I made this T-shirt with Chromablast. It had a slight hand until the first washing, now no hand. The picture doesn't feel any different than the rest of the shirt. This pic was taken after 2 washings now. Picture hasn't faded at all, colors are still just as vibrant and the trace around the image isn't noticable anymore, but it was before the first wash. I had trimmed it to about 1/2 inch around the image.


Hi Iben, I am reading your post and am giggling because the way you describe this shirt with Chromablast is the same exact way I would describe a shirt using JPSS (Jetprosofstretch). 

Except sometimes with JPSS, depending on the shirt, one cannot even see the polymer window.



> I know now that I need to trim it in as tight as I can. Yeah it's a pain, and expensive at that, but the shirts I've made with regular transfer paper don't come close. Those have a heavy hand and they start to pop off the material after a few times in the washer.


Not with JPSS. It is an excellent paper with superior results. Here is a picture of a shirt I did with JPSS. I did not trim around the image at all, and I washed this shirt in bleach many times. 

(You will not see a window bc on a Jerzees HW 50/50 using JPSS, there is no perceivable window. Another user on the forum has noted the same result as mine.) Great stuff there. 

Here is the pic so you can see it, you might like what you see: 
http://www.t-shirtforums.com/heat-press-heat-transfers/t47868.html




> The only faults I can find with it are the cost and that yellowish ring around an image that can be trimmed way back.


JPSS is ecomonical to use, and any perceivable polymer window on a white shirt is clear, not yellow, that also makes it more presentable. 

The "ring" that is mentioned is caused by the polymer coating on the transfer paper that seals the ink into the fabric transfering from the paper to the fabric surface. Cutting it away is the only true way to eliminate it - so it is not there to transfer to the fabric. 

Like Mark said, the heavy pressure will actually help push that coating further into the fabric weave, assisting in a great transfer with lasting results and a nicer appearance. 



> But that does come out in the washer. I heard that we're supposed to wash the shirts after printing anyhow. Did I hear wrong?


This is additional labor and expense I know I would not want to deal with, and like you guys said, I don't think a washed shirt will fly as "new". Not sure you can even do this and sell it as "new merchandise". That one may need more research to confirm, but could present an issue if a customer didn't want to pay for it claiming it is not new. Also, too many allergies out there to know which detergent would be appropriate. This is a box best left unopened, imho.


----------



## DAGuide

Okay, I just finished the wash tests on the ChromaBlast shirt that I printed at the Atlas Screen Supply booth during the Chicago ISS Show. At most shows, the shirts printed with ChromaBlast are white. I wanted to do one on a color shirt. Thanks to Brian at Direct2Shirt for giving me the yellow / tan colored shirt. I printed the same design on the front and back of the shirt. It was pressed at 375 degrees F with heavy pressure (took my weight to close the Geo Knight press) for 40 seconds. I purposely did not cut around the design so it would make seeing the polyer window easier on the wash test sample. Below are some of the pictures I took (most of which are without the flash and I am not a professional photographer - I admit I suck at taking pictures, but you should get the picture). Here is a link to the entire photo gallery for more pictures with explanation of each picture - DAGuide/ChromaBlast - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

What I noticed is the polymer on the shirt that has been washed actually is darker (i.e. shows up more) than the one that was not washed. This is probably because of the way I washed the sample. I try to do the wash test in a manner that your worse customer would use. This would be putting all types of clothing (including towels) into the same load, let it sit in the washer for an hour after the cleaning is done and then putting it into the dryer for 45 minutes. So I imagine that the lint from the towels and other fabrics clinged to the polymer on the shirt while in the dryer and thus making it more noticeable.


----------



## DAGuide

I just want to add one more thing. I do think ChromaBlast does a good job on white shirts. If this is your market, then it is a product you should consider compared to other transfer papers. Based on the pictures, hopefully you can tell that there is very minimal color fading. I just think if you are going to do color shirts, you are going to need to trim any type of transfer paper. The recommended way for trimming in my opinion is to use an optical registration cutter and print-cut it. However, you need to make sure that your transfer paper is weedable (i.e. remove the polymer from the paper backing) or you will need to use a carrier sheet to properly cut it with an optical registration cutter. The ChromaBlast paper is not weedable, so you will need to use a carrier sheet. For more info on print-cut, do a search in this forum for print-cut or Roland GX-24. There are a ton of posts on this.


----------



## CUSTOM UK

Thanks for the pictures and the info Mark. Sure these are helping a lot of people reading this thread. Chromablast seems to be one of those things, where people had heard the name, but were not quite sure what it actually was.

I am glad you subjected the samples to a 'real world' wash test. That is after all, what most customers will do.


----------



## hechtgirl

I have recently used the chromablast paper with the epson claria hi definitition ink on a 100 percent cotton tee and it worked beautifully. I have washed and dried it twice so far and it is stilling holding the color. Here's is link with pics of the results after two washes. The feel is soft, not rough. It feels like sublimation.

http://www.t-shirtforums.com/inkjet-heat-transfer-paper/t62656.html


----------



## DAGuide

Jan,

Have you tried to print a sample with colors (not just black) and seen how it holds up in a wash test? Just wondering. It still does not resolve the issue of leaving the polymer window on a colored shirt. But it is another alternative for people to consider. Nice job.

Mark


----------



## CUSTOM UK

Hi. Thanks for supplying the pictures Jan. I am sure this experiment of yours will be of interest to lots of people on here.

I am 100 percent certain that a better alternative to direct to garment printers, would be a transfer paper that placed pigment inks onto cotton when heat and pressure was applied. This ideal transfer paper may already be in existence, but sitting in some research lab somewhere and not released onto the market yet?

Sublimation is superb for hard substrates, the the cost of sublimation garments over cotton, puts it at a significant commercial disadvantage. Plus the fact that cotton is generally preferred over polyester.

Keep us informed on how you get on with it.


----------



## hechtgirl

I just completed a color tee and it's in the wash now for the second time. The first wash and dry held very well and I believe that the second one will also. I will post a pic when it has dried.


----------



## hechtgirl

Here's the tee with the color print before and after washing. The one to the left is before the wash and the one to the right is after the wash.


----------



## CUSTOM UK

Good work Jan.  

Obviously it needs some more washes to make totally sure it holding up, as I've tried dark transfers that looked great after two washes, but started to crack up on the fifth, or sixth wash. So far your experiment is looking good though.

I for one, would love to see the look on the faces of the people at Sawgrass, if it was proven you could just use regular ink with their papers. A 110ml bottle of Chromablast ink costs about £90 ($180), whereas pigment and dye inks retail for about a fifth of that cost.

Let us know how you get on with further washings.


----------



## kpk703

hechtgirl said:


> Here's the tee with the color print before and after washing. The one to the left is before the wash and the one to the right is after the wash.


Jan,

Are you trimming at all on the black-and-white images? If not, it's impressive. My concern on the earlier examples was the appearance of a yellow window and the look that the window survived washings. The colors on these look very vibrant, but it appears to take up the entire area, so I can't see if there'd be a window. Have you used JPSS to see how they compared? Curious as to what made you th ink to use Chromablast transfer paper with standard inks? It may well be a stroke of genius!

Thanks so much for taking the time to provide this great information!


----------



## CUSTOM UK

I have just managed to obtain some JPSS and there is a picture of the results on the link below.

http://www.t-shirtforums.com/united-kingdom/t61529.html

I think the yellowing you mention in the earlier pictures Ken, was where Mark deliberately used a tan coloured shirt, to make the polymer window a lot more visible. In his posting, Mark suggested the use of a contour cutter.

The real test for Jan's experiment, would be to compare JPSS side by side with the Chromablast and compare results after say ten washings. There is also the comparison in costs between JPSS paper and the Chromablast paper.

Still an interesting development on this thread though.


----------



## lben

Will, I didn't do anything deliberately on my chromablast transfer but I still have a yellow ring around my image and that is probably 6-10 washings now. I used the chromablast ink and transfer paper. I think the ring comes from the paper. I didn't trim mine in as far as I should have, so I have a nice 1/2" ring around my pic. Very frustrating. I'm going to try Jan's discovery and see if I can get an image to hang on to the cotton with just plain old epson ink.


----------



## DAGuide

The yellow ring (AKA polymer window) is a result of the transfer paper... not the ink. The reason why I asked about the colors making it through the wash test is the ChromaBlast paper is a low polymer transfer paper - which means that there is less polymer (adhesive) on the paper compared to other types of transfer papers. Sawgrass got this paper created this way because they added binders to the ChromaBlast ink that would help the ink adhere to the shirt. Thus, getting a good wash test as shown in my post above. However, the Claria inks will not have these binders. So that is why I was interested in seeing the pictures.

As for how to remove the polymer window, you either have to hand trim it or use an optical cutter. If you go with the optical cutter, you will have to put the transfer paper on an adhesive carrier sheet first because the ChromaBlast paper is not a weedable paper (2-ply transfer paper that will allow you to do a print-cut application without a carrier sheet). I still feel that the ChromaBlast paper is a good choice for white shirts and could be an option for color shirts if you are able to trim close around the design by hand. The extra work needed to print-cut it makes it less desirable in my opinion. 

Nice job thinking outside the box. This might be an alternative for some people to consider.

Mark


----------



## hechtgirl

I trimed the edges of the color image and just the outline of the black and white, leaving about a 1/4 in of white but there is not yellowing in between the letters of the name Brian, that was the whole paper. I will wash then again and will post the results. When I did the tees, I pressed that at 375 for 40 sec and use a parchment paper to cover the tee. After the 40 sec, I remove the paper while it was still hot and pressed again for 10 sec with the parchment paper. It comes out with the smooth hand and then I washed and dried it twice. I will try a little darker tee, like ash to day with and image leaving most of the paper on and see if I get the yellow film that someone mentioned. I did have any 50/50 tees but will try to get some, because I feel it might just hold up a little better with a 50/50 even though it's pretty good on 100%.

Will post more pics later.


----------



## DAGuide

Jan,

The yellow box is because it was done on a yellow tee. The key to look for is to do a print on any shirt not white and see if the polymer window where there is no ink is noticeable from the rest of the shirt. Most people don't want to see any excess polymer window on a transfer paper - similar to what you would get when doing dye sublimation This is the reason why you see so many posts that talk about print-cut using an optical registration cutter on transfer paper. This will remove any excess polymer where there is no ink.

I have not tried the second press with parchment paper that you are doing. Interesting concept that I will try next time. Thanks.

Mark


----------



## hechtgirl

I completed the test on an ash tee and here are the results. As you can see, the pic to the left is the ash grey before the wash with the border and it remained after three washes. It decreased a little but not much. Here also are the pics of the white tees after 6 washes. They are holding up pretty well with no yellow film. I believe that the chromablast transfer does not work well with darker colors. However, it does have potential for white tees. It would be cheaper to use the Claria ink with the chromablast paper than using the chromablast ink which is more expensive and leaves a harder feel. I still haven't used the 50/50 tees, but will and will try again with a dark tee of that quality.


----------



## DAGuide

hechtgirl said:


> I believe that the chromablast transfer does not work well with darker colors. However, it does have potential for white tees.


Jan, 

I agree with your statement. I think the ChromaBlast product is a good solution for white shirts. If the paper was weedable and it is easier to print-cut it, then I would think it would be decent solution for color shirts when doing a print-cut application. 

Thanks for taking the time to run these tests. I am sure it will help others with their decisions in the future.

Mark


----------



## hechtgirl

I also want to add that I washed the white tees with bleach on the 6th wash.


----------



## CUSTOM UK

DAGuide said:


> Sawgrass got this paper created this way because they added binders to the ChromaBlast ink that would help the ink adhere to the shirt. Thus, getting a good wash test as shown in my post above. However, the Claria inks will not have these binders. So that is why I was interested in seeing the pictures.
> 
> Mark


I do not use Claria inks, but I believe that Durabrite type inks have a binder, which is why they have been used with reasonable results, with the diy dtg machines people are currently building.

With Hanes discontinuing their Soft Link tees, it really only leaves Vapor producing sublimation tees. I have searched on the net, but found it virtually impossible to find people selling regular polyester tees, that could be used for sublimation. It really does seem that 'cotton is king'.

Alternatives I have found that use sublimation inks, are subli-flock a tight knit polyester weave and subli-dark vinyl. The subli flock being fabric, does not crack, or peel, but its texture gives a fuzzy effect to your images. The subli-dark vinyl is unusual, by virtue of the fact that the image is laid face down onto the garment and the image rises to the surface of the vinyl when pressed. Great concept, but the vinyl has a significant hand. Someone described subli-dark as being like having a raincoat sewn to your tee, they weren't kidding.


----------



## Air Art Girl

One thing Sawgrass suggests is after heat pressing, stretch the shirt in both directions to help pull apart the mask transfer and it will wash away better. I washes away pretty good.


----------



## hechtgirl

There is a company that I have used in the past fo my sublimation tees (EvapR8). it's called Brookline Apparel and their website is: # 1 Brookline, Inc. Apparel Company - Your leader in the Apparel Industry . The person I dealt with was a Jill Rheinhart (800-643-0332). Try them.


----------



## CUSTOM UK

Hi. Sadly they are the 'wrong side of the pond' Jan. Shipping to Europe is only worthwhile if you are buying in bulk, due to the excessive freight charges.


----------



## hechtgirl

Here is another tee with the Claria ink and the Chromablast paper. This time I pressed it at 375 for 35 sec. I was told by conde to press for 35 Sec to eliminate the yellowing. The first picture with the GOP and DEMO was before the wash and the second pic has been washed twice. The mickey pic has been washed 10 times now and it's still looking pretty good. I believe the chromablast paper and the claria ink is a good match. Has anyone tried it as yet?


----------



## lben

Is it just my eyesight or is there a yellow image surrounding the first GOP image? Did you trim this at all? I don't see it in the second pic. I have a chromablast ink & paper image on a white tee that has been washed 6-10 times - not sure how many times it's been in the wash, but the colors are still vivid. Unfortunately, so is the yellow ring around my image. I used a 100% cotton tee. Are your tees 100% cotton or a combo of cotton & something else? Is this claria ink the ink that comes with epson printers or something that they sell? If it holds up that nicely I might use it instead of the chromablast.


----------



## hechtgirl

There was a slight yellowing when it was first printed, but it was not there after washing twice. The Claria Hi-Definition Ink came with my Epson 1400 printer. I used 100% cotton tees. It's definitely not for dark colors as you can see from my test on the ash tee.


----------



## lben

I have an epson c88+. I'll have to check into what kind of ink I got with it.


----------



## CUSTOM UK

I know that prices are going to differ from location to location, but having done some checking on prices, Chromablast seems to be about 65 percent of the cost of JPSS.

Am going to get a couple of samples from my supplier to test it out for myself. Am curious to see what happens if you use Chromablast paper with sublimation ink?


----------



## jge

Chromablast - my experiences

We are based in Africa, where cost is even more critical than in the developed world. Chromablast is just too expensive for our customers to use. The increased durability is not enough to justify paying triple what you would normally pay for a standard inkjet transfer.

There is something that we discovered during our testing though that might be of benefit to those using this system - we found that transfers printed onto the inkjet paper which is sold by ONE STEP in Miami, lasted much longer than transfers printed onto the Chromablast transfer paper................


----------



## hechtgirl

This is another pic with the chromablast and the claria hi-definition ink. As you can see, there is no yellowing. I pressed it at 375 for 25 sec with medium pressure. I did this in B&W so I can check for yellowing, and as you can see, there isn't any. I will be washing it for a few times and post the pics.


----------



## hechtgirl

Here is my final test. I used a 100% poly tee. The chromablast paper and the claria hi-def ink worked beautifully. I have decided that since this ink and paper works so well together, that I will buy more chromablast paper and not the chromablast ink, since I don't need it to do 100% cotton, 50/50 or poly. The pic attached are (1) right after being press on to the shirt and (2) after two washes. If anyone has also tried the chromablast paper and the claria hi-def ink, let me know what you think.


----------



## CUSTOM UK

Those results are looking pretty good Jan. When Sawgrass talk about the image 'being tattoed into the shirt', it leads me to believe that their Chromablast ink may be dye based, the same as Claria is. Someone on another thread here, is reporting good results with Durabrite ink as well, so it would '*appear*' that Chromablast paper works with dye or pigment inks?


----------



## gothicaleigh

How does this compare to the higher quality inkjet transfers (like Ironall for Darks)? Is the 'carrier paper' like the carrier paper for sublimation (it's only purpose is to take the ink from the printer to the substrate) or is it a film/vinyl that is transferred to the shirt? If the latter, it something that could be print&cut with a vinyl cutter to eliminate the yellowing from the unprinted border?


----------



## Bayac

We bought the Chromoblast system a little over a year ago. We were using the Chromoblast paper and ink. As you mentioned we constantly got the yellow shadow. We also had the images fade out on the first wash. The shirts did not look even remotely like they did before they were washed. I had a YAFL team that we did shirts for and by the end of the season they were so faded I was embarrassed to have made them. I had nothing but customer complaints. The ink also clogged the ink jets in the Epson 1200 printer. We had stripes in the photos and color changes as it did not work well with the printer. Finally after working with Sawgrass and the vendor we decided to just junk the whole thing. The vendor discounted the Sawgrass DTG and we replaced the Chromoblast with that.


----------



## hechtgirl

Last night I did 12 tees for my son business and they came out beautiful. There was no yellowing. I even reduced the heat to 365 and pressed for 45 sec. I really and honestly think that the Claria HD Ink and the Chromablast paper were made for each other. I have ordered the larger Chromablast paper and Epson's High-Capacity Ink Cartridges. I believe this is a much less expensive way to go without the hassle of clogging and jelling (jelling is what happens to the ink after about six months or more) of the Chromablast ink.


----------



## pezlo4750

CUSTOM UK said:


> Thanks for the pictures Loretta. Nice to see some examples of Chromablast rolling into this thread.
> 
> With regards to washing after printing, the official manufacturers directions are _*'The overprint area from the media does physically transfer, but washes away because it has no ink to react to in the non-image area. The area around the image has a very light feel that becomes nearly imperceptible after one wash'*_.
> 
> Not quite sure how customers would react to receiving a shirt with distinct overprint area. If selling on EBay for example, you could well end up with negative feedback issues, even if the overprint does supposedly disappear after one wash. I somehow couldn't see a busy print shop washing a 200 shirt order before despatch, nor a customer accepting 200 shirts with overprint on them?
> 
> Anyone with experience of Chromablast, you are more than welcome to add your own thoughts to this thread.


Excellent point.


----------



## bindiribli

hechtgirl said:


> Here is my final test. I used a 100% poly tee. The chromablast paper and the claria hi-def ink worked beautifully. I have decided that since this ink and paper works so well together, that I will buy more chromablast paper and not the chromablast ink, since I don't need it to do 100% cotton, 50/50 or poly. The pic attached are (1) right after being press on to the shirt and (2) after two washes. If anyone has also tried the chromablast paper and the claria hi-def ink, let me know what you think.


hey, could tou send my an e-mail plz? [email protected] and tell me if i cand use dye ink and chromablast paper ? i want to make cotton t-shirts with coloured drawings, and i 've got an epson with ciss adaptor (dye ink )and don't know exactly what to do, i heard that chormablast paper is the most durable printing, and i was wondering if the ink you use works in any ciss adaptor,what kind of ink it is, and details like that.please if you could info me, waiting for a respons. thanks,goodday


----------



## jge

In my personal experience I found the Chromablast worked better with the inkjet paper from one-step in Miami that it did with the Chromablast paper - had MUCH improved durability with less yellowing, but all in all durabrite Epson inks, with the one-step paper had pretty much the same durability as Chromablast with none of the blocking problems.

If you buy the original Epson carts for the Large format printers, and use them to refill refillable carts on the desktop printers, you get the same quality, at a fraction of the cost of the desktop inks.


----------



## cornpopps

This is my first Chromablast print, I was going for a Navy Blue so I need to experiment to dial it in but the colors pop, soft hand, no box around the design. I did a stretch with the shirt right after press. Should be a welcomed addition to my screen printing and sublimation.


----------



## cosi

hi there I am hoping to get into t-shirt printing soon and have been reading up on all the different methods. It seemed like Chromablast maybe the way to go for me, cotton t-shirts, full colour, small runs etc. After reading through this thread it sounds like epson stock inks work as well perhaps? i am considering starting out with epson 4800 and upgrading when it becomes viable. Could I just print on to chromablast paper or one-step paper with the standard ink that comes with this machine and get the same quality? I was looking at getting a seperate printer for photography but perhaps this way I only need one, but would it work well???

Thanks for your help :0)


----------



## jge

Cosi, where are you based ? 

Your Epson will work great for Tshirts as long as you don't use refills (some last, some wash out quickly) and use the original Epson carts.


----------



## cosi

Thats interesting, I suspect the colours wont be as bright? I may well get the printer for photography and see how well it works for t-shirts. I'm based in England. Thanks for your input


----------



## nappen

We had an Epson 4880 and chromablast. Nothing but problems and very unhappy with the quality. Eventually sent it back and got a small Ricoh with chromablast and have had much better success. We currently are using the "gel" chromablast ink designed for the Ricohs. I don't know the chemical or mechanical differences, but would not go back. Wish I had known about using the Epson ink. 

Do you use the chromablast drivers or the standard printer drivers?


----------



## jge

Normal Epson drivers work great - no need for Chromablast drivers. Colour quality is exceptional. The big trick of course is the transfer paper, there are a very small selection of exceptional papers on the market, and a large selection of mediocre transfer papers.


----------



## duller999

hiya guys new here just wondering if anyone has tried chromablast paper with sublimation ink im looking into getting some paper to test any uk suppliers out there got my sublimation printer all set up colours are wonderful on 100% poly t's 


Thanks 

Rob


----------



## mgparrish

duller999 said:


> hiya guys new here just wondering if anyone has tried chromablast paper with sublimation ink im looking into getting some paper to test any uk suppliers out there got my sublimation printer all set up colours are wonderful on 100% poly t's
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Rob


Chromablast paper is plastic based for use with 100% cotton or 50/50. You lose the sublmation advantage of no hand and no background if you were to use Chromablast papers on 100% poly T's.


----------



## cosi

Anyone know where I can get a small quantity of chromablast paper in the uk? i only need 10-20 sheets for testing purposes and can only find 100+ packs for sale


----------



## MusicMan59

Im new to these transfers.

Do they have to be cut out or "Weeded" before pressing?


----------



## binki

CUSTOM UK said:


> ... why if the Chromablast system is capable of sublimating direct onto cotton, more people haven't moved over to this system....


it cracks after a few wash/dry cycles. we were not happy with the results. dyesub will never crack or fade and you can't even get the color out with bleach. 

we do maybe one job a year with dyesub garments. it is just too expensive to do.


----------



## lben

binki said:


> it cracks after a few wash/dry cycles. we were not happy with the results. dyesub will never crack or fade and you can't even get the color out with bleach.
> 
> we do maybe one job a year with dyesub garments. it is just too expensive to do.


I have a shirt that I did with chromablast and have washed it dozens of times and the picture still looks brand new. No cracking.


----------



## lben

MusicMan59 said:


> Im new to these transfers.
> 
> Do they have to be cut out or "Weeded" before pressing?


Not necessarily weeded per se, but you will have to cut very close to the edge of the design.


----------



## MusicMan59

Thanks Lorretta.

I'm doing some fairly intricate designs, tribals etc, loads of swirls curls etc. 

I'm looking for a self weeding transfer that wont leave that plastic or white edge, without having to do all that cutting, on white and dark Tees

I've read that their all pretty " hit or miss" but Ill keep looking...


----------



## lben

Chromablast does not leave a plasticy feel. It is nearly impossible to tell there is anything there. But the paper does leave a yellow film around the design that washes off after the first few washes.

I'm including a pic of a shirt I did with chromablast. There is plenty of detail and all I did was cut the paper about 1/8" inch around the outside of the design.


----------



## MusicMan59

Hi guys... 
I have just purchased a Epson Stylus photo 2100 Ultra Chrome printer which came with a s**t load of extra ink cartridges for it.

Can I successfully use it with Chromablast paper to do Light coloured garment transfers?

Cheers in advance


----------



## cornpopps

MusicMan59 said:


> Hi guys...
> I have just purchased a Epson Stylus photo 2100 Ultra Chrome printer which came with a s**t load of extra ink cartridges for it.
> 
> Can I successfully use it with Chromablast paper to do Light coloured garment transfers?
> 
> Cheers in advance


I did some test prints with CB paper on my 1100 with a wash test and got great results. I took a guess on the settings and used Photo and Paper Type: Premium Presentation Paper Matte. I do a light stretch after pressing to break up some of that emulsion from the paper. Hope that helps


----------



## MusicMan59

Thanks for that Mark.... Definitely does help.
I feel much safer now laying out the cash on the paper to run my own trials.
It is always great (and easier) when others have tested the waters before you jump in. Thats why I love these forums so much, people are willing to share their experience and knowledge with novices such as myself. . Thanks again


----------



## MrGreen88

I need to make total digital heat transfer prints on pre made 100% cotton t-shirts and sweatshirts.
Size of prints is up to 35x63 inches.
Is it possible to use Chromoblast for such big size and purpose? 
What printer and paper are better to use? 

Thank's!


----------



## lben

MrGreen88 said:


> I need to make total digital heat transfer prints on pre made 100% cotton t-shirts and sweatshirts.
> Size of prints is up to 35x63 inches.
> Is it possible to use Chromoblast for such big size and purpose?
> What printer and paper are better to use?
> 
> Thank's!


35" x 63" (almost 3 feet by 5 feet) is a yard of material! I've never seen a shirt that big before. But all you have to do (if your software and printer will allow it) is to make tiles of your artwork to fit together on the fabric. 

To do chromablast you can only use chromablast ink and paper. An epson printer (work force 1100) would print, but I think the biggest paper you can get is maybe 8.5" x 14" - though I could be wrong on that.


----------



## texasjack49

MusicMan59 said:


> Hi guys...
> I have just purchased a Epson Stylus photo 2100 Ultra Chrome printer which came with a s**t load of extra ink cartridges for it.
> 
> Can I successfully use it with Chromablast paper to do Light coloured garment transfers?
> 
> Cheers in advance


All these latest posts are a little confusing to me. Are you saying that you bought a 2100 with loads of Chromablast ink? If so then yes you can use it with Chromablast paper. If you bought the printer with loads of Pigment ink then why would you use Chromablast paper? Isn't pigment ink transfer paper much cheaper and gives the same results. Stock Epson printers come with either Pigment or Dye inks(Not Dye Sub) so you would need an inkjet transfer paper not a Chromablast paper. Hope I'm not confusing the issue further.


----------



## lben

There is a bit of a difference between regular transfer paper and chromablast paper. The transfers leave a plastic sort of stiff feeling on the fabric. The chromablast is barely feelable on the fabric.


----------



## mgparrish

lben said:


> There is a bit of a difference between regular transfer paper and chromablast paper. The transfers leave a plastic sort of stiff feeling on the fabric. The chromablast is barely feelable on the fabric.


With JPSS and "Iron-all" light there is barely any feel, virtually none after washing.


----------



## texasjack49

lben said:


> There is a bit of a difference between regular transfer paper and chromablast paper. The transfers leave a plastic sort of stiff feeling on the fabric. The chromablast is barely feelable on the fabric.


As I mentioned, I'm finding these latest posts confusing. We use JPSS transfer paper and it leaves very little hand and after one wash almost none and fairly durable. My question is still the same if you buy a stock Epson printer why bother to use Chromablast paper in it. It would be more expense and have no advantage over JPSS or any other high quality "pigment ink" transfer paper.


----------



## Riderz Ready

I would guess there are very few people *actively* making and selling shirts using chromablast.


----------



## lben

Chromablast leaves a pale yellow ring around the outside images edge. This is supposed to wash out, but I have a shirt that I made a few years ago and after dozens of washes it is still visible in sunlight. I also have shirts that I've made with JPSS and I cannot feel the images location from under the shirt anymore (stiffness) but it is still rough on the outside surface of the image. The one with chromablast had no feel to it from top or bottom of image right after it was made and still has no feel. It is very similar to sublimation in that respect. But there is still the issue with that yellowish ring. I think that is what stops most people from continuing to use it.


----------



## mgparrish

lben said:


> Chromablast leaves a pale yellow ring around the outside images edge. This is supposed to wash out, but I have a shirt that I made a few years ago and after dozens of washes it is still visible in sunlight. I also have shirts that I've made with JPSS and I cannot feel the images location from under the shirt anymore (stiffness) but it is still rough on the outside surface of the image. The one with chromablast had no feel to it from top or bottom of image right after it was made and still has no feel. It is very similar to sublimation in that respect. But there is still the issue with that yellowish ring. I think that is what stops most people from continuing to use it.


On white shirts with JPSS if you use heavy pressure and then cover with parchment and repress I never see the "window" unless you have your face in the shirt, after washing it's even better. On light colors the "window" is always showing though with anybody's paper. 

So it's rare I sublimate white tshirts anymore since the hand and window on a 50/50 are not a problem on white Tees and JPSS.

It's the marketing spin of Chromablast that insinuates that Sawgrass made something "special" that no one else has.


----------



## lben

With sublimation on white, you cannot see anything other than the image and you cannot feel it either. I just don't like to sublimate shirts because it uses too much ink.


----------



## mgparrish

lben said:


> With sublimation on white, you cannot see anything other than the image and you cannot feel it either. I just don't like to sublimate shirts because it uses too much ink.


I would add that with sublimation on white _or_ light colors you cannot see anything other than the image and you cannot feel it either.

But using a paper like JPSS on white you virtually get the same. Sublimation is still better, but considering the cost of 50/50 vs. 100% poly and sub ink costs the white 50/50 made with JPSS and 3rd party pigments is a cheaper alternative to sublimation ... except when it comes to light colors where JPSS (or chromablast) will show the window.


----------



## CORBINBOYS

Don't know why anyone would use Chromablast,versus Sublimation,cost is about the same,quality,no comparison,wouldn't be talking about "feel fading and after washing tests" Just my .02


----------



## mgparrish

CORBINBOYS said:


> Don't know why anyone would use Chromablast,versus Sublimation,cost is about the same,quality,no comparison,wouldn't be talking about "feel fading and after washing tests" Just my .02


The concept is to use a $2 or less 50/50 or 100% cotton tshirt which will save $3 - $4 dollars off of individual tshirt prices compared to a $5 - $6 100% poly shirt. Total costs are not the same.

I would offer that why would anyone use Chromablast when you get the same or better quality using 3rd party pigment inks and a good paper like JPSS? The cost factor is even further reduced.


----------



## CORBINBOYS

Very true!


----------



## craftimex

I have tried the sublimation paper made for 100% cotton and the dye ink. The result is quite good. I don't think chromoblast is monopoly now


----------



## texasjack49

craftimex said:


> I have tried the sublimation paper made for 100% cotton and the dye ink. The result is quite good. I don't think chromoblast is monopoly now


Chromablast never was a monopoly, never even seemed to be popular or mainstream.
There is no sublimation paper made for 100% cotton shirts and dye ink. I think you are confusing the products you are using. What is the name of the paper you are using?


----------



## mgparrish

texasjack49 said:


> Chromablast never was a monopoly, never even seemed to be popular or mainstream.
> There is no sublimation paper made for 100% cotton shirts and dye ink. I think you are confusing the products you are using. What is the name of the paper you are using?


Often the confusion with new users for the Chromablast has a lot to do with the way Sawgrass hypes it and the fact it is "Sawgrass" so the association with sublimation is made.

While it's not obvious unless you "drill down" into the Chromablast patent is that the Chromablast inks are actually a mixture of pigment and sublimation dyes.

The plastic based Chromablast paper is actually both pigment and non-sublimation dye "colored" and sublimated. The plastic paper is actually a "prep" for the sublimation inks and also acts as a normal pigment transfer like most of us are used to. So in that respect you can "sublimate" onto a 100% cotton tshirt ... albeit indirectly since the plastic based paper is what is "sublimated" and not the tshirt itself.

In the excerpt from the patent I attached the mention of "organic dyes" and "inorganic dyes" and are "either soluble in the carrier (the carrier is water) or "dispersed in the carrier" .... sublimation (disperse)dyes are the only dyes capable of forming a molecular bond with polymers and are not water soluble. So the mention of "in-organic dyes" and "dispersed in the carrier" = sublimation inks.

So the "dirty secret" about Chromablast is that they "juice up" the inks a little with sub dye to help the image "pop" and improve washability.

Of course it's not necessary for this as pigment inks alone with a good transfer paper give the same result or better at a lower cost. 

So as you mention it's true that there is no real market monopoly for Chromablast, mainly the only thing "unique" (but unnecessary) is the addition of sub dyes into the Chromablast inks.


----------



## Heldino

Hi, this is just a quick question to the Forum

Has anyone tried CB on Organic Cotton, Bamboo or Hemp fabrics?

What are the results?

Thanks


----------



## dcgreen1

I'm looking into ChromaBlast Printing onto 100% to be cut and sewn into garments. This thread has been very helpful! Although as a complete newbie, I have a few questions.
1) What is a print window?
2) How many a4 prints from a ChromaBlast Cartridges?
3) Has anyone got any good examples pictures of ChromaBlast printing?

This would be a great help. Thanks!

Christian.


----------



## mgparrish

dcgreen1 said:


> I'm looking into ChromaBlast Printing onto 100% to be cut and sewn into garments. This thread has been very helpful! Although as a complete newbie, I have a few questions.
> 1) What is a print window?
> 2) How many a4 prints from a ChromaBlast Cartridges?
> 3) Has anyone got any good examples pictures of ChromaBlast printing?
> 
> This would be a great help. Thanks!
> 
> Christian.


This is no substantial difference than using pigment inks and Jet Pro Soft Stretch, Iron All, or other non-sublimation regular inkjet transfers, except that Chromablast is more expensive than these other options. There are also more printer options once you get outside of ChromaBlast as well.

Sawgrass markets this stuff as though it is something unique, it is not, there is a whole inkjet transfer industry outside of Sawgrass that has the same or better quality, more equipment choices, and lower costs.

So I would recommend that you check out this area of the forum which is more relevant. At least explore your other options ... they do exist.

Inkjet Heat Transfer Paper - T-Shirt Forums


----------

