# screen printing: inkjet versus laser for films?



## aquablu (Mar 15, 2007)

*Re: Screen Printing Question?*

I'm a newbie and I was wondering which is better an ink jet or a laser printer?


----------



## RichardGreaves (Nov 7, 2006)

*Re: Screen Printing Question?*



aquablu said:


> I'm a newbie and I was wondering which is better an ink jet or a laser printer?


There is only one guaranteed laser printer opacity and Postscript halftones - The Xante ScreenWriter4 (1,995 + shipping). Postscript chip actually on the motherboard so it is very fast. You can print on $0.25 sheets of vellum texture paper, or texturized polyester film for $1.05.

No. Your HP will not give you a UV opacity of 2.0. 

EPSON inkjets have a better print, but they take longer and you have to use an aftermarket RIP to increase ink deposit and shape halftones.

You can buy a 13" EPSON R1800 for $479 from Amazon and iProof PowerRIP for $495. 

For a listing of EPSON inkjet printers that have produced dependable results with a RIP: EPSON Printers for making Screen Printing Positives

Wasatch makes SoftRIP
U. S. Screen makes FastRIP

If you are now saying "What about ........". These are guaranteed solutions. Everything else has to be tested. If there was a less expensive solution, I would like to know.


----------



## zaniac (Mar 22, 2007)

Newbie question: So a postscript printer like the Epson 3800 Postscript Level 3 along with Illustrator CS2/Photoshop CS2 and those programs ability to control halftones (angles,lines,etc) are not all you need to print your positives for screen printing? Or is it just unknown what the outcome will be?

With the Xante Laser, do you need any RIP software or is it handled all inside the RIP chip inside the printer itself? Using the Xante, can you talk directly from Illustrator CS2 and Photoshop CS2?


----------



## Fluid (Jun 20, 2005)

The Xante is postscript and will print halftones without a rip. I have an old accel-a-writer and its been running strong for 9+ years. I havent used it for film in years but it will. AutoType hase a good film - Delta laser film that works well with the xante. Im sure there is other film as well.

My concerns with laser printers and vellum is registration. With laserprinters the toner is fused using heat which can cause the vellum to shrink causing registration issues. I would go with the epson. the longer printing time isnt that long. Just make sure you use waterproof ink and film. Will save headachs in the future.


----------



## zaniac (Mar 22, 2007)

Thank you for the help on the Xante with PostScript.

Regarding the Epson 3800, I have read in the past about the waterproof ink and film. Thanks for reminding me. Recent printers switched to pigment and screen printers need the other ink I believe is the answer. Now, with a setup of Illustrator CS2/Photoshop CS2, Epson 3800 with PostScript support and the right inks and film, will I need a RIP or will the tools be able to lay down halftones with the proper angles? I have been fully immersed in color separation discussions feel confident that I can at least start to get things from artwork to color sep artwork. Now, I am tackling the right hardware to get it to film.

I will be starting out much simpler than that, but I would like a setup that works with me over time. I am also making the choice between the following presses (Riley Hopkins Win/Aero, Antec or M&R Chameleon). I am leading towards the chameleon.


----------



## cycocyco (Mar 2, 2007)

Get a good laserprinter with postscript built in. We bought a fantastic Ricoh Aficio AP600N that does 17 inch prints. We've had zero problems with it. Not only do you get great opacity, but in the long-run it will be cheaper for you because toner is cheaper than replacing ink on a bubble-jet. Being a postscript native printer you have full control of your halftones.

We use screen-printing specific transparencies made by Kimo (you can buy them at Screenprintcatalog.com - Changing the way screenprinters are supplied & supported. ) These are fantastic and are the nearest option to the quality of real film positives.


----------



## Fluid (Jun 20, 2005)

With the epson you will need a rip in order to print halftones.

as far as your press I would *highly suggest* getting the M&R Chameleon. I hve one now, had 2 until I got my Gauntlet. Still going strong after 6+ years of heavy printing.

The chameleon is in my opinion by far the best manual printer out there. Also if you ever decide to upgrade to an uato all m&R palettes are interchangeable which is a huge plus. Also their micro registration is the same on the manual as is the Auto. Will help with the transition if you choose to upgrade later on.


----------



## zaniac (Mar 22, 2007)

Still confused, but I think I got it.

Laser Postscript can typically handle the halftones directly due to internal rip hardware processor. Is that true?

Epson is Postscript but is limited to only handling color management and not able to effectively generate the shape and direction of the halftones. Is that correct?

I would like to bypass 3rd party RIP software in favor of using my current tools and go directly to Postscript printer, but be able to represent the halftones that these other tools provide. I know it is much harder than that and can be more art than science, but I am looking for a straightforward way of getting artwork to film with as little "magic" in the mix as possible. I like to understand why the halftones at certain settings will generate the desired results on substrate. I like the Adobe tools and want to leverage my knowledge of them wherever possible. I plan on experimenting a lot while I run some production runs because my take from the forums is... theory is something but experience is everything.

Chameleon information. Thanks, leaning more that way. Good to hear that from someone of your experience. expandable, side clamps, auto ready screens, sturdy.


----------



## JeridHill (Feb 8, 2006)

FYI, Epson is selling refurbished R1800's online for $299.


----------



## zaniac (Mar 22, 2007)

I use an R1800 for our sublimation side of the house. I agree it works very well for printing images.

However, if you buy refurb non-postscript epson 1800, you still have to buy between $500 (your RIP software) and $1000 (others RIP) so you still have about $1000 on average to get a refurb solution and still have to go through RIP software. If that is what I have to do, then that is that, but if I can go directly to Postscript like 3800 for $1400, I think (but dont know) that is the better solution.

I just need to know that Illustrator CS2/Photoshop CS2 and epson 3800 will be the right combo. Otherwise, it looks like a laser printer like Xante.

If anyone is using this combination for medium complexity screens, please let me know. I would be very interested in talking with you.


----------



## JeridHill (Feb 8, 2006)

Yes you would purchase the Pro version of the 3800 which includes a RIP. The problem is, it won't do halftones. It is a color RIP, you would still be in the same situation you are in now. You need a RIP specifically for halftoning.

That's why I mentioned the $299 deal on epson's site. Even with a $500 RIP, that's an $800 solution. Of course you might want to look into bulk dye ink which I believe is $125 for 90ml mags and the system. But that's not necessary, it's just going to save you money in the end.


----------



## RichardGreaves (Nov 7, 2006)

JeridHill said:


> Yes you would purchase the Pro version of the 3800 which includes a RIP. The problem is, it won't do halftones. It is a color RIP, you would still be in the same situation you are in now. You need a RIP specifically for halftoning.
> 
> That's why I mentioned the $299 deal on epson's site. Even with a $500 RIP, that's an $800 solution.



Wasatch is going to make softRIP for the 3800, but iProof is not. I don't know what FastRIP is going to do. The 3800 has not been received very well.



Do NOT buy the Pro versions with ColorBurst. It only makes Pantone matches, no halftones, no increased deposit for opacity or calibrated halftones.


----------



## JeridHill (Feb 8, 2006)

Actually, iProof has made a RIP for the 3800 but it's not the screen printing RIP. It won't do halftones. They are working on it as far as I know.


----------



## RichardGreaves (Nov 7, 2006)

zaniac said:


> Laser Postscript can typically handle the halftones directly due to internal rip hardware processor. Is that true?


The Xante ScreenWriter4 was designed to make screen printing halftones. It has an actual Adobe Postscript chip on the motherboard and is very fast, much faster than an inkjet with software RIP. It does not have to use a software Postscript emulator. It costs $1,999 + shipping 70+ pounds.

There are no EPSON inkjet printers with Adobe Postscript built in. 

You can buy a brand new 13" EPSON R1800 for $479 from Amazon (with free shipping) and iProof PowerRIP ScreenPrint for $495. That would be the $1,000 difference.

To bypass a sofware RIP and use a hardware RIP costs $1,000 more.

These are guaranteed solutions for making positives. You can by larger and faster, but that does cost more money.


----------



## Fluid (Jun 20, 2005)

wow I payed 4K+ back in the day for my Xante.


----------



## willyindep (May 19, 2007)

RichardGreaves said:


> You can buy a brand new 13" EPSON R1800 for $479 from Amazon (with free shipping) and iProof PowerRIP ScreenPrint for $495. That would be the $1,000 difference.
> .


 
hey,
ive got a question. if i were to get this system, would it work with the fast films software? also, will the positives made with this system hit that 2.0 opacity level with using regular epson ink that comes with the printer? 1 more thing- is there a special film to use? i keep reading on the posts that it should be water proof, and use a dye based ink.
thanks for the advice!!


----------



## mkochsch (May 22, 2007)

willyindep said:


> hey,
> ive got a question. if i were to get this system, would it work with the fast films software? also, will the positives made with this system hit that 2.0 opacity level with using regular epson ink that comes with the printer? 1 more thing- is there a special film to use? i keep reading on the posts that it should be water proof, and use a dye based ink.
> thanks for the advice!!


I'm guessing a good start might be what I use in my "alt" photographic processes -- Pictorico OHP.
As for hitting 2.0 density I can easily hit this with my Epson R300 using third party inks. I've been working on a method for calibrating to adjust the output with a curve without having to use a rip. Do a google on RNP Arrays.
~m


----------



## JeridHill (Feb 8, 2006)

2.0 density is way too low. You want something close to a 4.0. With Epson's pigment based inks you will need a waterproof film, pigment inks do not work on non-waterproof. Pigment inks are also not extremely durable, dye is much better.


----------



## mkochsch (May 22, 2007)

The R300 uses dye inks. How do T-shirters measure density? Do you use something similar to a Stouffer step wedge? I'm used to talking in terms on "density" not "opacity". Are talking about the same scales 4.0 sounds unfathomably high to me. Photo print makers who use Platinum-Palladium rarely go above 2.2 logD. Oh and Pictorico OHP is waterproof as far as I know.


----------



## JeridHill (Feb 8, 2006)

The film printout is measured using a densometer. A 4.0 is actually considered perfect. A common term is dMax. Basically, it's the point at which the printer can print and not lose detail. So a 4.0 dMax would be very opaque, yet still have excellent detail. It is a combination of the inks, films, RIPs and artwork. If your printer can print extremely dark images yet fill in the halftones or fine lines, then you have over saturated the film. Some could be due to the film not being able to handle the ink or simply too much ink is being laid down. If you can lower your ink amounts and still achieve an extreme opaque black, that is what you are looking for.


----------



## mkochsch (May 22, 2007)

Ah I'm beginning to clue in to the differences between what I do (and what I'm about to do) and what you do. In photo work the negative is used to create the final print and in silk screening the positive is used to make the mask which is over laid to make the image. I'm working in "con" tone (continuous tone) where screen printing is more like lithography, because of the inks need to pass through the screens. Thanks for your patience.
Wouldn't there be an emulsion available which could be printed at a lower dMax and still be effective for making the screen mask?


----------



## JeridHill (Feb 8, 2006)

There are quicker emulsions like a photopolymer. They work extremely well because they take the light much quicker. Along with different types of exposure units, you literally can expose a screen in seconds. This may reduce the amount of light going through the film with a lower dmax because it's a shorter time, but I can't say that for sure. Maybe someone else might know the answer to that question.


----------



## RichardGreaves (Nov 7, 2006)

mkochsch said:


> Ah I'm beginning to clue in to the differences between what I do (and what I'm about to do) and what you do.
> 
> In photo work the negative is used to create the final print and in silk screening the positive is used to make the mask which is over laid to make the image. I'm working in "con" tone (continuous tone) where screen printing is more like lithography, because of the inks need to pass through the screens. Thanks for your patience.
> 
> Wouldn't there be an emulsion available which could be printed at a lower dMax and still be effective for making the screen mask?


Photography also uses a mask (negative or positive) that is not effected by the light that passes through it, just like screen printing. 
Because photography makes an image *using light* to cause a chemical effect on the receiver, the mask can make use of variable opacities.

Screen printing uses the actual ink that transfers through the mesh and creates the final image on the substrate - not a reaction.

This is why we have to use 'halftones' to simulate continuous tone images. Halftones fool the viewers eye into blending the light and dark areas to make tones.

UV light causes a reaction in the screen printing mask or stencil when it's made. It's a high contrast system. Either UV light exposes the stencil or not. Poor exposure means a poor edge.


Continous tones can be made for intaglio printing that etches a variable surface that can OFFSET an image, (like a rubber stamp) but you can't do that with a direct printing method like screen printing.

==
A Stouffer step wedge can help measure exposure, but not density. I'm sure there is some intellectual difference, but for screen printing "density" and "opacity" are interchangeable . 


Density is measured on a logarithmic scale where each step increases in larger and larger steps.

dMAX Opacity
4.0 - 99.99%
3.0 - 99.90% 
2.0 - 99.00%
1.0 - 90.00%
0.6 - 60.00%
0.3 - 50.00%

There is very little valuable difference between 1.0 and 4.0 density.









I use my XRite UV densitometer.


----------



## snarley (Feb 9, 2007)

*Re: Screen Printing Question?*



aquablu said:


> I'm a newbie and I was wondering which is better an ink jet or a laser printer?


Hi Aquablu,

Did you get your question answered? As you can see there are no easy answers. The first thing you need to do is identify your need. What are you going to print and what size and colors are you going to have? Once you figure out what your going to print, then you can decide on your equipment. If money is no object, you can buy the equipment in the previous posts. If money is an issue then there will be some compromises to contend with. There is lot of good used equipment available out there. I hope this has been of some help but keep reading the posts and you will find a lot of your questions will be answered. Good Luck !!!!

Bill M


----------



## RichardGreaves (Nov 7, 2006)

willyindep said:


> i were to get this system, would it work with the fast films software?
> 
> will the positives made with this system hit that 2.0 opacity level with using regular epson ink that comes with the printer?
> 
> ...


1. FastFilms is separation software. You might consider a complete package from U. S. Screen. They offer an EPSON R1800, FastFilms and their FastRIP Postscript Emulation RIP software.

2. Positives made with an R1800 and Ulano Edition PowerRIP and Ulano Pigment Inkjet Film using stock EPSON Pigment Ink hover just above 3.0 density.

3. Pigment inks require a nano porous coating that can handle the resin coated pigment particles. 100% liquid dye will bleed if it gets wet, so that's where 'water proof' film got its name.

I don't like that name. Most dye and pigment inkjet inks are water based so they wouldn't work with 'water-proof' film.

Inkjet Film for Screen Making Positives for a description.


----------



## mkochsch (May 22, 2007)

You mentioned Epson stock inks give density around 3.0 logD. Do the inks manufactured by Ulano and other companies provide more UV blocking without having to lay down more ink by comparison to the Epson? Or is the RIP pushing more ink out? thx.

~m


----------



## RichardGreaves (Nov 7, 2006)

mkochsch said:


> You mentioned Epson stock inks give density around 3.0 logD.
> 
> 
> Do the inks manufactured by Ulano and other companies provide more UV blocking without having to lay down more ink by comparison to the Epson? Or is the RIP pushing more ink out?


The benefits of RIPs is that they can shape ink jet dots into halftone 'spots' from the Postscript output language and convert them to code/language an EPSON can understand, and they can increase ink deposit.

Ulano does not make or distribute ink jet ink

Positives made with an R1800 and Ulano Edition PowerRIP and Ulano Pigment Inkjet Film using stock EPSON Pigment Ink hover just above 3.0 density.

EPSON printers using stock EPSON Pigment Ink without a RIP usually have a 1.6 to 1.8 UV density. If stock inks alone worked for screen making, we wouldn't need RIPs.

The ink jet output for screen making path was blazed by EPSON with their Stylus 3000 which had a media setting called, "Ink Jet Back Light Film" which gave excellent results and the world beat a path to their door. Alas, they don't offer that setting anymore.










An experiment everyone should do is print a solid block of color and print the block are each supplied setting. 



















- then test the opacity with your screen making products.

I have a UV densitometer and would be happy to measure your positives and eMail you the results.

Richard Greaves
110 3rd Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11217

I want to know your printer, film and driver settings.


----------



## Jamey (Dec 22, 2008)

RichardGreaves said:


> The Xante ScreenWriter4 was designed to make screen printing halftones. It has an actual Adobe Postscript chip on the motherboard and is very fast, much faster than an inkjet with software RIP. It does not have to use a software Postscript emulator. It costs $1,999 + shipping 70+ pounds.
> 
> There are no EPSON inkjet printers with Adobe Postscript built in.
> 
> ...


Great info! Thanks!


----------



## ACC (Apr 23, 2007)

I just bought a Epson 1400 to replace my dying screenwriter 3. What a difference! The epson rocks! Much darker than the laser even with toner aide.


----------



## cycocyco (Mar 2, 2007)

I have a Ricoh Aficio AP600N with postscript embedded and I'm tremendously happy with its quality of film output, not to mention it does 11X17. You can't beat laser for cost per print either, which becomes important doing films because generally speaking you are filling up a lot of the page.


----------



## cparso75 (Aug 17, 2008)

ACC said:


> I just bought a Epson 1400 to replace my dying screenwriter 3. What a difference! The epson rocks! Much darker than the laser even with toner aide.


I am thinking of buying an Epson 1400, do you use water proof film, are you into halftones (use rip software)? Are you using the stock inks? Thanks


----------

