# is this print, screen print or digital?



## nightdoll (Aug 9, 2007)

I am trying to find out if that print is screen print or digital? My designs will be
very detailed and trying to find out which one would be the best

also how they print lighter colors on black t-shirt with digital printing?

i appreciate all the help, thanks

UrbanOutfitters.com > Sparkle & Fade Faded Butterflies Tee


----------



## zhenjie (Aug 27, 2006)

My guess would be screenprinting. Most DTG printers are limited to 18-20" prints in length so printing that on DTG would be quite hard I would imagine. Also, that print seems to go over the hems which is another issue with DTG printing sometimes.


----------



## Solmu (Aug 15, 2005)

Plus it's being sold at Urban Outfitters. Plus *it says right on the freakin' product description page* that it's screenprinted.


----------



## nightdoll (Aug 9, 2007)

why urban outfitters only use screen print? I am kinda new to this printing thingy, and i wasnt sure if screen print can do that detailed. but thanks for the info. I appreciated.


----------



## MotoskinGraphix (Apr 28, 2006)

Solmu said:


> Plus it's being sold at Urban Outfitters. Plus *it says right on the freakin' product description page* that it's screenprinted.


LMAO...so is a description of the product beneficial on an e-commerce site?


----------



## Rodney (Nov 3, 2004)

nightdoll said:


> why urban outfitters only use screen print? I am kinda new to this printing thingy, and i wasnt sure if screen print can do that detailed. but thanks for the info. I appreciated.


Yes, screen printing can be very detailed.

They probably use screen printing because it is still the industry standard for quality in retail stores.

When you're doing high volume printing, screen printing is a good choice and there are a lot of different decoration options available with screen printing (specialty inks, etc).


----------



## nightdoll (Aug 9, 2007)

then if i do less quantity, i should do with digital, but do you think digital can be same quality?


----------



## Printzilla (Mar 22, 2007)

sometimes even better quality


----------



## nightdoll (Aug 9, 2007)

oh i see , thanks
does anybody know in los angeles area digital print place then, i can go and talk with them
thanks


----------



## Solmu (Aug 15, 2005)

MotoskinGraphix said:


> LMAO...so is a description of the product beneficial on an e-commerce site?


You certainly have to wonder sometimes, but presumably some customers are more receptive to text than others (and search engines certainly are).


----------



## Solmu (Aug 15, 2005)

Printzilla said:


> sometimes even better quality


Sure, and sometimes Starbucks will be better than your local cafe, but it's hardly the norm. The average screenprinter will produce better quality t-shirts than the average DTG printer. The best DTG printer can't compete with the best screenprinter. The worst DTG printer and the worst screenprinter at least are on equal footing (both produce products too poor to sell), but the emphasis really should be on *sometimes*.


----------



## Printzilla (Mar 22, 2007)

I will happily compete against ANY screen printer in the world, and I am certainly not even the best DTG printer in the world. Just let me pick the image.


----------



## Solmu (Aug 15, 2005)

Printzilla said:


> Just let me pick the image.


 Do they get to pick the image for round two? Still, it's not an unreasonable point.


----------



## Printzilla (Mar 22, 2007)

LOL. You made an absolute statement. I was just showing that maybe it needed some consideration.


----------



## Solmu (Aug 15, 2005)

Printzilla said:


> You made an absolute statement.


Not really - I was just suggesting "sometimes" is misleading, because personally I think it's a rare exception. Obviously DTG wins for one-offs, and even in quantity I'm positive there are DTG printers doing a better job than screenprinters; but I think you have to seek that out (i.e. it's something artificial) rather than it being normal.



Printzilla said:


> I was just showing that maybe it needed some consideration.


Yeah, and fair enough - everything subjective needs some consideration  Even in my (rather biased) opinion DTG vs. screenprinting is one of the less one sided arguments in the print world.


----------



## Printzilla (Mar 22, 2007)

Solmu said:


> The best DTG printer can't compete with the best screenprinter.


Seems like an absolute statement to me.


----------



## Solmu (Aug 15, 2005)

Printzilla said:


> Seems like an absolute statement to me.


"The best" is a qualifier.


----------



## Don-ColDesi (Oct 18, 2006)

> Even in my (rather biased) opinion DTG vs. screenprinting is one of the less one sided arguments in the print world.


No doubt, pretty one sided - you may just be on the wrong side! LOL

Neither process is better than the other for every type of image or order size. Direct to garment will eventually replace most screen printing because of the superior image quality - not because it is easier or cheaper. There is no doubt that the best screen printers in the world can produce awesome quality shirts, but, as more and more digital printers are sold into the market, more and more artists will become "liberated" from the constraints of screening. Direct to garment empowers the artist - requiring no "skill set" like screen printing does. The more direct to garment printers that are sold, the more the public will demand high color designs and the less and less the screen printers that will be able to fulfill the needs. This is not a bash on screen printers or screen printing, simply a logical progression in the growth of an industry. Look at the sign industry 10 years ago and you would see the majority of large format graphics being done by cut vinyl or by an elite few who owned extremely expensive color printers, now, even small graphics like magnetics are being done on sub-$20K print and cut machines in full color (high color). There are still applications where cut vinyl is still a logical solution, but they are more the exception than the norm. The same will happen in the garment printing industry over the next 10 or so years.

I'm off the soapbox and back to work!


----------



## PinkFreud (Mar 8, 2007)

So true and spot on Don..... "Direct to garment empowers the artist" well said
...you have articulated something very important that I have not seen expressed before....with this in mind there is no comparison to screenprinting....The ability to offer low volume full color photographic images on a garment fills a highly lucrative niche that screenprinting could never do cost effectively


----------



## Solmu (Aug 15, 2005)

DTG empowers the amateur; artists don't need technology to liberate them. Artists also aren't much of a customer base, so I wouldn't be too concerned about them anyway.

It surprised me to learn relatively recently just how many areas I had assumed had long been completely taken over by digital printing still use screenprinting (e.g. large outdoor banners, advertising posters). DTG will almost certainly kill the apparel screenprinting industry off eventually, but I wouldn't be counting chickens just yet.


----------



## PinkFreud (Mar 8, 2007)

I always find it interesting how intransigent some people can be on these online debates....either they misunderstand the point or they are unable or unwilling to consider anything that differs with their opinion.

...Don's point of "liberating the artist" is not to infer that only professional artists can benefit from digital garment printing....rather the point is that the digital process "liberates the artist" in all creative and artistic people be they amateurs or professionals...This technology offers easy access to explore creative energy while screenprinting does not...I feel that screenprinting will be serving large corporate orders at low profits per shirt for the foreseeable future while digital garment printing serve customers who want full color short runs at high profits per shirt....I say when you consider all the people in the world who would like a full color custom T-shirt....you better start counting your chickens now...but I could be wrong! (insert winking smiley face here)


----------



## MotoskinGraphix (Apr 28, 2006)

I thought screen printing was an art form. I do see DTG as a future in apparel decoration but with limitations. Screen printing offers so many variables in texture, print elevation, glitters, hand etc. DTG for the most part still struggles somewhat with white ink and dark shirts. Yes I know some folks have got it worked out fairly well but many dont. I also think there is an assumption that artists, amateurs or professionals create on a computer. Digital designers do but artist runs a very wide spectrum. I think there is always going to be a need and personally a want for screen printing on apparel. I also see the ease and simplicity of DTG and am excitied about its development for future abilities in apparel decoration. When DTG can acheive the creative abilities of screen printing then change is inevitable. Only then will it liberate the artist. I dont think it really has anything to do with an unwillingness to change or accept new ideas or technology. There are eggs in both baskets but for now the grade A eggs are still in the screen printing hen house. Just my ramblings and a large rich coffee.


----------



## Don-ColDesi (Oct 18, 2006)

While I may differ vastly with Pink on my political views we do share a common view of the direct to garment printers place in the marketplace - both now and in the future.

In regards to signage and banners, I guess things are a bit behind the times in Aus as the US marketplace is largely dominated by Eco-sol and solvent based printers for advertising graphics. As to the white ink process, no doubt, some are successful and some are not, but, how many screenprinters can successfully print false/simulated process on a dark or mid color shirt and produce an acceptable product? My guess is that a lower percentage of screen printers can pull off this feat than direct to garment printers who can print white ink with consistency. 

The argument will go on, no doubt, just like the argument between sign painters and those upstarts who were cutting vinyl a couple of decades ago. There are still a few sign painters around, but, there are a lot more vinyl cutting and printing operations around - doing most of the business. 

Screen printing is far from dead, it is, however, "on the clock".


----------



## Printzilla (Mar 22, 2007)

I am a tiny bit offended by the comments on how "easy" direct to garment printing is. It is not easy. Are some aspects easy? Sure, just like some aspects of screenprinting are easy. Is screenprinting more difficult, and even more technical than dtg? (I am both by the way.) Absolutely, however, getting excellent results on a dark shirt, and keeping the machine running in tip top shape are not easy tasks. If they were, the drop out rate would not be as high. Not to mention about half the posts in this forum would not be here.


----------



## MotoskinGraphix (Apr 28, 2006)

I am not sure where the sign painter comparison is coming from unless it is basically saying vinyl is an easier way... "the new way". That all depends on the substrate and whats best for the sign producer. You left silk screening out which has been a part of sign production for a long time. The idea of painting lettering is a skill but a tedium that was solved by cad cutting vinyl and welcomed by the sign industry. Perfect for flat substrates but doesnt solve texture sign production. The DTG probably does a good job on small flat substrates as well...as long as they are white. I dont know about that really, havent seen any DTG signage. Hand painted pin stripes are still preferred over vinyl stripes, quicker to install and add more vale to the car.
Having worked in the fine art industry with artists and galleries there are more screen printers out there with cmyk abilities than you may think. Even in the transfer printing business there is super work being done with simulated process.

I think there is a bit too much generalization of this or that, what one person can do and another cant. If you print DTG and have it mastered I think thats wonderful. It gives everyone hope when looking at that technology. Can DTG acheive what screen printing does everyday with texture, full color, glitters, foils etc? I personally dont think it has that ability yet.

So what does the future look like. I read in another post something like...if it was easy to get great prints everybody would be doing it or they would be in all the Walmarts. I dont remember exactly the phrase but something like that. Well isnt that exactly whats going to happen in 10 or 15 years, maybe even less? Why would a company that wants small runs or 200-300 shirts every year not purchase a DTG and do production in house. We all know the units price is going to come way down over time as does all new technology. I think people will be able to purchase a home unit and do what they want eventually. Be careful what you wish for because I think its coming eventually.


----------



## SLGProduction (Jun 10, 2007)

Printzilla said:


> I will happily compete against ANY screen printer in the world, and I am certainly not even the best DTG printer in the world. Just let me pick the image.


 
I'll take that bet, but would like to add a lttle something to it. It must be on a colored shirt and once finished it must be washed 25 times and then be judged.


----------



## Printzilla (Mar 22, 2007)

Lets do it. What are the stakes? Who are the judges?


----------



## SLGProduction (Jun 10, 2007)

we first need to set all the diamiters. Also since you get to pick the design it cant be anythink you or I have printed before. It might be better to have somebody else pick it. Hell, Rodney there's your next contest, everybody get the same to print and then send it off to the judges. I know I left a couple of things out. Let me know what you think.

Shirt color
shirt brand
shirt style
number of washes
dpi
judges
number of shirts
number of ink colors


----------



## Printzilla (Mar 22, 2007)

The original idea was that I could pick the image. One I knew I could not be beaten by a screenprinter. I was attempting to make a point. If we just want to have a print off that is ok as well.


----------



## PinkFreud (Mar 8, 2007)

Hey come on SLG......Printzilla's original challenge to you screeners was to let him pick the image......You accepted the challenge while adding that it be a color shirt and washed 25 times....Ok...done deal.....right?
You lose credibility when after accepting the challenge you now want to have someone else pick the image.....very disengenous....what are you afraid of screenprinter guy...eh....now it wouldnt have anything to do with the fact that a typical screenprinter could not match the image quality of a full color photographic image done by a typical digital printer?...now would it??? ....


----------



## SLGProduction (Jun 10, 2007)

Fine send me the design. It has to be done at 60 dpi.


----------



## Printzilla (Mar 22, 2007)

LOL! More rules and stipulations!!

Why not just reqiure me to print it on a $50 throw away printer from walmart, or better yet, just using melted crayons.


----------



## Don-ColDesi (Oct 18, 2006)

> just using melted crayons


Crayola, 8 pack only, must be melted over an old growth forest campfire while wearing a bow-killed antelope loincloth!


----------



## PinkFreud (Mar 8, 2007)

lol......come on Don be reasonable....I would also allow the loincloth to be from an antelope killed by an M4 semi-automatic carbine on a snowy day west of the Mississippi


----------



## SLGProduction (Jun 10, 2007)

fine send me the file.


[email protected]


----------



## Solmu (Aug 15, 2005)

PinkFreud said:


> I always find it interesting how intransigent some people can be on these online debates....either they misunderstand the point or they are unable or unwilling to consider anything that differs with their opinion.


How strangely self-reflective of you.



PinkFreud said:


> ...Don's point of "liberating the artist" is not to infer that only professional artists can benefit from digital garment printing....


And not a single person thought it was.



PinkFreud said:


> rather the point is that the digital process "liberates the artist" in all creative and artistic people be they amateurs or professionals...


And rather my point was that... they don't need it (or in many cases even want it). At the very least, it is the amateur who stands to gain the most and might be expected to be excited (I think some people mistake amateur for a pejorative - there's no judgement in that).

I also think a lot of people mistake artist as a synonym for "person who draws pictures"; not everybody is an artist.

For every artist using a DTG printer I could show you fifty still using screenprinting. In five years, I don't think that will have significantly changed.

You would have it that that's because they're close minded and conservative. Maybe they just know some things you don't.



PinkFreud said:


> This technology offers easy access to explore creative energy while screenprinting does not...


There's a time and a place for tact, but if you're going to throw lines like that out there then this isn't it. If screenprinting dammed creative energy so much, do you really think it would have been such a major part of 20th century art? It's not a difficult or expensive technology. I don't think Warhol chose it for its difficulty...

There's a lot screenprinting doesn't do (it's not a big truck, _*or*_ a series of tubes - and it can't make you breakfast in bed)... but "easy access to explore creative energy" is not on the list of _don't_s.



PinkFreud said:


> I feel that screenprinting will be serving large corporate orders at low profits per shirt for the foreseeable future while digital garment printing serve customers who want full color short runs at high profits per shirt....I say when you consider all the people in the world who would like a full color custom T-shirt....you better start counting your chickens now...but I could be wrong! (insert winking smiley face here)


I fully acknowledge that I could be completely wrong about this, but personally I think a massive amount of the DTG market completely misunderstands itself and its competition, and this is a good example of that.

In my opinion, you have it exactly the wrong way around.

DTG is a perfect fit for corporations. It's only a matter of time before the technology makes this marriage blissful and permanent (though we could argue about _how much time_ 'till the cows come home).

At the root of it is the assumption those leaping into the DTG market make (and my counter assumption that they're wrong) that people want full colour and have just been waiting for the technology.

We already had the technology. Who uses it? Corporations, and home users doing one-offs (screenprinting and heat transfer respectively). That gets attributed to cost and quality. I don't think that's the reason more people aren't doing it. What makes people think their target market is suddenly going to change?

There's definitely a demand for one-offs and short runs in full colour (e.g. kids photos on a shirt, photos for hen's night shirts, etc.). Printing as a service for end-users, corporations for promos, etc. have, will continue to, and _should_ welcome DTG with open arms. Nothing wrong with that. _And_ a lot of money to be had.

But it's not where the arguments tend to be, or what this thread was about.

Companies producing a product to bring to market, that is _fashion_, have never been about full colour. From my point of view "all the people in the world who would like a full color custom T-shirt" is a very small bunch, and they all want their own thing on a t-shirt (not something someone else has produced and brought to market). From my perspective, they're irrelevant. We weren't talking about, and I don't care about, _custom_ t-shirts.

If people would just get their head out of the sand and look at the field of _design_ they'd see what I'm talking about. There's no barrier to full colour print work, and yet most graphic designers work with a limited colour palette. Concert posters could be pumped out by digital printers, and yet more often than not they're screenprinted.

There *are* and _will be_ _*exceptions*_. The very fact that they're exceptions proves my point.

Nothing is suited to everything, but implying DTG would be a desirable solution for someone trying to imitate UO is disingenuous. I don't, as it probably appears here, think that DTG sucks. But I also don't think it's as good (or universally appealing) as those who've bought one like to believe.


----------



## Solmu (Aug 15, 2005)

Don-SWF East said:


> In regards to signage and banners, I guess things are a bit behind the times in Aus


Kyuk kyuk, yup us hicks ov'r har do be a littl' back-ward. It's a wonder we ever managed to figure out the ADSL plug doesn't go in the sheep.



Don-SWF East said:


> as the US marketplace is largely dominated by Eco-sol and solvent based printers for advertising graphics


That's what one starts to believe when they read the trade mags. But when you block out all the marketing and look at actual production things tend to be more complicated than that (that is, every conceivable technology represents a significant amount of real world application).



Don-SWF East said:


> Screen printing is far from dead, it is, however, "on the clock".


This bit I tend to agree with; I just don't think it has anything to worry about from anything on the market, or that will soon arrive on the market. Its demise can be foretold, but not with any degree of accuracy.

The funny thing is the people who really should be ****ting themselves are transfer printers, and yet they don't seem concerned (lower capital investment means less commitment and therefore concern I guess). Cafepress is a great example of DTG technology making a massive impact on the way a company produces product. But it's not like Urban Outfitters did the same.

I also think David makes a very good point that "there are more screen printers out there with cmyk abilities than you may think". Frankly people have pretty much no idea what they're talking about, and to be clear: that *includes me*. There's a lot of twists and turns in this industry, and no-one oversees it _all_.


----------



## Don-ColDesi (Oct 18, 2006)

> Kyuk kyuk, yup us hicks ov'r har do be a littl' back-ward. It's a wonder we ever managed to figure out the ADSL plug doesn't go in the sheep.


Hey, YOU brought up sheep, not me.

Very well thought out post, very passionate, very narrow visioned. I have been involved in the sign, screen and digital marketplaces for about 16 years now and watched the markets mature. I've been into hundreds of screen print and sign operations and have seen their equipment (and sold them quite a bit in my day). Digital is replacing analog/manual in virtually every graphics arts medium - fact of life. Resistance to change is a common reaction from the biggest and best oftentimes, which is a compliment to you. The harder someone has worked to earn something, the harder they will fight to keep it. 

No offense intended towards Aussies, our master distributor is from Sidney and has a great vision of the digital revolution. He is the third largest manufacturer of pad printing equipment in the world - yet he knows that market place will be digital soon as well.

Embrace the inevitable - come to the digital side!

Now everybody join hands - Kumbaya ..........


----------



## MotoskinGraphix (Apr 28, 2006)

Digital printing certainly isnt replacing fine art printing unless you are doing posters.


----------



## Solmu (Aug 15, 2005)

Don-SWF East said:


> Very well thought out post, very passionate, very narrow visioned.


I prefer "focused" 

I think I narrow down to the one area (we'll call it "fashion apparel" for lack of a better term) I have a personal interest in (care about in other words), and some people ignore that area and assume it's the same as their own (service printing for example) for similar reasons (no personal interest). Hence, large difference of opinion.

I think it's less about right and wrong, and more that the conversations often end up at cross-purposes because people aren't talking about the same thing.



Don-SWF East said:


> Digital is replacing analog/manual in virtually every graphics arts medium - fact of life.


That's certainly true, which is why even while I hold fast to certain opinions I concede that it won't stay that way forever. But it's not absolute - pretty much every single piece of equipment that has been made obsolete is still being used somewhere (if only in fine art) - kind of irrelevant I realise because no-one is saying screenprinting will be obliterated from the face of the planet. But more relevantly it happens at different paces with different fields; letterpress business cards are pretty much a delightful affectation of the wealthy and professional designers for example, but _for now_ t-shirts are largely a non-digital process. Concert posters are very likely a healthy mix of both. The very fact that I have trouble coming up with another good example of manual printing (other than screenprinting) illustrates both the fact that it's in a dying minority, and that I'm not as educated about other print processes (e.g. offset printing) as I would like to be.

To me though it's kind of like how people in the first half of the twentieth century thought we'd all be driving hovercars by now. We were expected to have quantum computers by now. And be using them on Mars. Things are starting to go digital, but it doesn't mean the hovercar is around the corner so to speak. People often overestimate the pace of technology (and then there are the dinosaurs like you said - I admit it goes both ways).



Don-SWF East said:


> Embrace the inevitable - come to the digital side!


Honestly, on a personal note I have absolutely no idea when or how that's going to happen. I was an early supporter of digital photography, but I still also use and love analogue photography. I want to take on letterpress printing as a hobby, but you can bet I jump online to order my business cards. I don't see myself going digital any time soon, but you never know - I can't rule out undergoing a seachange and converting next year.


----------



## MetroBob (Aug 14, 2007)

Actually, fine art is an area that has been hugely impacted by digital printing. In art terms it is call "Giclee" and can print to all kinds of paper and canvas. The inks have an archival longevity of 200 years and any artist can take thier original work, scan it and for an investment of less than a DTG printer produce their own prints. Take a walk into your local gallery, I'll bet a ton of it is digitally printed and you wouldn't even know it.
I have sold screenprinting products for 15 years and I used to have a customer who was a master printer catering to high profile artists. His client list was a mile long and included some the most well known artists in Canada. Some of his work is permanently on display in our national gallery in Ottawa. Last time I spoke with him I asked how his business was. He said not very good and when I asked why he said " These digital printers are starting to pop up and it's killing me. The print quality is excellent and it's cheaper and easier than screenprinting."
That was 7 years ago ... I haven't heard from him since.


----------



## MotoskinGraphix (Apr 28, 2006)

I;m sorry but that is straight out BS. Digital printing in the fine arts is posters and giclee. A giclee is a poster imposed on a canvas with pressurised gloss agent. A giclee is the dumbass version of a serograph limited edition they cant afford to produce. I certainly hope that isnt your example of fine art.


----------



## MetroBob (Aug 14, 2007)

Maybe we differ on what is fine art, you might say that true fine art is limited to original works from the artists own hands. I am talking about a reproduction from an original work of art hand signed and numbered by the artist. Not the poster that you buy at the mall which are generally litho printed. LOTS of artists are using giclee for thier signed limited edition prints. The artists I collect charge about the same for a limited giclee print as they did for their serigraphs. Yes it is commercial and a copy but so was the screenprinted version that the digital print replaced. None of them are really art until the artist signs it anyway. My point is that digital printing has carved away a chunk of limited edition art reproductions that would have been screenprinted 10 years ago. Like it or not, less and less art is screenprinted, whether it is fine or not is a different discussion.


----------



## Don-ColDesi (Oct 18, 2006)

> To me though it's kind of like how people in the first half of the twentieth century thought we'd all be driving hovercars by now


you mean you all don't drive hovercars in Aus??? LOL


----------



## staned (Feb 25, 2007)

the real world that i live in, water base and disgarge are where the fashion world money is right now. when the fog rolls in this winter(fresno ca.) i'm going to give it a try. when they make a DTG thats worth a crap i'm going to try that too. but i'm not going to trade my auto for reemed out epson. my 13 cents staned


----------



## PinkFreud (Mar 8, 2007)

Solmu.....I enjoy this debate especially because you make some very good points
...let me clarify a few of my points which you seem to misunderstand...I certainly agree that screenprinting is an art form ....my point is that digital printing technology is more accessable since it requires much less equipmnet and has less of a learning curve...I'm not sure how you can rationally argue this yet it is probably the most important attribution to digital garment printing...I don't know what you think this thread should be about according to you but let me say this...
The #1 selling product on the internet is computers and computer accessories...
Would you like to guess what #2 is???......T-Shirts!!.....Now custom t-shirts may be irrelevant to you but it is a large and growing niche that is served most efficiently by digital garment printing.......as an example think of selling a T-shirt to every person on "MySpace" at retail! I am sure MySpace is popular in Australia but although maybe it is not


----------



## MotoskinGraphix (Apr 28, 2006)

and a frozen dinner is just 30 seconds and a button push away.


----------



## SLGProduction (Jun 10, 2007)

still waiting on file.


----------



## Solmu (Aug 15, 2005)

PinkFreud said:


> my point is that digital printing technology is more accessable since it requires much less equipmnet and has less of a learning curve


I don't know that less equipment particularly matters, unless space is at an absolute premium. Cost wise, they're comparable (although it's actually cheaper to setup a screenprinting studio... but ideally you'd spend as much as a DTG printer anyway). In terms of accessibility... obviously DTG is easi*er*, but people really overestimate how difficult screenprinting is. They're both easy, both have a low barrier... one is just easi*er. *But when either can easily be taught/learnt, just how easy does it need to be?



PinkFreud said:


> I don't know what you think this thread should be about according to you


I had this whacky notion of helping the poster with their question, but I dare say they lost interest a while ago, so I guess it doesn't really matter.



PinkFreud said:


> Now custom t-shirts may be irrelevant to you


And the thread topic.



PinkFreud said:


> I am sure MySpace is popular in Australia but although maybe it is not....I can't understand why it would not


Yes, MySpace is about as ubiquitous here as it is in the US. Although I'm told Facebook is becoming disproportionately popular here as compared to the US (as far as I know the MySpace/Facebook class divide isn't being played out so much here).


----------



## Printzilla (Mar 22, 2007)

SLGProduction said:


> still waiting on file.


Sorry... have been busy a the shop, and I am in the process of moving after selling my house. I will get you the file. 

Did we ever decide on the judges?


----------



## monkeylantern (Oct 16, 2005)

MotoskinGraphix said:


> and a frozen dinner is just 30 seconds and a button push away.


I think this sums it up perfectly. The microwave revolution did not make the oven obsolete, and strangely enough, there aren't many Michelin star'd restaurants with microwaves.

I entirely agree with Solmu. Digital printing may well be the future, but it certainly isn't the *now*, and it won't be for decades. If ever.


----------



## gerry (Oct 4, 2006)

nightdoll said:


> I am trying to find out if that print is screen print or digital? My designs will be
> very detailed and trying to find out which one would be the best
> 
> also how they print lighter colors on black t-shirt with digital printing?
> ...


Im positive that blue fade was done w/ a small touchup spraygun,the butterflies
screenprinted. I know little about dtg but think it would be hard to get around the shirt seemlessly.I use an airbrush w/ screenprinting often and thats exactlythe way it looks.


----------

