# It's All in the Screen



## tancehughes

Take a moment and think about why you went into business. If you’re like me, you started your business to make money. You invested money, time and resources into an idea and ran with it.
Now, did you jump into your business blind or did you do lots of research and careful planning to analyze every step you took? Hopefully you did your homework and planned out your path to success.


The same train of thought applies to screen making. Do you use static aluminum frames with low tension and print-flash-print whites (or worse, colors), or are you printing one stroke of every color and getting maximum opacity with high tension roller frames?


While retensionable roller frames cost more upfront than static aluminum frames, the money you will save (or better yet, earn!) from using the correct tension will propel your screen printing business to higher profits, quicker print speed, superior quality, faster growth, and less problems that you will most likely have to end up putting a band-aid on.




*What is This Going to Cost Me?*


Let’s start with the initial investment:
(24) Newman Roller Frame 18″x20″ I.D. MZX frames at $38.84 each ($932.16), plus about $4.00 of mesh for each frame ($96.00), a tension meter ($359.00), and a toolkit ($380.50) is equal to $1,767.66.
(24) Static Aluminum Frames 18″x20″ pre-stretched with mesh at $21.00 each is equal to $504.00.


Your initial investment in roller frames is over three times the cost of the static frame kit. At first glance, the decision seems to be a no-brainer. Why spend three times the amount of money on those retensionable frames when the static frames come pre-assembled and ready to go for 500 bucks? I’ll tell you why, just bear with me.


The first couple of uses of your new static frames will work just fine. The ink willclear the screen easily, the multi-color jobs will register fine, and jobs will go out the door with relative ease. However, after the first round of jobs you will notice that the ink won’t clear the screen after the first stroke. Multi-color jobs will not register properly. White ink will have to printed with two strokes, flashed, printed again with either one or two strokes, flashed again, and then you will be able to print your colors. Stencils won’t be thick enough. Exposure times will jump around and some stencils will wash out too much or not wash out at all. Ink will build up on your prints and it will feel like you are wearing a bulletproof vest made out of ink on your chest. Production speed will halt to a crawl. Wrists will grow weary of print strokes. Midnight oil will be burned at your shop while you continue to work on the job. These are but a few of the problems that you will encounter when you screen print with screens that have poor tension.


*Actual Production **Application*

We’re going to showcase a job brought into a print shop that the customer wanted reproduced. The shop that printed the original uses static aluminum frames. The shop that reproduced the artwork uses Newman Roller Frames. The white ink was printed through a 110 mesh and the royal blue ink was printed through a 230 mesh.



*This is the first image that was printed. The white had been printed/flashed/printed and built up very thick on the garment. Both screens were tensioned around 15 Newtons.*​


Let’s take the 2 color print on a black t-shirt. A full front image in white and royal blue. On a static aluminum frame (in this instance around *15 Newtons*), you will most likely need to print two strokes of white ink (.05 per stroke), flash, one stroke of white ink (.05 per stroke), flash, one stroke of royal blue ink (.05 per stroke). This means you have $0.20 of ink sitting on your garment. On a 100-shirt job, you have spent $20.00 in ink, plus whatever your cost is in two flashes.​ 

The loose tension will not have the proper openings in the mesh therefore causing you to put more pressure into your stroke and only getting a little bit of ink through the mesh. The screen will be loose and may not pop right back up after printing, bringing up the possibility of the ink smearing on multi-color jobs or the shirt sticking to the screen.


*
This is the second image that was printed. This was one stroke of white ink with a soft hand. Both screens were tensioned around 35 Newtons.*

​ Using retensionable roller frames at the correct tension (in this instance, *35 Newtons*), you can print the exact same job with one stroke of white (.05 per stroke), a flash (.05 per flash), and one stroke of royal blue (.05 per stroke). You have $0.10 of ink sitting on your garment and only the cost for one flash. On a 100-shirt job, you have spent $10.00 in ink.
​ The tight tension on roller frames will allow you to fill the mesh openings in your fill (or flood) stroke and lay the ink on top of the garment with minimal pressure. Tight tension will make the screen jump right back up after the squeegee has passed over the openings and will not stick or smear the ink.


*So What’s the Savings?*

10,000 2-color prints (4 total strokes, 2 flashes) on static frames at *15 Newtons* at .30 each – $3,000.00
10,000 2-color prints (2 total strokes, 1 flash) on roller frames at *35 Newtons* at .15 each – $1,500.00
The savings in ink and flash cost on 10,000 impressions alone will almost purchase your entire roller frame kit. Now, you may think 10,000 impressions will take a while to get to. Fair enough, let’s consider the savings in overhead that you will encounter.
Let’s say your shop rate is $50/hour (includes labor, light bill, phone bill, all overhead etc.) _*If*_ you’re able to print 50 shirts per hour on a Riley Hopkins Press with the static frames at $50/hour, it will take you 200 hours to print 10,000 impressions. That adds up to be $10,000 in costs or $1.00 per shirt.
Now, by printing the design on the same press with retensionable frames, your print time is cut in half. You should be able to print about 100 shirts per hour at your $50/hour rate, and spend only $5,000 (.50 per shirt) in overhead over the course of the 10,000 impressions.
Now how would that $5,000 savings affect your business?


*From an Automatic Point of View*

Another way to look at this is if you use an automatic press. Printing on an M&R Diamondback press at 480 pcs. per hour at the same shop rate per hour will cost you ($50 x 20.8333 hours) $1,041.66 in overhead using retensionable frames.
Using static frames on an auto? Realistically you’re looking about half the production speed. So you’d spend $2,083.32 in overhead costs.


*So Now What?*

If you take the time to apply these numbers to your business you will see where Newman Roller Frames will drastically help grow your business in greater strides than you ever imagined!

_- Tance Hughes is President of Tesep Supply Company. The company sells textile screen printing supplies and offers training to new and existing screen printers._


----------



## red514

interesting write up.
personally i have never worked with Newman roller frames but i have been hearing allot of great things about them. Proper mesh tension is a key factor in advanced screen printing that is often over looked at the average print shop. 

I've been talking with one of the main print shops i work with about the Newman roller frames and their main issue is that they won't work with the TAS machines they use.

Wondering if anyone here runs automatics with Newman roller frames.


----------



## StampedTees

I'm just getting switched over to newmans but I can tell you that finding them used is the way to go .. I've found them regularly for 12-15 per frame .. I still need mesh and a tension meter but it's not hard to avoid the high tool cost with a crescent wrench and a cheater bar welded together, I also welded the adjustable part of the wrench so it's not adjustable anymore. .. Only fits the newmans


----------



## cyclesurgeon

So, other than the originator of this thread, has anyone actually successfully done white on dark in a single stroke? Outside of a single YouTube video, which caused at least one printer conniptions, I've never seen it done...then again, I don't get out much.


----------



## Bill Hood

red514 said:


> I've been talking with one of the main print shops i work with about the Newman roller frames and their main issue is that they won't work with the TAS machines they use.


I can assure you that Newman Roller Frames work on all automatic presses including the TAS machines. I have personally used them on TAS and know for a fact that they will work just fine.

One of my clients in India has 12 TAS presses and uses Newman Roller Frames on them every day.


----------



## Bill Hood

cyclesurgeon said:


> So, other than the originator of this thread, has anyone actually successfully done white on dark in a single stroke? Outside of a single YouTube video, which caused at least one printer conniptions, I've never seen it done...then again, I don't get out much.


I have been doing One Hit White™ since I coined the phrase in 1982. And have successfully taught it to thousands over the years at the School of Screenprinting workshops.

I can give you a list of well over 100 of my clients who are quite capable of printing One Hit White™ on a daily basis. And, as more and more screenprinters become knowledgeable about the ink transfer process you see it more often.

As a rule, those who understand the ink transfer process and are capable of producing excellent quality work are far to busy to spend much time on the forums or posting at YouTube.

I have several videos at YouTube that show One Hit White™, some with large solid areas. Look for "Bill Hood Consulting" as a channel and enjoy! There is one "talking head" video that will explain how to accomplish One Hit White™ in your own shop.


----------



## cyclesurgeon

Well gee Bill, some of us are hobby printers and have to depend on the forums and YouTube to get any education.


----------



## tancehughes

Bill stated that you can watch his videos and learn how to apply it to your own shop. Check the videos out and see what you think. It's not required that you attend his class to learn one hit white.


----------



## cyclesurgeon

tancehughes said:


> Bill stated that you can watch his videos and learn how to apply it to your own shop. Check the videos out and see what you think. It's not required that you attend his class to learn one hit white.



Sorry Bill, responded while grumpy.


----------



## cyclesurgeon

OK, now that I've seen more and am in a much more receptive frame of mind (I should know better than to post grumpy) I have another question: How well to these techniques work with water based inks?


----------



## bomber315

so bill, do you think it is necessary to have newmans to get on hit white... its been awhile since i watched your videos but im pretty sure you have static frames. i learned alot from watching those videos but i still cant get one hit. maybe if i watch them again i find that one little thing im missing


----------



## BroJames

I don't doubt that a properly stretched screen equate to savings in flashing and productivity(time). I also do not doubt that a retensionable frame which enable the user to re-stretch the mesh to its proper tension equates to efficiency, better quality, and eventually savings.

I am not sure if I understand the above math correctly so correct me if I am wrong.

First, isn't $0.10 worth of underbase ink(2 strokes) a bit too high for the shown images? Anyway, if it takes 2 strokes or $0.10 worth of ink to achieve the desired opacity in that frame with less than desirable tension, wouldn't it also require about $0.10 worth of ink in that single stroke using a proper stretched screen to achieve the same opacity?

In the 100 shirt job mentioned, I think a properly stretched static frame would not have lost significant tension so the comparison is misleading.

In the 10,000 job, assuming that $0.10 worth of ink is required to achieve the desired opacity, then the additional cost of a poorly stretched screen is the extra flash + additonal labor cost. Isn't 10000 shirts x $0.05 additional flash $500?

Just trying to put things in their proper perspective.


----------



## bomber315

i was sorta thinking the same thing angel... if it takes a certain amount of ink to get the opacity you want it doesnt really matter if you put it down using 1 stroke or 15, its still the same amount of ink... now the wasted time is defiantly a factor but i dont believe your really using anymore print/ flash/ printing... i could be wrong


----------



## tancehughes

BroJames,

If you only print one stroke of white ink that lays on the top of the shirt, you will use less ink than if you have to double stroke or worse, print-flash-print. The more strokes used, the more ink put down.

I believe that it's fair to say it will cost roughly .10 for a stroke of white and a stroke of blue on a black t-shirt. If it doesn't take you that much, then plug your own numbers into the formula and see what you come up with. I believe that's best anyways, seeing your actual numbers rather than someone else's.

On the issue of the static losing tension, I have to disagree. Even 100 prints on a static will cause it to lose some tension. Maybe not significantly, but every use of that screen will cause it to lose more and more tension. The point is that the static will lose tension over time and with a retensionable frame, you can maintain the high tensions over time without having to replace the frame or re-stretch the mesh (with proper handling and care). 

This article was intended to showcase one job and the possible savings on just one job. If you think of things on a grander scale and apply this to your shop, we're looking at hundreds if not thousands of jobs a year.

I guess the main point of disagreement we have is the amount of ink required to achieve opacity. Yes I believe that to achieve the same level of opacity, two strokes of ink will cost more than one stroke.


----------



## BroJames

2 strokes "may" require more ink but if we have the same shirt, the same ink, the same screens, and with all other non-tension related variables being the same, it is just difficult to grasp why or how a single layer of ink of say 3 microns thick can have the same opacity as 2 layers of ink that is twice or 6 microns thick.

As to the static frame losing tension in just 100 shirts or less wouldn't the same apply to the retensionable frames unless one restretch it say after every 50 prints? Again, just some guesswork but do users of retensionable frames restretch after every 50m shirts or so then would there still be any cost difference between static and retensionable frames?

I am with you on the advantages of retensionable frames but I guess I'm hoping for more concrete examples like how many prints before restreching is advised? Or is the mesh prestreched multiple times before printing? I do think that after a number of restretching the mesh would hold tension way much better than a mesh pre-streched 2-3 times before the adhesive.


----------



## tancehughes

BroJames said:


> 2 strokes "may" require more ink but if we have the same shirt, the same ink, the same screens, and with all other non-tension related variables being the same, it is just difficult to grasp why or how a single layer of ink of say 3 microns thick can have the same opacity as 2 layers of ink that is twice or 6 microns thick.
> 
> As to the static frame losing tension in just 100 shirts or less wouldn't the same apply to the retensionable frames unless one restretch it say after every 50 prints? Again, just some guesswork but do users of retensionable frames restretch after every 50m shirts or so then would there still be any cost difference between static and retensionable frames?
> 
> I am with you on the advantages of retensionable frames but I guess I'm hoping for more concrete examples like how many prints before restreching is advised? Or is the mesh prestreched multiple times before printing? I do think that after a number of restretching the mesh would hold tension way much better than a mesh pre-streched 2-3 times before the adhesive.


BroJames,

See, with static frames it can be much tougher to clear the screen at a low tension. Therefore you are driving ink into the shirt by attempting to clear your screen with added pressure. For some this may not be the case, but most of the time it is.

It is much easier to lay the absolute least amount of white necessary on top of the shirt with a retensionable frame at high tension because the high tension will cause the mesh to pop right back up after printing where as at low tension it can tend to stick to the print and cause all kind of problems. Minimal pressure and the correct off-contact are also required for this to work.

With static frames, printers tend to drive more ink into the shirt (attempting to clear the screen) causing them to layer up stroke after stroke to achieve their desired opacity.

After a certain amount of re-tensionings, the mesh becomes work-hardened. You do not have to continue to re-tension the mesh after every single use, it will hold a fairly high tension level after 5 or 6 uses. A good work-hardened roller frame will hold high tension levels for thousands and thousands of prints unlike a static frame.


----------



## BroJames

Thanks for the explanation

How high a tension can a static frame hold? Or will there be some minimal "slip" on 30 newtons up?

How many retensioning does it take for a mesh to be "work hardened"? I seem to recall it is about 4 but have not been able to find the article/discussion again. 

If I stretch the mesh, and re-stretch or re-tension the mesh a few times before applying the mesh on a static frame, in how many days should the retensioning be done? Will it take weeks or actual use to work-harden the mesh?


----------



## tancehughes

It may take 5 or 6 re-tensionings, it isn't always the same.

I don't really see any "slip" around 30 newtons, you'd have to get way higher than that.

I don't apply mesh to static frames, so I don't believe I could give you the correct information regarding that.


----------



## Bill Hood

Let me jump in here with a few answers that may help to clarify some of the misconceptions. And, yes this is typical "Bill Hood" in that I have a lot of say...

A static frame purchased from your distributor is normally never stretched higher than 28N/cm2, which is pretty much all the aluminum frame can hold. Wood will hold even less as it will quickly bow.

On both the aluminum and wood frame there is a great risk of the frame never being flat, as the mesh is attached to the bottom of the frame and will cause the frame to warp (think parabola). Since the frames are seldom square, this can't be a good thing.

The mesh on the rigid frame begins to lose tension from the moment the mesh is attached to the frame. This continues during shipping and during storage at the distributor. And, it continues even when the screen is setting on your shelf, whether you ever make a single print. When you do begin to print, you will lose a slight amount of tension with each fill stroke and each squeegee stroke, until the mesh has lost enough tension to cause you to make two, three or more strokes to achieve the opacity you need.

Mesh will lose tension on a retensionable frame as well, but you can start with a much higher tension which gives you the ability to print with less off contact and thus there is far less tension loss during printing.

Couple this with the fact that you can retension the mesh back to its original tension at any time. With each retensioning the mesh becomes more "work hardened" due to the printing and the alignment of the molecular structure of the mesh threads. Each subsequent retensioning pushes the next retensioning further away and eventually you will reach the point where you can print many jobs without any significant tension loss.

Now, let's talk about ink. The cost of ink will vary with the individual printer and what they pay for ink. Some only use high opacity, top of the line inks, while others will only use inexpensive, private label inks that are "watered down" and never reach the opacity without multiple strokes even on the retensionable frames at higher tension.

This is where those who are members the "White Ink of the Month Club" will never win, because they are always looking for a deal, rather than concentrating on how to achieve the results that they need. If you want to achieve excellent results at the lowest cost per shirt, you'd do well to buy the right ink and do it with a single stroke rather than buying the inexpensive ink and having to double your production time. Its a no win situation for those who are unwilling to open their minds to the possibilities.

Now for ink transfer. Assume that the cost of a print is $0.10 to achieve opacity with a single stroke on a retensionable frame at the proper tension level that gives you sufficient volume with regards to mesh opening and emulsion over mesh ratio. With a rigid stretch and glue frame with far less than normal tension by the time you receive it, it will take two strokes. This is due to reduced size of the mesh opening at the reduced tension level.

The first pass on a new rigid frame will perhaps produce a deposit that is 80-percent of what is needed. You only need 20-percent more ink, but you will make a second pass that produces 160-percent of what was needed. This is a waste of 60-percent of your ink. 

Yes, you can make up this volume in mesh opening reduction by applying more emulsion, but you will do so at a higher cost and will always be saddled with this increase in cost of emulsion and time spent applying the additional emulsion. Not exactly a good way to make money!

The screenprinting process, while seemingly quite simple, is actually more scientific in nature than one might imagine. Yes, a child can actually put an image on almost any substrate, but the real problems rear when one attempts to produce commercial work, which must of course be acceptable to the client, while making money for the printer.

Comparing screenprinting to the recent wins by Lance Armstrong, anyone can ride a bicycle but to make a great amount of money doing so means using a lot of intelligence in learning the correct way, and then utilizing the correct way in training until it is ingrained. 

As my good friend and mentor, Don Newman (President of Stretch Devices and inventor of the Newman Roller Frame) has often stated, "Improvements in screenprinting quality usually come at the price of learning to work smarter – not harder, testing, and an open mind to new possibilities. The screenprinters that get better and make a great amount of money are constantly testing, working smarter, applying constant creativity, and are more persistent than their peers might think."

What have you learned lately? Think to learn, learn to think! And, keep moving forward, always!


----------



## tancehughes

Thanks Bill, you hit the head on the nail with your response!


----------



## Bill Hood

Yes, some will "get" it, while others never will. But, hey, that's why some make more money than others. You hear it all the time, "The guy down the street keeps low-balling and gets all the orders!" Maybe the guy down the street just has the knowledge to do the job for less money?


----------



## BroJames

That is what I am pointing out. That 2 strokes does not equate to twice the ink cost to achieve the same opacity. For people who do not have a perfect tension and ink, 2 strokes may even equals 100% opacity while a higher but not "perfectly" tensioned frame. or a "perfectly" tensioned frame but a "watered down" ink may achieve only 80% opacity. My point is there are so many variables unless you do everything "perfectly".

As said, there is no question as to the advantages of using rentensionable frames. But not everyone calculates it as cost effective. For large commercial printers the advantages are more obvious but for people printing a few thousand shirts a day, where labor is cheap, where production is not at peak and the printer have time to spare for an extra stroke, where retensionable frames are really expensive, where line tables are used and heavy retensionable frames are not practical - slowing down workflow, where their carousel press functions less smoothly with these heave frames, etc, etc, 

In some respect, the question is not retensionable vs static frames but the way the frames are built. Retensionalbe frames are built to be sturdy to start with(but heavy). Static aluminum frames are built to be light(and therefore a bit fragile above 28N/cm2?). So, on the issue of tension, the advantages of a retensionable frame that can withstand 35N/cm2 upwards versus a static frame that can hold the same tension will be limited to the "retensionability" of the frames and not initial screen tension. 

The advantages of retensionable frames also depends on printing practices. Some printers, even if they do not have tension meters, do not stretch their screens to very high tension. Let's just say they're under 20N/cm2. But whatever the real tension is, it is not a question of whether their frames can hold high and/or maintain tension or not but their "estimate" on the tension they need. 

In the case of a member here, who uses professional and expensive imagesetters to print screen printing transparencies, and specializing on simulated process, is an official printer of Manny Pacquiao shirts, he just tear away the mesh after printing. No reclaiming. Just new mesh for each print job. Well maybe the mesh are reclaimed on small print jobs but that is more of an exception (if ever). Anyway, in such case, tension lose is by and large a non issue.

What I am really trying to say is yes, retensionable frames are about the most perfect frames today for screen printing. However, I would think that majority of printers do not print as "scientifically" as they should. Retensionable frames, as Bill Hood pointed out is just a single variable. Another is the proper ink. Squeegee, squeegee angle, squeegee pressure, should be "some" of the other other variables. Emulsion thickness should also be important. Maybe even platen surface. 

I do believe that some people never "get it" and never will. There are people who insisted that their wood frames never warp even as I lay down the facts. That among the wood frames I made from properly kiln dried wood (something that cannot be said from the wood they purchased from regular hardware stores) about 20-30% warped a little in the next few weeks. And among the frames I made from "kiln dried" wood purchased from regular hardware, about 50% warped. I forgot the exact figures but it was posted in this forum.

But others get it and just feel that they do not need it. At least not in their current not so "scientific" ways. Most people who use line table presses does not want it - maybe except for printers who miss going to the gym.


----------



## Bill Hood

I tried to follow your thought pattern, but I am not sure that I did. There are several problems with the statements, Angel. The most blatant was that Newman Roller Frames are heavy. They nor other retensionable frames are not heavy. I am not sure where you got that idea. But, even then it doesn't play into the equation. 

As far as who uses Newmans. I have visited the Philippines and many other parts of Southeast Asia, as well as other parts of Asia and seen many printers that were using Newman Roller Frames quite successfully. Surprisingly, some of the shops were still printing on hand tables, but understood the concept of tension and ink transfer and made the switch to Newmans.

During several trips to India, I visited with shops that had dirt floors and tin roofs. Not only were they using Newmans, but actually had Newman Roller Masters in place and were printing with some fairly decent high tension.

As for cost, one should never look at the buy in cost, but more importantly the return on the investment and the additional profits one can put back into their pockets. Yes, it cost money to make money. Those that are not willing to invest in the future will surely remain poor.

Bill Hood


----------



## Bill Hood

cyclesurgeon said:


> Sorry Bill, responded while grumpy.


That's okay, I didn't write it for you. I mainly write for those who are moving to the next step. But I am glad that you finally got the message.


----------



## BroJames

Because I have a roller chase(chase diamond)retensionable frame and it is heavier than my static aluminum frames. I have 2 types of aluminum frames-professionally stretched. 

Maybe it does not mean much on rotary presses but they're a burden hand-lifting the frames just a few dozen times will takes its toll on the elbow, biceps and shoulder blade muscles. Several other printers have newman frames and reported they're heavier than aluminum frames.

Like I said, I do recognize the concept and advantages of retensionable frames. If I can put every single variable under control (correct tension, ink, press, etc) and have the printing volume then I'd go for retensionable frames. But for whatever it is worth, I am just trying to present the other side of why people, even those who raalize the advantages of retensionable frames, don't use them. And this includes a few printers who are currently using U.S. made rotary presses and who have the means to buy retensionable frames. Maybe technical support from local screen printing suppliers and ink distributors is also a factor.


----------



## Bill Hood

The Newman Roller Frame that you are referring to weights 2.8 pounds. If you are having trouble lifting that, you may want to consider hitting the gym more often.

To put that into perspective, a 1-gallon bucket of ink weighs about 10 pounds and I have never heard anyone complaining about having to lift a bucket of ink that weighs over 3-times that of a Newman Roller Frame.

Unless you are table printing, you would never actually have to lift the frame during printing. In most cases the frame is cantilevered on the press by a hinge and springs that allow it to be lifted with minimal exertion.

Also, you might want to consider that in most cases the ink and squeegee that one places in the frame will double the weight.

Presenting the "other side" usually does not work out well, as one must have a dog in the race to fully understand the problems and be able to speak intelligently about the subject.

The technical support is not nor has ever been a reality. The distributors do not want you to succeed. They want to keep selling you disposable frames and have you buying twice the ink that will be required with two (or more) strokes.

The simple truth of the matter, is that you must take responsibility for what you think, say and do. If you want to succeed in business or in life, you must take the responsibility seriously and not depend on others for support or to give you the answers.

I am out of here, as this thread has exhausted it's usefulness.


----------



## StampedTees

BroJames said:


> If I can put every single variable under control (correct tension, ink, press, etc) and have the printing volume then I'd go for retensionable frames.


Just to be clear, are you saying that because you can't control everything then you don't want to control anything?


----------



## BroJames

Bill Hood said:


> The Newman Roller Frame that you are referring to weights 2.8 pounds. If you are having trouble lifting that, you may want to consider hitting the gym more often.
> 
> ...
> Unless you are table printing, you would never actually have to lift the frame during printing. In most cases the frame is cantilevered on the press by a hinge and springs that allow it to be lifted with minimal exertion.
> 
> ....


Yes, that is what I use (table)



Bill Hood said:


> The Newman Roller Frame that you are referring to weights 2.8 pounds. If you are having trouble lifting that, you may want to consider hitting the gym more often.
> 
> ...
> Unless you are table printing, you would never actually have to lift the frame during printing. In most cases the frame is cantilevered on the press by a hinge and springs that allow it to be lifted with minimal exertion.
> 
> ....


 Yes, that is what I use (table, not rotary) 



BroJames said:


> Because I have a roller chase(chase diamond)retensionable frame and it is heavier than my static aluminum frames. I have 2 types of aluminum frames-professionally stretched.
> 
> Maybe it does not mean much on rotary presses but they're a burden hand-lifting the frames just a few dozen times will takes its toll on the elbow, biceps and shoulder blade muscles. Several other printers have newman frames and reported they're heavier than aluminum frames....



Specifically I refer to my roller chase retensionable frame which weighs more than my static aluminum frames. If a newman weighs 2.8lbs then that's about the weight of my aluminum frames.


----------

