# Washing out emulsion for halftone image, can't figure out why



## trailheadgirl (Dec 2, 2016)

Hey everyone,

I've been having trouble with washing out the emulsion after exposure to a halftone image. I am using Chromaline ChromaBlue emulsion, one coat of both sides of the screen, I let the screen dry overnight, and expose it for 2 minutes to the halftone image. I have done a step wedge test - my original one in the summer said the ideal time was 90 seconds, but this one I did a few days ago (trying to trouble shoot my problem) seemed to indicate that 2 minutes was better. The step wedge test washed out fine, too, as does any other image that we have burned lately. Just these halftones seem to result in the emulsion peeling off of the screen. I made sure that the screens are cleaned thoroughly before they get emulsion. They are left completely dark, overnight, and I wash them out after exposure with a pressure washer. The first image was with a garden hose that I could control the pressure and spray of. 

Any suggestions would be helpful. I originally thought the coldness of the drying room and the water we use to wash them out was the problem, but I've since added a small heater in the room to keep it about 65-70 degrees, and I added some hot water to the cold water so it is about lukewarm to mildly cold now. I have also had this problem with two different batches of the same brand of emulsion. I've used this emulsion for at least 6 months now with no other issues, including doing halftone images. I'm out of ideas at this point.

Pictures, the first one is with the garden hose, the second one is with the pressure washer: https://imgur.com/a/rOI6m


----------



## Frienzy (Mar 13, 2012)

If this emulsion is pure photopolymer (without diazo added in it) you might need to add diazo to use it for halftones.
But from pics it looks waaay underexposed.


----------



## trailheadgirl (Dec 2, 2016)

It's not a diazo emulsion, why would adding diazo to it help with halftone images?

A lot of people are saying it's underexposed. 90 seconds is my usual time, but I upped this to 2.5 minutes, after doing a step wedge test 2 days ago. I'm doing another step wedge today, to double-verify what time will work best. But I'm worried that anything above 2.5 minutes will be overexposed, because these dots are so tiny, that they will be very hard or nearly impossible to wash out if I expose them to too much light.


----------



## rcrotty82 (Apr 19, 2017)

What mesh count? Did you use hose or pressure washer? It looks like WAY too much water was used trying to clear the screen and you saturated the emulsion to the point it broke down.


----------



## trailheadgirl (Dec 2, 2016)

Mesh count is 305, since we are trying to wash out a halftone image. I've used both a hose and a pressure washer at this point, both of them resulted in the same effect on the emulsion. I just did a step wedge test now, and the whole thing washed out, from 30 seconds to 5 minutes. So I'm baffled at this point. 

I thought maybe it was too much water being used with the hose, which is why I switched to the pressure washer, to make the process faster. But it starts to peel like the pictures immediately, as soon as any of it starts to wash away. I think the emulsion must not be adhering to the mesh for some reason, either the humidity, or underexposure, or perhaps the cleaning process leaves the screens greasy, though I can't see how since I do it myself. I've switched from Dawn dish soap to Ajax, which I hear is a better degreaser, and I bought a brand new brush, to hopefully rull that out. It's just a process of elimination at this point.


----------



## rcrotty82 (Apr 19, 2017)

You mentioned you have used this same bucket of emulsion on other screens with no issues correct? I assume those were also de-greased that same way as the 305? I have never used dish soap as a degreaser so I really can't say if that is or is not an issue, maybe try some simple green? Do you run a dehumidifier?


----------



## trailheadgirl (Dec 2, 2016)

Yes, I've used this same bucket, and other buckets of the same emulsion, with no problems. Everything has been cleaned and degreased in the same way for years now. I do use a dehumidifier. Simple green is an interesting idea, I might try that. Is it a good degreaser? I'm thinking at this point that the problem has to be underexposure or an improperly cleaned screen. Can't think of anything else it could be.


----------



## Twisted Grafix (Oct 5, 2016)

What kind of exposure unit do you have? Is the bulb(s) going bad?


----------



## trailheadgirl (Dec 2, 2016)

Funny you mention that, I checked the table out yesterday, thinking this same thing. It's a Lawson ExpoLight, and there were 2 bulbs that were out, right in the center of it! I moved them to the edges and moved two of the working ones to the center, and tried burning my image again yesterday - same problem. Also tried the step wedge test this morning, and blew the whole thing out. So I fixed a problem, but apparently not the one that is causing my issue.


----------



## Twisted Grafix (Oct 5, 2016)

All the bulbs have to be in working order to get enough fully saturated light and a nice, even light coverage over the emulsion to properly crosslink it. The other thought is that the bulbs are on their way out so the wavelength may be less than ideal. Keep in mind that the bulbs may look like UV light, but the wavelength is what really matters when exposing. Brightness doesn't matter much as long as the wavelength is saturated in the proper range.


----------



## trailheadgirl (Dec 2, 2016)

This is an interesting idea. The light table is old, so this might be the problem. How do I check the wavelength of the bulbs?


----------



## Twisted Grafix (Oct 5, 2016)

This may be a little long-winded....

In my research, you would have to use a spectrometer with a diffraction grater film to break down the visible (red, orange, yellow, blue, violet) light colors. The wavelength is measured in nanometers (nm) and each light color or energy is in a different wavelength range. Microwave, x-ray, infrared, gamma, and TV/radio are not of any use, thus no concern to us now. Ultraviolet light is mainly non-visible, however, it does have a small section in the violet range. This is the range (about 320nm-410nm) that the exposure units are based off of. The lower the nm rating, the higher the energy output. Think of it this way, if a 100w bug light bulb is installed in your dark room, it will give off a yellow light (590nm-565nm), but the emulsion will not expose because the wavelength is in the wrong spectrum. If an unfiltered UV blacklight is installed (450NM-320nm), the lighter colors in the room will glow, but the room will remain fairly dark. Your emulsion will have a better chance of exposing due to the intense UV energy given off in the proper nm range. 
You could easily test this without spending a penny on expensive spectrometer testing equipment. Take the screen outside and utilize the sun. The sun produces all sepctrum of wavelengths. (similar to the thought process of a metal hallide multi-spectrum unit). Using the sun will allow all spectrums to cross link the emulsion. If it exposes properly, then you know it's the bulbs. If it doesn't expose, it's bad emulsion. Another way is to replace all the bulbs and do another test in the exposure unit.
Older bulbs will shift out of the needed range over time and will have to be replaced. It doesn't matter is it's halogen, fluorescent tube, CFL, or metal hallide.

Hope this helps!


----------



## trailheadgirl (Dec 2, 2016)

Thanks so much, this is great advice. I'll try this next Tuesday and see if it works (it's cloudy and rainy here now). I have tried everything else, and I had no idea the bulbs could go bad, so hopefully this is the answer!

Cheers and merry xmas!


----------



## NoXid (Apr 4, 2011)

Twisted Grafix nailed it. Emulsion expires and bulbs burn out. Check the emulsion and replace the bulbs.


----------



## Twisted Grafix (Oct 5, 2016)

Please let me know what you find...

Merry Christmas!


----------



## sben763 (May 17, 2009)

trailheadgirl said:


> Thanks so much, this is great advice. I'll try this next Tuesday and see if it works (it's cloudy and rainy here now). I have tried everything else, and I had no idea the bulbs could go bad, so hopefully this is the answer!
> 
> Cheers and merry xmas!


Unless the chroma blue has the manufacturing date of 1 year or longer are was exposed repeatedly to a uv source it’s likely not the emulsion. 

The older Lawson expo lights were supplied with 2 different lights and are interchangeable. The can have daylight or unfiltered black lights. The unfiltered blacklights will need to be ordered while most big box hardware stores carry the daylight bulbs. The unfiltered black lights put out 2-3x the uv of a daylight. 

Fluorescent lights age as they have mercury gas as well as a few other metals depending on the bulb and purpose. They can leak as well as the metals will deteriorate with use. They should be changed at least every 2 years with light use and every year with heavier use. 

Another thing is humidity. If it’s moist when exposed the sensitizers are not as sensitive. I have a dehumifer in screen room to keep the variables consistent. 

Also with colder weather fluorescent bulbs may need a 2-3 min warm up period before exposing. If you have ever had fluorescent lighting and in the colder months notice they are dim when turned on and 2-3 min later that are much brighter. This is due to the gas being much more condensed.


----------



## trailheadgirl (Dec 2, 2016)

Sun exposure was inconclusive. I think I exposed it too much, barely any of it washed out.

On the plus side, I used my regular light table and did some exposures, and they are better than the ones last week. I think my problem might have been humidity in combination with an extra thick layer of emulsion on some screens. I put two thin layers on screens, let them sit 4 days, and they washed out without that strange effect this morning. The negative is that I still have trouble getting the tiny details out without washing away some of the other details. Working on fixing that now. Halftones are frustrating


----------



## trailheadgirl (Dec 2, 2016)

sben763 said:


> Unless the chroma blue has the manufacturing date of 1 year or longer are was exposed repeatedly to a uv source it’s likely not the emulsion.
> 
> The older Lawson expo lights were supplied with 2 different lights and are interchangeable. The can have daylight or unfiltered black lights. The unfiltered blacklights will need to be ordered while most big box hardware stores carry the daylight bulbs. The unfiltered black lights put out 2-3x the uv of a daylight.
> 
> ...



I agree that it wasn't the emulsion, especially considering I did this with both an older emulsion and a brand new gallon. I think you're right it must have been the humidity, even though I had the humidifier going. I also think that the thickness of the emulsion on the screen might have played a part, leaving the back side of it underexposed so that it didn't adhere to the screen.

Do you know how I can figure out if I have fluorescent light bulbs or UV black lights? My boss is insisting that we have UV lights, but I think they might be fluorescents. And they are probably at least 5 or 6 years old, I'm guessing closer to 10 years old.


----------



## sben763 (May 17, 2009)

trailheadgirl said:


> I agree that it wasn't the emulsion, especially considering I did this with both an older emulsion and a brand new gallon. I think you're right it must have been the humidity, even though I had the humidifier going. I also think that the thickness of the emulsion on the screen might have played a part, leaving the back side of it underexposed so that it didn't adhere to the screen.
> 
> Do you know how I can figure out if I have fluorescent light bulbs or UV black lights? My boss is insisting that we have UV lights, but I think they might be fluorescents. And they are probably at least 5 or 6 years old, I'm guessing closer to 10 years old.


The bulb is marked on the end. BL will usually start the part number for black lights. FL for standard. After initial bulb use after 2 years there is 50% or less UV from the bulbs. If they are that old they are putting out less then 25% UV. 

If you get new bulbs time will shorten but more importantly it will cook(expose) the screen fully.


----------



## Industryps (Aug 9, 2016)

Other user have offered some great tips for your consideration, but let me offer one more idea that has yet to be brought up...

What are you using for your film positives? With halftone images, you need to make sure that black parts of your film are REALLY OPAQUE... this is especially true for small halftones and when burning on a 305.
Is the film for your step test a different type of print than your film?

In our experience, a 305 burns considerably faster than other dyed mesh counts. On average, our 305's burn in roughly half the time of a 156 and still faster than a 230.


----------



## sben763 (May 17, 2009)

Industryps said:


> Other user have offered some great tips for your consideration, but let me offer one more idea that has yet to be brought up...
> 
> What are you using for your film positives? With halftone images, you need to make sure that black parts of your film are REALLY OPAQUE... this is especially true for small halftones and when burning on a 305.
> Is the film for your step test a different type of print than your film?
> ...


Since the screens are washing out this would not be the issue. If they were hard to washout the film opacity could be a issue.


----------



## Industryps (Aug 9, 2016)

sben763 said:


> Since the screens are washing out this would not be the issue. If they were hard to washout the film opacity could be a issue.


When I look at the OP's pics, they seem more like waterlogged emulsion breaking down from trying to force out the image for an extended period of time. In my experience, emulsion that is not properly exposed will just fall out completely, as opposed to bubbling up and peeling away like in the Op's images.
If it was truly under exposed (and not old emulsion or etc.), I'd expect to see a fully washed out image that is covered in pinholes and gritty textures from washout...


----------



## trailheadgirl (Dec 2, 2016)

Looks like I have Sylvania F40, so it is the fluorescent UV bulbs. My boss is trying to tell me that this doesn't matter, that the age isn't that bad and they probably still put out enough light. He is also insisting that this type of bulb is fine for halftone work. Is that the case, or does the type of bulb matter compared to a black light UV or an LED? Everything I've read so far seems to say that the type of bulb does matter, but I don't know a whole lot yet.

As far as the opacity of the film, that is something we considered, and we reprinted the films to see if we could get more detail out. I burned one screen with the new film, and I got more detail out without that strange effect, but too much detail still washed away with the pressure washer, and some of it didn't come out at all. So I'm thinking that I will underexpose it some and wash it out gently, with this more-opaque film, and see how I do with that.


----------



## sben763 (May 17, 2009)

Industryps said:


> When I look at the OP's pics, they seem more like waterlogged emulsion breaking down from trying to force out the image for an extended period of time. In my experience, emulsion that is not properly exposed will just fall out completely, as opposed to bubbling up and peeling away like in the Op's images.
> If it was truly under exposed (and not old emulsion or etc.), I'd expect to see a fully washed out image that is covered in pinholes and gritty textures from washout...


If emulsion is slimy, tacky bubbled it’s under exposed. If water can bubble the emulsion there is a problem with underexpoure. This can be due to emulsion not fully dry as wet sensitizers are as sensitive. This can also be dirty screens causing bubbling. Following the thread it is clear to me the problem lives in the bulbs. 

Just fyi a properly cleaned, dried and exposed screen is very durable and can withstand power washer and extended water exposure. There was a article years ago by a tech at either Ulano or Saati that started about 75% or more shops under expose. It went on to say that proper films, degreasing, proper drying and a host of other issues as well as degraded and weak light sources. 

I have a dip tank but don’t use it to reclaim screens. It simply has water in it and I use as a developing tank. I’ll expose screens and set in tank till I get all them exposed. Then take out 1 at a time and washout. There has been times due to phone or other delay those screens sat in water up to an hour. They washout without any screen degrading and still no slim.


----------



## trailheadgirl (Dec 2, 2016)

Industryps said:


> When I look at the OP's pics, they seem more like waterlogged emulsion breaking down from trying to force out the image for an extended period of time. In my experience, emulsion that is not properly exposed will just fall out completely, as opposed to bubbling up and peeling away like in the Op's images.
> If it was truly under exposed (and not old emulsion or etc.), I'd expect to see a fully washed out image that is covered in pinholes and gritty textures from washout...


I wondered if the water-logged emulsion was the problem, which is why I switched to a pressure washer, and used the step-wedge test. But the effect would happen almost instantly, within the first 30 seconds to a minute of washing it out. I think the problem must have been humidity, plus too-thick emulsion on the screen. I have mostly solved the emulsion-peeling-off problem, I think, but I am still having trouble getting the fine detail out without washing the rest of the image away. I've done half-tones before, but not much, and never had this much trouble with them.

I think you might be right about the opacity of the film, I'm working on that solution now. I am leaning towards the idea that the light is getting underneathe the edges of the black dots, so that the smaller dots are overexposed and won't wash out, and I spend too long trying to wash them out and the other dots get blown out.


----------



## trailheadgirl (Dec 2, 2016)

sben763 said:


> If emulsion is slimy, tacky bubbled it’s under exposed. If water can bubble the emulsion there is a problem with underexpoure. This can be due to emulsion not fully dry as wet sensitizers are as sensitive. This can also be dirty screens causing bubbling. Following the thread it is clear to me the problem lives in the bulbs.
> 
> Just fyi a properly cleaned, dried and exposed screen is very durable and can withstand power washer and extended water exposure. There was a article years ago by a tech at either Ulano or Saati that started about 75% or more shops under expose. It went on to say that proper films, degreasing, proper drying and a host of other issues as well as degraded and weak light sources.
> 
> I have a dip tank but don’t use it to reclaim screens. It simply has water in it and I use as a developing tank. I’ll expose screens and set in tank till I get all them exposed. Then take out 1 at a time and washout. There has been times due to phone or other delay those screens sat in water up to an hour. They washout without any screen degrading and still no slim.


You let the screens sit for an hour in water and the exposed emulsion was fine? That is really interesting. What do you use as a light source to expose them?

Also, do you have a link to the article that talks about shops underexposing screens? Underexposure has always been my quick answer for halftones and fine detail...


----------



## sben763 (May 17, 2009)

trailheadgirl said:


> I wondered if the water-logged emulsion was the problem, which is why I switched to a pressure washer, and used the step-wedge test. But the effect would happen almost instantly, within the first 30 seconds to a minute of washing it out. I think the problem must have been humidity, plus too-thick emulsion on the screen. I have mostly solved the emulsion-peeling-off problem, I think, but I am still having trouble getting the fine detail out without washing the rest of the image away. I've done half-tones before, but not much, and never had this much trouble with them.
> 
> I think you might be right about the opacity of the film, I'm working on that solution now. I am leaning towards the idea that the light is getting underneathe the edges of the black dots, so that the smaller dots are overexposed and won't wash out, and I spend too long trying to wash them out and the other dots get blown out.


Are you letting yours screen devolop at all? There is a problem in your screen making exposing. Here is how to test take a coin tape on screen. The take a sharpie and make several dots. 

From experience if your telling me those bulbs are that old you can do everything in the world and maybe get some ok screens but they will never burn a correct screen with out a extended exposure time. With the fluorescent/blacklights bulbs the longer the exposure the more the undercutting you’ll get.


----------



## trailheadgirl (Dec 2, 2016)

sben763 said:


> Are you letting yours screen devolop at all? There is a problem in your screen making exposing. Here is how to test take a coin tape on screen. The take a sharpie and make several dots.
> 
> From experience if your telling me those bulbs are that old you can do everything in the world and maybe get some ok screens but they will never burn a correct screen with out a extended exposure time. With the fluorescent/blacklights bulbs the longer the exposure the more the undercutting you’ll get.


I'm thinking it's the bulbs as well. An average spot color design will come out just fine, but halftone work has always been difficult, and I've never been able to get out the small detail that I need to make it look good. 

Tape a dime to the screen, make dots with a sharpie.. and then what? I was just going to do another step wedge test. What I do for spot color designs is expose the screen for 2-2.5 minutes, then wash it out, and it's fine. For halftones or more detailed work, I cut the time down to 90 seconds. I've never changed the time for a 110 vs a 305, I didn't realize there was a difference. I only know that 90 seconds for high detail on a 305 with the blue photopolymer emulsion is the best way I've gotten detailed work to come out.


----------



## sben763 (May 17, 2009)

trailheadgirl said:


> You let the screens sit for an hour in water and the exposed emulsion was fine? That is really interesting. What do you use as a light source to expose them?
> 
> Also, do you have a link to the article that talks about shops underexposing screens? Underexposure has always been my quick answer for halftones and fine detail...


Not normally but it happens but on the average they sit in the tank 10-15 min 

I think the bulb age is your biggest. When I get back I’ll look for some of the exposure articles and if there still on the net. Good reading. What printer are you using and inks? I maybe able to give you settings to make better films.


----------



## sben763 (May 17, 2009)

trailheadgirl said:


> I'm thinking it's the bulbs as well. An average spot color design will come out just fine, but halftone work has always been difficult, and I've never been able to get out the small detail that I need to make it look good.
> 
> Tape a dime to the screen, make dots with a sharpie.. and then what? I was just going to do another step wedge test. What I do for spot color designs is expose the screen for 2-2.5 minutes, then wash it out, and it's fine. For halftones or more detailed work, I cut the time down to 90 seconds. I've never changed the time for a 110 vs a 305, I didn't realize there was a difference. I only know that 90 seconds for high detail on a 305 with the blue photopolymer emulsion is the best way I've gotten detailed work to come out.



Expose. If the sharpie and coin wash out maybe film also but a bulb that old even if never used will be weak. 

When I used the fluorescent light I cut back 15-30 sec max for halftones. I did use a white scrub pad and lightly hit both sides while wetting screens. Then a good spray and let that develop for 30 sec the washout. 

I’ll be back about an hour or so. I have a few YouTube video I’ll find and post.


----------



## trailheadgirl (Dec 2, 2016)

sben763 said:


> Not normally but it happens but on the average they sit in the tank 10-15 min
> 
> I think the bulb age is your biggest. When I get back I’ll look for some of the exposure articles and if there still on the net. Good reading. What printer are you using and inks? I maybe able to give you settings to make better films.


Roland VersaCamm SP-300v, Ulano Pigment Inkjet Film, setting under the print program is GPPG material, High Quality, Interpolation is BiCubic, Preset is Density Control, and we turn the black ink all the way up. The file is always an EPS. I have noticed, upon looking closely, that the black isn't exactly as opaque as it probably could be...

Also, thanks for all of your responses, it has been very helpful to bounce ideas around and get some good information and feedback.


----------



## sben763 (May 17, 2009)

trailheadgirl said:


> Roland VersaCamm SP-300v, Ulano Pigment Inkjet Film, setting under the print program is GPPG material, High Quality, Interpolation is BiCubic, Preset is Density Control, and we turn the black ink all the way up. The file is always an EPS. I have noticed, upon looking closely, that the black isn't exactly as opaque as it probably could be...
> 
> Also, thanks for all of your responses, it has been very helpful to bounce ideas around and get some good information and feedback.


Have you ever tried a 100% CMYK sent to printer. Sorry Roland is one of the few printers not familiar with but sounds like you have max ink unless the CMYK method will result of more ink being laid down. I’ll take it it’s loaded with pigment ink since that’s the film but maybe not. Anyway pigment ink will never be as dark as dye but does just as good as job if not better as pigment ink has UV inhibitors and why they are a archival ink. 

I have a passion for screen making. Without proper screens you can get by but with correct ones some images just come to life. Even single color prints. First exposure unit I bought from there have built the next 3 units. I have develop and sold my own LED single source exposure unit. So I have a lot of experience with proper screen making and different light sources. I have test equipment that even most bigger shops don’t have. A UV puck for instance. Measures UV output. Anyway I’ll look up articles and links hopefully shortly. I got back sooner then I thought!!!


----------



## Industryps (Aug 9, 2016)

A Roland printer is not going to give you an opaque enough black for your halftones. I'm honestly surprised you are even able to burn the ones you've been using. 
Eco-solvent inks are way to transparent for clear media applications unless you can underbase it.
We tried using our Roland XR-640 for film positives and even having it lay down as much black as possible (banner media settings with a CMYK value of 95/95/95/100 with unidirectional etc, etc..) we were never able to get close to what the Epsons can do. The Artisan 1430 with all black ink conversion is a great starting point for black, black films.


----------



## sben763 (May 17, 2009)

Industryps said:


> A Roland printer is not going to give you an opaque enough black for your halftones. I'm honestly surprised you are even able to burn the ones you've been using. We tried using our Roland XR-640 for film positives and even having it lay down as much black as possible (banner media settings with a CMYK value of 95/95/95/100 with unidirectional etc, etc..) we were never able to get close to what the Epsons can do. The Artisan 1430 with all black ink conversion is a great starting point for black, black films.


The opacity of the ink isn’t as important as the UV blocking. I have a clear film, was printed with clear UV ink and exposes a great halftone image. I know the X-RAY-640 is a eco solvent ink which doesn’t have the same UV blocking properties of pigment. If the OP is using eco solvent also I will stand corrected and say you have many issues going on but if the bulbs are that old they are toast. Actually surprised they still lite at all. I use a 1430 and it beats almost all the other Epson printers in halftone formation. The dot are so much better the our 4900 or any of our past 3000/4000 series printer. Should still be on her but years ago I posted several pics taken with a microscope showing 3 different printers and the 1400/1430 was the cheapest but printed the best halftones.


----------



## trailheadgirl (Dec 2, 2016)

Industryps said:


> A Roland printer is not going to give you an opaque enough black for your halftones. I'm honestly surprised you are even able to burn the ones you've been using.
> Eco-solvent inks are way to transparent for clear media applications unless you can underbase it.
> We tried using our Roland XR-640 for film positives and even having it lay down as much black as possible (banner media settings with a CMYK value of 95/95/95/100 with unidirectional etc, etc..) we were never able to get close to what the Epsons can do. The Artisan 1430 with all black ink conversion is a great starting point for black, black films.


I didn't realize this might be a problem. Is it the ink (Eco-Sol Max) that is the problem? If we used a different film or ink would we get a more opaque film? Can't really replace the Roland at this point.


----------



## trailheadgirl (Dec 2, 2016)

sben763 said:


> The opacity of the ink isn’t as important as the UV blocking. I have a clear film, was printed with clear UV ink and exposes a great halftone image. I know the X-RAY-640 is a eco solvent ink which doesn’t have the same UV blocking properties of pigment. If the OP is using eco solvent also I will stand corrected and say you have many issues going on but if the bulbs are that old they are toast. Actually surprised they still lite at all. I use a 1430 and it beats almost all the other Epson printers in halftone formation. The dot are so much better the our 4900 or any of our past 3000/4000 series printer. Should still be on her but years ago I posted several pics taken with a microscope showing 3 different printers and the 1400/1430 was the cheapest but printed the best halftones.


I'm using EcoSol Max ink, is that not opaque enough for halftones? Also found out that the bulbs are 12 years old, so perhaps I do have plenty of issues to choose from, haha. The bulbs are rated for 20,000 hours, but I've been learning about lumen depreciation today. I can't find anything that says exactly what their depreciation rate is for these bulbs, but I am fairly certain they are at about 50% at least, if not worse.


----------



## Industryps (Aug 9, 2016)

trailheadgirl said:


> I didn't realize this might be a problem. Is it the ink (Eco-Sol Max) that is the problem? If we used a different film or ink would we get a more opaque film? Can't really replace the Roland at this point.


You can get an Artisan 1430 for a couple hundred bucks, and you can trim your Ulano films down to use in it until you wanna pony up and get a pack of 13x19 films.

The Ulano film is best, and is probably how you've been able to get workable films in the past. When you hold one of your films up to the light, can you see through it, even a little? When you hold the same film material printed off an Epson to the light, it is SOLID black, no traces of light from either side.


----------



## trailheadgirl (Dec 2, 2016)

Industryps said:


> You can get an Artisan 1430 for a couple hundred bucks, and you can trim your Ulano films down to use in it until you wanna pony up and get a pack of 13x19 films.
> 
> The Ulano film is best, and is probably how you've been able to get workable films in the past. When you hold one of your films up to the light, can you see through it, even a little? When you hold the same film material printed off an Epson to the light, it is SOLID black, no traces of light from either side.


Yes, I can see through the black parts of the film. I never really thought about that, since it works for everything else we do. But I am trying to learn how to do halftones, and perhaps this is part of the problem. Is there a different ink I can buy that will make the Roland print a more opaque image on the Ulano film?


----------



## Industryps (Aug 9, 2016)

trailheadgirl said:


> Is there a different ink I can buy that will make the Roland print a more opaque image on the Ulano film?


We use the new Nazdar inks for Roland which are far better IMO, but I still don't see them being capable of printing a truly opaque black.

If you are in a pinch, a local Office Max or FedEx or better yet, local Copy Shop/Blueline Printer can help if your image can fit on an 11x17 transparency. You can get a pretty darn good film off a color laser printer, which uses a really dense wax-based toner as opposed to the dry powder toners the b+w machines use. My first four-color process work was done using these films with a 65-ish halftone on 305's and 355's and they worked out amazing well.


----------



## sben763 (May 17, 2009)

trailheadgirl said:


> I'm using EcoSol Max ink, is that not opaque enough for halftones? Also found out that the bulbs are 12 years old, so perhaps I do have plenty of issues to choose from, haha. The bulbs are rated for 20,000 hours, but I've been learning about lumen depreciation today. I can't find anything that says exactly what their depreciation rate is for these bulbs, but I am fairly certain they are at about 50% at least, if not worse.


Eco solvent doesn’t have the UV blocking properties needed. If you could get it to print dark would work but eco solvent is translucent with almost no UV blocking properties. 

Post the bulb number printed at the end. 20,000 hours. That’s turned one once a day left on 8-12 hours some bulbs are rated at 3hrs each run but the constant starting degrades the bulbs much quicker requardsless. Every time you turn those on and off there is a starter that ignites the gas every time, that lighting degrades the mercury vapor, argon or krypton gasses which depending on the gas mixture will determine the UV output. The ignition degrades the gases at different rates so the bulbs still lite while not outputting as much UVA which is what is needed to cross link the emulsion.


----------



## trailheadgirl (Dec 2, 2016)

Industryps said:


> We use the new Nazdar inks for Roland which are far better IMO, but I still don't see them being capable of printing a truly opaque black.
> 
> If you are in a pinch, a local Office Max or FedEx or better yet, local Copy Shop/Blueline Printer can help if your image can fit on an 11x17 transparency. You can get a pretty darn good film off a color laser printer, which uses a really dense wax-based toner as opposed to the dry powder toners the b+w machines use. My first four-color process work was done using these films with a 65-ish halftone on 305's and 355's and they worked out amazing well.


Did you have any trouble switching from the regular Eco inks to Nazdar? I'm worried about using the same ink for about a decade, then switching it up.

I checked my older films from years ago, and they are more opaque than what we are using now. I hadn't noticed a difference until now. I think our printer head might be going bad, because there is a subtle banding in the parts that should be solid black. I've done halftones before with better luck, so I'm thinking that the bad opacity of these films is another part of my puzzle.

This whole problem has turned more complicated than I thought it would be. We've ordered new bulbs, though, black light ones this time, so hopefully that will make a difference. And we are looking into different ink, or maybe getting a different machine just for making films, or buying another print cutter entirely. 

Thanks so much for your help and feedback on this!


----------



## trailheadgirl (Dec 2, 2016)

sben763 said:


> Eco solvent doesn’t have the UV blocking properties needed. If you could get it to print dark would work but eco solvent is translucent with almost no UV blocking properties.
> 
> Post the bulb number printed at the end. 20,000 hours. That’s turned one once a day left on 8-12 hours some bulbs are rated at 3hrs each run but the constant starting degrades the bulbs much quicker requardsless. Every time you turn those on and off there is a starter that ignites the gas every time, that lighting degrades the mercury vapor, argon or krypton gasses which depending on the gas mixture will determine the UV output. The ignition degrades the gases at different rates so the bulbs still lite while not outputting as much UVA which is what is needed to cross link the emulsion.


We've gotten new bulbs, black lights with no coating, so that should help. 

As for the ink, I really don't know what to do about it. We are looking into a different ink that might be more opaque, and I'm also going to look into getting a new printer just for films, or even a new print cutter. My black ink also used to be more opaque than it is now, so I'm wondering if our print head is going. Lots of issues to sort through at this point. 

Thanks for all the help. I'll post an update after I get the new lights installed. Merry Christmas!


----------



## sben763 (May 17, 2009)

To change the inks in the Roland would cost more then a new Epson 1430. I’m sure new capping station, complete line and head flush, plus I’m sure that Roland is there for other purposes and it’s just being used for the films. This is for changing ink types. If from one brand to another same type of ink normally cleaning cycle is needed. 

A 1430 can be used with factory inks but much better with all black and either printing from a RIP or by using C 100 M 70 Y 100 K10. You can’t use the 100%CMYK on Epson 1430 like you could on the Epson 1400

You want some films to compare to. Send me a PM and I give you contact info where to email a few files. Send a few files I’ll print them out and get in the mail. I actually buy Fixxons Film. I think just as good at about 50% of the cost.


----------



## Industryps (Aug 9, 2016)

trailheadgirl said:


> Did you have any trouble switching from the regular Eco inks to Nazdar? I'm worried about using the same ink for about a decade, then switching it up.


Since the switch we have had much better results matching clients colors, the blacks have a nice rich, semi-gloss finish, and they are considerably cheaper to boot. To be candid, we did have the Light Cyan head go out a couple months into the switch, but our GSG tech said it was highly likely due to normal wear and tear. Our XR-640 runs 8 hours a day, every day since we got it and shoes no signs of slowing down.

The Nazdar inks are plug-and-play... Just switch out your old cartridges, and run a couple cleaning cycles and you're good to go!


----------



## sben763 (May 17, 2009)

trailheadgirl said:


> We've gotten new bulbs, black lights with no coating, so that should help.
> 
> As for the ink, I really don't know what to do about it. We are looking into a different ink that might be more opaque, and I'm also going to look into getting a new printer just for films, or even a new print cutter. My black ink also used to be more opaque than it is now, so I'm wondering if our print head is going. Lots of issues to sort through at this point.
> 
> Thanks for all the help. I'll post an update after I get the new lights installed. Merry Christmas!


Can you post the number from both bulbs old and new? I’d like to see what your using.

Just FYI if those bulbs look black without them on they will not work correctly although they do put out some UV and with the age of your bulbs may even work better. 

https://www.1000bulbs.com/product/86203/F-40T12BL.html

Those work well and available in multiple lengthens as well as t12 and t8 depending on your ballast.


----------



## trailheadgirl (Dec 2, 2016)

sben763 said:


> Can you post the number from both bulbs old and new? I’d like to see what your using.
> 
> Just FYI if those bulbs look black without them on they will not work correctly although they do put out some UV and with the age of your bulbs may even work better.
> 
> ...


The old bulbs are Sylvania Daylight Deluxe F40/DX Rapid Start, 40watt, E3f2. The new ones, which actually come tomorrow and not today, are GE 10526 - F40T12/BL, 40 Watt, T12 Linear Fluorescent Tube, Black Light.


----------



## trailheadgirl (Dec 2, 2016)

Industryps said:


> Since the switch we have had much better results matching clients colors, the blacks have a nice rich, semi-gloss finish, and they are considerably cheaper to boot. To be candid, we did have the Light Cyan head go out a couple months into the switch, but our GSG tech said it was highly likely due to normal wear and tear. Our XR-640 runs 8 hours a day, every day since we got it and shoes no signs of slowing down.
> 
> The Nazdar inks are plug-and-play... Just switch out your old cartridges, and run a couple cleaning cycles and you're good to go!


This is a pretty interesting alternative, thanks for suggesting it! I'm definitely doing some research on it and the compatibility with our machine today.


----------

