[TABOB]

The dtf shirt was obviously not double pressed, this makes a huge difference.

If the shirt wasn't double pressed, the result would be a lot worse.
Also, this is a demonstration by a company selling the product.
Finally, as I keep saying... people can always get samples and try it for themselves.

 

[magikdude]

If the shirt wasn't double pressed, the result would be a lot worse.
Also, this is a demonstration by a company selling the product.
Finally, as I keep saying... people can always get samples and try it for themselves.

Didn't look to me like it was double pressed, but what would I know ¯\(ツ)/¯

 

[insurgentx]

I find that using DTG ink to print DTF method actually produce more vivid and durable colors (especially the white) than using DTF ink. My old print (back when I still use my dtg machine to print dtf) looks way better compared to recent ones that uses actual DTF ink which already have cracks on them.

 

[TABOB]

I find that using DTG ink to print DTF method actually produce more vivid and durable colors (especially the white) than using DTF ink. My old print (back when I still use my dtg machine to print dtf) looks way better compared to recent ones that uses actual DTF ink which already have cracks on them.

Of course... but DTG white is more expensive.

 

[insurgentx]

A worthy sacrifice for those who are paranoid about washability I guess? Tho rn using dtf ink I haven't had complaint about washability except for one case when I tried to print the white with clogged nozzle which results in a thinner print than usual.

 

[scrizzy]

Very few follow the washing instructions including me. Not sure how much effect it has one way or the other.

 

[TABOB]

Very few follow the washing instructions including me. Not sure how much effect it has one way or the other.

Not much... but DTF will survive 10-15 normal washes.
People are unlikely to complain after that, even if they never see the wash instructions.
The same apply to many other transfer methods by the way.

If you want to establish a brand however, which is what everyone should be doing in my opinion, you should stay away from transfers.
People will notice when a shirt bought 5 or even 20 years ago still looks good.

 

[jtiii]

DTF gives vibrant, soft, long-lasting prints that rival screen printing in durability.

If that were true... no one would do screen-printing.

Setting aside whether it's true or not, the claim that if it were true no one would screen print makes no sense. Even if a DTF print was just as good as a screen print, screen printing e.g. a 72 pc three color full front 11"x16" print would be much cheaper to produce than DTF'ing them. Even setting aside the $2 or more PER SHIRT print direct cost difference of ink vs film, at some point the total labor time per shirt becomes less in screen printing (total time including printing seps, burning and reclaiming, and time on press). So less time per shirt and less material cost per shirt.

 

[TABOB]

Even if a DTF print was just as good as a screen print, screen printing e.g. a 72 pc three color full front 11"x16" print would be much cheaper to produce than DTF'ing them. Even setting aside the $2 or more PER SHIRT print direct cost difference of ink vs film, at some point the total labor time per shirt becomes less in screen printing (total time including printing seps, burning and reclaiming, and time on press). So less time per shirt and less material cost per shirt.

DTF is definitely not as good as screen-printing.
As an example, would you cannot really DTF all-over-prints. They will just don't look or feel right.
DTF is not as durable as screen printing either, for the same reason plastisol transfers are not as durable.

Having said that, and as I keep repeating... DTF does have its place.
The hype, the deception, and the silly claims is what I have a problem with.
Also, personally, I'd rather have a DTG printed tee... especially if white (no white ink used).

 

[magikdude]

Setting aside whether it's true or not, the claim that if it were true no one would screen print makes no sense. Even if a DTF print was just as good as a screen print, screen printing e.g. a 72 pc three color full front 11"x16" print would be much cheaper to produce than DTF'ing them. Even setting aside the $2 or more PER SHIRT print direct cost difference of ink vs film, at some point the total labor time per shirt becomes less in screen printing (total time including printing seps, burning and reclaiming, and time on press). So less time per shirt and less material cost per shirt.

How do you get $2 per shirt more?
I buy rolls of film 600mm x 100m for £50

 

[jtiii]

How do you get $2 per shirt more?
I buy rolls of film 600mm x 100m for £50

I had looked at a few articles from this year talking about the "true cost" of in-house dtf printing, including film, ink, powder and equipment and they were between $1 and $2 for roughly a 1 foot square print, and this hypothetical is bigger than that. But maybe I should've said $1 more instead of $2. They seem to be in agreement that the cost of the DTF ink is more than the cost of the film fwiw.

 

[TABOB]

I had looked at a few articles from this year talking about the "true cost" of in-house dtf printing, including film, ink, powder and equipment and they were between $1 and $2 for roughly a 1 foot square print, and this hypothetical is bigger than that. But maybe I should've said $1 more instead of $2. They seem to be in agreement that the cost of the DTF ink is more than the cost of the film fwiw.

Are you participating in a race to the bottom?
I'd happily pay $7 if I could sell the shirt for $35.
My clients will simply not buy DTF tees, even if I sell them for $5.

 

[magikdude]

We obviously have very different clients, if we sold shirts at $35 we wouldn't be in business very long.

I had looked at a few articles from this year talking about the "true cost" of in-house dtf printing, including film, ink, powder and equipment and they were between $1 and $2 for roughly a 1 foot square print, and this hypothetical is bigger than that. But maybe I should've said $1 more instead of $2. They seem to be in agreement that the cost of the DTF ink is more than the cost of the film fwiw.

Ink cost £18 per litre, roughly 2 litres per roll, makes materials around 15p per square foot. Obviously more to add for time, electric etc.
For small-ish runs I can have 100 shirts, from email of artwork, printed and packed in about 2 hours.

 

[TABOB]

Ink cost £18 per litre, roughly 2 litres per roll, makes materials around 15p per square foot. Obviously more to add for time, electric etc.
For small-ish runs I can have 100 shirts, from email of artwork, printed and packed in about 2 hours.

And you can sell these 100 tees for more than £5 each?
I'm asking because a lot of shops will happily screen-print 100 tees for that price.

As I keep saying, DTF has it's place... but this is not it.