$5.42 inks plus Pretreat cost are real ouch! Whew~ Sweating~ How about you guys?
Cheers! Inks are on me always.

 

Eric, the price is high on Garment Creator. There are multiple selections of how to print and with that kind of difference in price, you would be printing more ink than necessary. What levels of white and color and at what ink densities did you print the design? Also what is the overall size?

 

I used the default settings in Garment Creator. The only adjustment I made was selecting the black color as the transparency. I tried to be as objective as possible so I used the default settings in NeoRIP also. Nothing more was done.

The image size was 15.5 x 11.55.

 

What levels were used? The RIP would be tweaked, GC would not. We can give pointers to the end user to build quick presets which takes a few seconds to set up.

 

The point of this is to compare a click to click - default to default between the two software. I didn't adjust any setting within either software application. Technically I could put the image in photoshop and spend many hours tweaking this and tweaking that...but time is money. It is not logical nor profitable to adjust every image for every shirt for every customer. This is where the manufacturers and dealers don't understand fully what it's like in a retail environment using a DTG printer with the general public and not a "clinical lab" scenario. Very few dealers and/or sales reps in this industry have ever actually used the equipment in a retail or production scenario day in and day out so they don't have the same frame of reference of users like myself. Sorry for going a lil off topic.

 

I understand, but a few tweaks to GC vs $1,500 for a RIP, I think you save a lot more in time than you realize by setting up GC. It's also a preset, so you change it one time and that's it, essentially what a RIP does out of the box. Again, I understand there are benefits to a RIP and how a RIP can handle files differently, this is why we will give a 30 day trial to a RIP as well. The customer can choose between the two, but most customers won't need to feel they have to buy a RIP and some will.

 

I'd also like to point out that in other posts with a different printer that is much slower, you do not advocate "time is money", but you put quality over anything else. This thread is designated to learning about GC, not versus a RIP. If you would have come in and stated this print was $5.42, are there any tips on how to reduce this cost, it would have been much more productive. But to come out swinging comparing it to a tweaked RIP only shows one side of the coin, a side in which you are obviously very much in favor of.

This thread is to help those who may not have an extra $1,500 out of the gate for a RIP, or for those that don't believe they need a RIP. Once again, I'd like to help keep this thread on topic.

 

This thread is to help those who may not have an extra $1,500 out of the gate for a RIP, or for those that don't believe they need a RIP. Once again, I'd like to help keep this thread on topic.

First of all RIP is not $1500. way lower.
Cheers! Inks are on me always.

 

I could afford the RIP due to the ink cost savings within a month if I printed 12 shirts a day!

 

Using the same version of GC that you are, I just got the price down to $2.96 and with more tweaks I can get it down further. Can't play any more, I have a trade show starting....

 

Hey Jerid,

I would like to learn more on what presets/tweaks you are using for GC. I will contact you via eMail.

 

I received my F2000 two weeks ago, started GC and realized after about 5 minutes its not gonna work.

For me using GC is like buying a 200.000$ musicstudio and then operate it with Garageband, or buying a Ferrari but only driving it with spare tires.

Anybody serious with their business will of course use a RIP, better quality and saves ink. Why spend time tweaking this and that, for what?

And after spending 20.000 on a printer and x amount of 1000´s on pretreatment equipment, you might as well just spend the extra 1000$ aswell because its worth it for sure.


Im using cadlink digital factory, great stuff!

 

Cannot find better description than this. Why not using RIPs?
While all are free to test?
Keep puring water into holed bucket?
Cheers! Beers are on me always.

 

Just curious. Does the ink usage volume on the Garment Creator match the ink usage amount printed on the printer log? Has anyone weighed the cartridges before and after and compared that to the ink usage estimates? And does a cc of ink weigh a gram?

Thanks.

 

Weighing the ink carts would give an average usage only if having done a lot of same prints. What did the printer do during the print. Spit in tray a quick auto clean. Weighing is not as simple as it seems. The cost calculators count pico liters fired. Once again as accurate as programmed. But most will be in the neighborhood if ink cost is entered correctly. Weighing the shirt after printing and before pressing might give a better and easier way to verify ink. Ink itself may weigh different depending on brand etc. But 1 ml to 1g is close. On average of cmykw mix. Just an estimate.
GC will continue to improve as so will the 3rd party rips. But really the trials are free to test. It's not only the ink but time invovled. Color profiles loaded. What's the odds of first shirt sellable? $1500 for rip, who is selling at that price?

 

GC cost calculation includes a very large contingency, so unless you put in the same contingency into the cost calculator of the RIP software you are not comparing apples to apples.

Our experience (and we have been using the F2000 since August) is that you will use around $150-200 US a month in ink from general maintenance.
Sounds a lot but really depends how many shirts you print a month, if you only do 200, its a buck a shirt, but if you do 1000, its 25c a shirt. You need to factor this in.

For this reason I don't think GC cost calculator is very good as the contingence is fixed and in reality its not fixed, its very much based on the number of shirts you produce in a month.

I have said this before (and I work and represent a RIP company), but beware ink saving claims of RIP vs GC. You will notice I don't go around pushing this and that's because I don't want to miss lead anyone. When you use White ink, if you don't pre process the image in Photoshop (to setup transparency), then a RIP will save you money, but if you do the pre processing there is no reason GC should cost you more than a RIP in terms of ink usage.
You also have more control in a RIP on how much white you put under dark areas (and on Color shirts black areas), so in theory you can always save on white with a RIP vs GC, but according to Epson if you don't put white between a color and a pre treatment then it will fade more in when washed. So beware.

The reason to consider a RIP is ease of use (its actually easier than GC) and consistently better print quality.


Best regards

-David

 

David,
With respect of your knowledge I have mixed signal from your post. Read twice. My English? Maybe~.
So does your RIP save ink or not? Yes or Not?
Condition:
without modify on Photoshop. (Any way who wants to this on every art?) As is art in and click print.
Be Aware on total truth? Or your RIP is not doing it?
We used RIP used prints so many thousand? Not one reported washed out. What does this mean to you? Or am I on be aware list again?
Well~ enjoy Mother's Day. See u in FESPA.
Cheers! Beers are on me always.

 

Hey David,

What do you mean pre-process in Photoshop. (Sorry noob here)

-Aj

 

He means taking the image into Photoshop and spending minutes to hours manually creating the transparency channel. This is all fine and good but not always practical in a retail environment. The artwork that walks thru the door is so unpredictable and you would be amazed at what people bring in!

 

One end user reported me yesterday he saved 68%(depends on design). Be Aware!
Cheers! Inks are on me always.

 

Epson is good image producing printer(compare to many out there) and it will shines more with reasonable and controllable consumable cost. Which everyone can do this. Except who does not care few bulks on each print.
Cheers! Inks are on me always.

 

Peter I didn't accuse your RIP of not washing well and our RIP can save you ink, especially if you are not going to setup the transparency for Garment Creator in something like Photoshop first.

I really don't want to get into a who's RIP is better, this is a discussion about Garment Creator and I was trying to point out that GC ink usage has a very high contingency, so you cant use that and just compare it to a RIP costing. That was the main point I was trying to make.

When it comes to a RIP saving ink in practical terms, as you know its about how you remove the background and setup the transparency (as that is what we all do to create the white) and while GC doesn't do this well, it can be done separately just as well in Photoshop first. If this is done then GC becomes more efficient in its ink usage.
After that the only difference between a RIP and GC will be how its pre processed (so how much white you use behind a color on dark shirts) and all I am saying is that Epson say you need white between Color and the pre treatment, Brother say the same thing and so does Dupont.
You don't always have to put down 100% white under these dark areas, but they all claim (and I have seen examples) where the black fades when there is no white used (for example on a grey shirt).
So there is a limit to what a RIP can do.

The difference in ink you can save if you use GC correctly vs a RIP, is not as much as the difference you can save between using a good shirt and a bad shirt.

Me I would rather convince people to use our RIP because its easier, produces consistently better output and has a whole host of features such as Supersize (for blowing up low res images) and Fluidmask (for removing complex backgrounds). There is much more important features in a RIP than the ink saving and I don't want to miss lead anyone about potential ink saving.


Best regards

-David

Best regards

-David

 

Peter there is no Be aware list and this is not a school play ground.
We don't need to try and organise people on to sides (which sometimes you seem to be trying to do), I wasn't having a dig at Eric or anybody and don't like the way you try and make out I was.
I make posts and stick to facts as much as I can that's all I am doing.

My Beware on the ink saving wasn't aimed at anyone or any specific comment only that if someone makes a claim it needs to be looked at closely and if for example its based on the costing from GC vs the ink estimate usage from a RIP, its unlikely to be an equal comparison.

I printed a 2x2" white area at 1440x1440dpi using GC, now I know exactly what the ink was in terms of volume on the page as I have the pl dot size from Epson In the programmers guide and can do the basic maths. Based on the costing from GC it was 35% higher than the actual ink that would be printed on the shirt.
I took this up with Epson and they said my calculations were correct in terms of ink used, but that they couldn't tell me how GC calculations were made.
Now for all I know Eric didn't use GC or Neorip to do the calculation (my post wasn't aim at anyone or any specific post). My point is simple if you are using GC costing, then its got a very big contingency.

That is all.

I know you want to sell your RIP and I want to sell mine, but I was trying to make a construct post about GC and its ink calculation / costing feature.

Best regards

-David

 

Peter there is no Be aware list and this is not a school play ground.
We don't need to try and organise people on to sides (which sometimes you seem to be trying to do), I wasn't having a dig at Eric or anybody and don't like the way you try and make out I was.
I make posts and stick to facts as much as I can that's all I am doing.

My Beware on the ink saving wasn't aimed at anyone or any specific comment only that if someone makes a claim it needs to be looked at closely and if for example its based on the costing from GC vs the ink estimate usage from a RIP, its unlikely to be an equal comparison.
-David

David,
I know you did not named "Peter" and "Eric".
I am the only one who keep singing "Ink Saving" in this forum. Tell me one more who you know..
Then I will agree on your above post which wasn't aimed
Let's say
You said in class "I hate Chinese" while only one Chinese in class.
You turn around and told that Chinese guy "I am not aiming to you or talking about you" LOL.
.
Make lots of sense, isn't it?
I know your English skill is way ahead of me but my sense is not behind you.
Thank you for not mentioning about WASHOUT Be Aware part again.
Cheers! Beers are on me always.

 

David,
As you know we sold many thousands of NeoFlex which used DuPont ink all day long.
None reported washout issue.
And all NeoFamily 100% are using same RIP as Katari offers to Epson F2000.
I experienced and saying "will not washout, while you said "they(Eposn, DuPont, Brother) said". It is quite a difference there.
I sold xx tons of DuPont ink in 2013. All users are SAME RIP users. Not one complained about washout.
DuPont never notified AA Be Aware(your favorite word?) notice. I sell DuPont ink while you are not selling also.
Please erase washout part from your post.
Cheers! Inks are on me always.

 

I want to add one more fact.
As you said Epson does not share info which was put into their ink calculator.
AA uses scales. Which cannot be "Be Aware".
If you did not do this try it. Most accurate and there are no mistakes and plays.
This is why USA Justice Department logo is Scale. what's yours?
Cheers! Inks are on me always.

 

Useful information? I can dig it.
Light color pretreat and CYMK works FINE better than without.
Argue? Or debate? Paper thin different.
You did open possible Argument points and you aimed someone without Named.
Now you want to this disappear. Typical~
I was working until I read your post. Actually I am working with posting this. Lol.
Can I say "If there are no ink saving 40-60% I will give triple money back?" Then Am I in deeper aware list? In RED?
Please post some useful infos you really experienced not by others.
LOL, David let's end it here.

 

You did open possible Argument points and you aimed someone without Named.
Now you want to this disappear. Typical~
.

Let me clarify my statement in my original post for you Peter, so that perhaps you can understand that it wasn't some under handed comment.
I don't need to make digs at you, you are not on my radar.

I said
"You also have more control in a RIP on how much white you put under dark areas (and on Color shirts black areas), so in theory you can always save on white with a RIP vs GC, but according to Epson if you don't put white between a color and a pre treatment then it will fade more in when washed. So beware."

In our RIP the Cadlink Digital Factory Apparel we have a (a slider) called underbase strength so that users can control how much white is used in dark areas. This is also covered in our videos.
The Beware was letting customers know that if you reduce the amount of white under dark areas it may affect how well they wash, that's the message I was trying to get across.

FYI. If you don't believe me, go to youtube and search for Digital factory Apparel and watch the
Digital_Factory_Apparel_Queue&Job_options
The underbase strength is covered approx 6mins into the video.

I really hope this puts a line under this area of the discussion.

Now you can add me to my own Beware list that you seem to be keeping for me......LOL

Best regards

-David

 

Heading to EU this afternoon. Portugal-Austria- Germany(FESPA) for 2 weeks.
I hope we will meet there. Beers are on me always.
I know Katari RIP saves INK cost 40-60% on every print without do any tricks on PhotoShop.
I don't know about your RIP but I am sure it is near.
I put my man's honor on line.
There are no one saying this on forum except me.
Cheers! Inks are on me always.

 

I would like to see real data and prints that can be physically tested that show a 60% ink savings. There has to be a point where the low amount of ink will affect wash ability or the image itself. Please provide something that we as a group can see and physically test to prove this claim.

 

Most ink savings occur when printing on a black shirt and the black of the shirt replaces the black ink. This is readily apparent in a print that has smokes or fades and a lot of black in the art.such as shadows. Same on white using the white of the shirt. The underbase will look like a black and white photo. I have some extreme cases where it reduces ink cost by several 100% over basic GC settings.not to say that with practice u cannot reduce ink cost in GC, just its a lot more difficult and smokes and fades do not measure up.IMHO.

 

Thank you Randy for replying to this. I understand what you are saying with the fades and lighter ink coverage and can get the same effect and savings using other RIP software. I use both Garment Creator and Imageworx(Cadlink) and have seen the ink savings between these two. It is very easy to do with the built in black ink reduction and other utilities in the Imageworx or other similar custom RIP software.

I am trying to clarify how Peter is claiming to get such a high ink reduction with his RIP software Kothari(NeoRIP).

I know Katari RIP saves INK cost 40-60% on every print without do any tricks on PhotoShop.
I don't know about your RIP but I am sure it is near.
I put my man's honor on line.
There are no one saying this on forum except me.

60% seems very high and for someone to state and that no one else is talking about ink savings seems a bit out of line to me. I have stated along with others on this forum that you can get ink savings by using a custom RIP. I think it is a forgone conclusion that anyone would agree you can do this over Garment creator with little or no interaction other than using the custom RIP software as a drag and drop program. What I am hoping to get is some real data and physical prints showing the 60% savings and subsequent wash testing of those garments to ensure the print is not adversely affected by this huge reduction in ink use.

BTW - I think I may be reading you wrong on this but your claim of:

I have some extreme cases where it reduces ink cost by several 100% over basic GC settings.

seems a bit off. If I used 2.3 ml of ink costing $0.87 on a shirt in Garment creator and then saved 100% cost, then I would have used 0 ml of ink at a cost of $0.0. I am sure this is not what you meant and I am reading it wrong though.

 

Steve u are right. Really talking about going the other direction where ink cost were say .70 cents in Neorip then 3.50 in GC. I find that while there is saving in photos or areas of solid coverage such as spot colors it may not be to an extreme. Like everything else, it depends. I do find on the average that ink savings using a third party rip are significant. It really comes down to how they handle smokes, fades, shadows, skin tones and color profiles that reproduce the correctly designed image saving time by not having to do multiple test prints.

 

That makes more sense on the ink cost