October '15

For the Business of Apparel Decorating

Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 18 of 118

16 || P R I N T W E A R O C T O B E R 2 0 1 5 Above left: Room temperature, humidity, dryer, platen and product temps, belt speeds, squeegee and flood speeds, pressure, and angles were controlled throughout the test- ing process. Above: Screens were burnt with a large discharge area, a gradient bar, and bullseye registration. Left: To accommodate multiple tests at once, art was doubled up on top and bottom with a divider down the middle that allowed multiple discharge solu- tions to run on the same shirt. Below left: When finished, all of the samples were put together in two flip books. One for the author's reference and the other for the client. THE PROCESS While trying to keep the project simple, we quickly complicated things by our own doing. Testing three products wouldn't be good enough for us. Oh no: we had to do eight, and of course include some non-formaldehyde versions as well. After reviewing the proj- ect, we decided to test with water-based discharge products across six brands. We had to draw the line somewhere and could not in- clude everything. We chose, in no particular order or preference, Wilflex, Matsui, Rutland, GDI, Virus, and Magna. We also added ZFS versus non-formaldehyde solutions. The activator in traditional discharge product is Zinc Formaldehyde Sulfoxilate, however Mag- na and Virus offer a non-formaldehyde version. When trying to take a scientific approach and conduct a "fair test," it was important that we only changed one factor—in this case, the shirt—and kept all other conditions the same. In preparing our tests, we created artwork to show the dis- charge-inks' effectiveness; a large block area to see how the dis- charge works overall, a gradient bar to see how halftones were affected from zero to 100 percent, and finally line weights from 0.25 continued on page 54 FROM SOFTWARE TO SUBSTRATE

Articles in this issue

view archives of Printwear - October '15