Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Screen E Book English
Screen E Book English
How to be a
greatScreen
printer
Edited by
Professor Steven Abbott
How to be a
greatScreen
printer
The theory and practice
of screen printing
A Macdermid Autotype HowTo eBook
Edited by Professor Steven Abbott
Design by Jenniffer Avenell
ISBN 978-0-9551220-1-9
First published in 2008 by
Macdermid Autotype Limited
Grove Road, Wantage OX12 7BZ, UK
02
About this eBook
I’m passionate about screen printing. I get quite angry when
I see the industry undermine itself with the myth that it’s
an art and not a science. And I also get angry when I meet
dedicated printers struggling to achieve quality results be-
cause they have been trained or misled based on myths and
misconceptions.
The industry has helped itself downsize by making life dif-
ficult for itself. One of the aims of this eBook is to restore
confidence to the industry, to make ourselves proud of the
unique capabilities of this fine printing process.
03
Finally, two experienced outsiders have I want to include just one story here. I’d
provided access to their wealth of practical worked with Phil Gaskell for many years on
knowledge. Bill Appleton, arguably one of the science of coating but had never asked
the UK’s top screen printers, provided cru- him about screen printing. Over a cup of
cial evidence for and against the ideas in tea I outlined the favourite explanations of
this eBook using the gold standard of proof: how screen printing worked and he agreed
real screen prints. And Professor John Davi- that they were all worthless.“So, if they’re all
son provided many insights into inks that wrong, what’s the right answer?” Remem-
proved crucial to understanding how to ber, Phil had known nothing about screen
push the limits of resolution to 50µm and printing up to about 15 minutes before I
below. asked this question.
For simplicity the book talks in the language He paused for a moment’s thought then
of flat-bed screen printing. Those who use scribbled a diagram onto a piece of paper.
cylinder presses can easily translate into That diagram was the key – it showed the
their own language as the principles for mesh coming out of the ink, and showed
flat-bed and cylinder presses are essentially how everything else about screen printing
identical. Terms such as snap-off (off con- simply followed. That was a very productive
tact) and peel-off can easily be reinterpret- tea break.
ed by cylinder press users. Rotary screen us-
ers will have a harder time interpreting the It turns out that Phil was not the first to
language and images. But although there think of this idea. We later found that the
are many significant process differences, I’m great German screen expert, Prof. Dr. Mess-
happy to say that extensive conversations erschmitt, had come up with the thought
with colleagues in the rotary screen world many years earlier. It is unfortunate for the
confirm that the scientific principles are un- industry that his insight was never fully fol-
altered and causes/cures of problems are lowed through.
remarkably similar.
Steven Abbott
04
Authors
05
07 The Theory Bit 72 Solving Real Problems
Great? Dirt
Great Screen printer? Static control
The man with the magic fingers The wrong mesh
The two Golden Rules Image too close to the frame
Printing 1-2-3 Poor cleaning
Death to Myths Emulsion coating
Why is 1-2-3 so important? Drying
Exposure control
21 Optional Theory Static in printing
Calculating ink deposit Thick edges
Designing the perfect ink Positive sawtoothing
Stopping slump Dot gain
Mesh marking Negative sawtoothing
Registration Skipping
Printing track on track Colour shifts
On-off sawtoothing
44 Print Faults – making and fixing Stencil X is better than Stencil Y
them Poor quality lines
The wrong stencil Moiré
The wrong mesh Printing very fine lines
Table of Too fine a mesh
Wrong ink – Drying in 92 Moiré – causes and cures
Contents Wrong ink – Viscous drag
Tear drops
Introduction. Where does moiré come
from?
Not clean enough – Ghost image Causes and cures for moiré – recipes
Not clean enough – Dust for success
Orange peel The science of moiré – the reasons for
Belt marks the recipes
Registration issues
123 Problem Solving Guide
51 Colour Shifts Moiré
Finding the best CMYK print order Skipping
Mesh marks
60 Getting the right exposure (Positive) Sawtoothing
Exposure Negative Sawtoothing
Photo-stencil sensitivity Dark spots/Hickies
Comparing exposure Light spots
Poor contact with positive Printed line/dot larger than positive
Undercutting from a rough stencil Printed line/dot smaller than positive
Comparing lamp age Thick edges to print
Autotype exposure calculator
Exposure tips and tricks 134 Glossary
06
The Theory Bit
Steven Abbott
No-one likes theory. We all want to skip After the basic, essential theory there are
straight to the practice. Theory is normally some optional sections which go deeper
hard work. into specialist topics. Feel free to dip in and
out of them if they are topics relevant to
The Theory Bit
And this section is personal. I’m not hiding There’s only one definition of “great” that
behind any corporate façade or consultant really matters. A great screen printer is one
waffle. I have to do this because this theory whose business flourishes. In the short term,
section comes with a guarantee “great” could mean someone who spends a
lot of precious resource to produce won-
Sorry, I can’t give you your money back, be- derful prints. But if this means that the
cause we’ve given you this eBook free of printer goes out of business, that greatness
charge. isn’t of much use.
But what I can guarantee is that if any of the So in this theory section we’re going to
advice in this part of the eBook is wrong, concentrate on what it takes for you to get
you will have the pleasure of me admitting the results you want quickly and efficiently.
in public, in the screen trade press, that I You’ll be pushing the boundaries of quality,
was wrong, stupid or both. resolution, customer impact, but you’ll be
doing it intelligently with a “right first time”
I’ve been making that guarantee for some approach.
years now, and so far haven’t been caught
out. A great Screen printer?
For some people, screen printing is a busi-
But I will be happy to be proven wrong. ness. For others it’s one step in a bigger pro-
That’s a great way of learning. And I will duction chain. In this eBook we don’t care
make sure that my public apology passes which sort of printer you are – we just care
on the new knowledge so great printers that you get great prints coming off your
can get even better. press.
08
We do care if you’re printing graphics or if A large part of this eBook is taken up with
you’re producing technical prints. Although explaining why these rules work so well.
the basic principles for great printing are
the same, there are some differences. When Golden Rule 1
something applies just to Graphics and just Let the mesh do the metering, let the stencil do
to Technical printers then this is clearly the shaping and let the ink do it’s thing.
marked.
It sounds simple, but this is a revolutionary
As this is a eBook about printing we won’t message that printers continue to resist, at
touch on pre- or post-press issues except the cost of being worse printers.
where they directly impact your ability to
get the right print coming off your press. The amount of ink going onto your print (1) Note: There is one exception to this golden
should be governed almost entirely by your
rule. If possible, the ink should be formulated
The man with the magic fingers mesh. If you try to control it with the stencil
If your printing relies on the one man who and/or the ink then you immediately cause to provide a high-low-high rapid switching of
claims to have “magic fingers”, who just other problems by compromising what viscosity. If the ink has this optimal character
-
“knows” how to tweak the process to get they are doing.
istic it will give higher speeds, less mesh drag,
it right then you should give up now. You
have no hope of being great. The shape of your print should be controlled less slump and be an altogether easier print
-
only by the shape of your stencil – and the ing experience. This is discussed in detail later
Screen printing is a science, not an art. stencil should be doing nothing else. If you
Those who claim that it is an art (except are tweaking your stencil to make up for a in the optional theory section. But for good
when they are producing artistic prints) problem with your ink or your mesh then printers the viscosity has no effect on ink de
-
have actively contributed to the downsiz- you’re in trouble.
posit and, other than on slump, should have
ing of screen printing.
The ink should be formulated for just one no effect on the shape of the print.
The advice in this eBook is simple, clear, un- thing (1)– to give you the right colour, con-
ambiguous. There is no “magic”, no “black ductivity, enzymic function or whatever
art”. This stuff really works. is the prime purpose of the ink. Once you
have to formulate it to make up for prob-
The two golden rules lems with the mesh or stencil, you get your-
There are just two rules. Follow these and self into a cycle of problems that drag you
your printing will be great. Ignore them and down.
life will be hard for you.
09
Golden Rule 2 every time. But if you find that you are spending a lot of
Set up your press the same way each time, time fiddling with your squeegee then you probably think
with the minimum pressure, the minimum the squeegee is important in a way that it’s not. Get into
flood and, especially, with the minimum the habit of understanding why the squeegee isn’t im-
fuss. portant, then you’ll get yourself a good relationship with
a good squeegee supplier and generate mutually profit-
Just insist on getting it right first time. able business.
If you are fiddling with the press after start- Printing 1-2-3
up then you are either not following Gold- To be a world expert on how screen printing works, you
en Rule 1 or you haven’t followed Golden need to be able to understand 1-2-3.
Rule 2.
In my time I’ve heard an extraordinary amount of non-
Once you get into the habit of minimalist sense about how screen printing works. Hands have been
setup you will be amazed at how easy it waved, magic has been invoked, the laws of physics have
is to print. And that’s what makes a great been ignored. And this is all totally unnecessary. Screen
printer. printing is as simple as 1-2-3.
So – just 3 steps and you will be a world expert. Trust me!
This means that you need a good press. It
has to be possible to set it up the same ev- Step 1 Getting the ink ready to print
ery time. If you don’t know what your pres- What could be simpler? All you’re trying to do is get the
sures are, if your gap settings are a bit too lightest possible, even covering of ink as close to the top
erratic because of mechanical problems, if of the mesh as possible.
your bed isn’t flat, if your switches and sen-
sors aren’t robust then you’ll spend all your The right way: a simple, light flood
time fighting the machine rather than
screen printing. A great printer will have
most of the adjustments to the machine
locked off so that no-one can twiddle.
10
The wrong way: a strong-deep flood.
I could finish there. It’s so easy that really Here’s the weak argument. If you really
you could go straight on to step 2. need a strong flood, you probably have
something else wrong in the system. For
But I’ve had hour-long arguments with example, your stencil might be so thick
printers who think that flooding should be that you need large flood and squeegee
strong and deep, getting the ink right to the forces in order to print at all. Why would
bottom of the stencil so that the squeegee you want to use a thick stencil? Because
can … Well. They are 100% wrong. you need a thick print. But then you are
going against Golden Rule 1. You are using
Think about it. If your flooding gets close to the stencil to control ink thickness, but the
the bottom of the stencil, then you’re close rule says that the mesh should be doing
to going beyond the bottom of the stencil. that. So, the need for a strong flood can be
You’re therefore going to have ink stick- a symptom of something wrong in your
ing out beneath the stencil, and when the system.
stencil contacts the substrate that ink will
squash out and give you a messy print. Here’s the strong argument.The flood blade
is pushing the liquid with relatively low
I’m happy for you to argue with me about shear. This means that if you have ink that’s
the phrase “the lightest possible”. I can starting to dry in to the mesh, the push
see your point. If the flood gets you, say, ¾ from the flood blade is unlikely to dislodge
the way down through the mesh/stencil the drying ink. As we’ll see, the squeegee
there’s less work for the squeegee to do in stroke gives a strong shear force that can
step 2. provide a powerful cleansing action and
I have two arguments against you. The first help keep your mesh open. The first time I
is a bit weak, the second is strong and a bit thought of this argument I wasn’t sure if it
subtle. was right. But I said it anyway.
11
And some experienced screen printers The less you ask of the squeegee, the bet-
said “Funny you should say that, but we ter it can do its job, so I urge press manu-
often found that with a difficult ink we had facturers to continue to explore ways of re-
to use a light flood – but we could never moving this task. Just ask anyone you can
understand why.” Since then this insight find: “Who in their right mind would give
The Theory Bit
has proved to be helpful in many cases. the job of pushing the mesh against the
That’s why I insist on “the lightest possible” substrate to a precision-sharpened piece
in my description of flooding. of complex rubber?” See the discussion
in Anna and David’s section on “printable
Step 2 Filling the mesh/stencil and area” in order to avoid the squeegee hav-
cleaning off the surface ing to fight even harder to force the mesh
The squeegee has nothing to do with onto the substrate.
screen printing. I can prove this. The squee-
gee has long since gone past the stencil 2 The second is to force the ink through the
and mesh when the printing actually hap- mesh and stencil when they are in perfect
pens. Why is this? Because the mesh can’t contact with the substrate. Because the
rise from the print till the squeegee has ink can’t travel any further than the mesh/
moved on a long way. substrate interface, there’s no need to ap-
ply a massive force from the squeegee.
So the influence of the squeegee on the You need the absolute minimum that does
actual printing step is precisely zero. the job. Anything more than this is bad
news. You’re distorting your mesh, damag-
This statement makes a lot of people angry, ing your squeegee, putting extra strain on
but it happens to be true. So don’t fight it. your press. All for no benefit whatsoever.
We’ll come back to this point at length. If
So what is the job of the squeegee? you are following the Golden Rule, then
very light squeegee pressures will do the
It has to do three things: job. If you aren’t, then your squeegee pres-
1 The first of these is unfortunate. The sures go up and your chances of being a
squeegee forces the mesh into contact great printer go down.
with the substrate. This requires a lot of
brute force and is really rather unnecessary. If you do the maths (I’ve done it for you in
It would be much better if the mesh were the optional ink design section), you find
brought down by some mechanical force that this filling action involves very high
outside the printed area. Some clever velocities and high shears. This is ideal for
press manufacturers have shown that you shifting the layer of old ink that’s sitting on
can remove this task from the squeegee. the mesh from the previous print. That’s
12
why a light flood is recommended so that the high-speed filling action has the maximum
chance of keeping your mesh cleansed.
3 The third is to scrape off the ink from the top of the mesh, leaving a smooth, even surface.
If your pressure is too light then the squeegee hydroplanes along the ink and leaves some
ink above the mesh. You get a similar effect with a rounded squeegee. The problem with
this is that small changes in press settings will alter the amount you leave behind and your
ink deposit is out of control. If your pressure is too high then – well, we’ve just discussed it
– you are putting strain on your mesh, press and squeegee for no good whatsoever – you
can’t scrape off more than 100% of the excess ink, no matter how hard you try.
This isn’t strictly true as the squeegee can dip into the mesh to a certain extent and reduce your
ink deposit very slightly, but this turns out to be a small effect and usually not something that’s
worth the extra squeegee pressure.
13
And that’s it. A nice, sharp, well-maintained that – it’s like saying ‘How does a spoon
squeegee will do all 3 jobs with the mini- come out of a jar of honey?’ It just does.”
mum of fuss. And if you can remove the
first job, or reduce the need for it by having Precisely! The ink doesn’t come out of the
a very small snap-off, your squeegee will mesh, the mesh comes out of the ink just
do a great job hour after hour. This may like a spoon comes out of a jar of honey.
be bad news for squeegee suppliers. But There’s no difficult physics. There’s no need
much though I love them, I don’t have a to think of special surface forces or vacu-
duty to keep them in business by increas- ums or gravitational pulls or any of the
ing their sales through the mistakes of myriad of dumb ideas that have been used
screen printers. My duty is to help you be to explain screen printing.
a great screen printer. And in the long run
this helps the squeegee makers because if When you ask the right question, screen
the screen printers can’t make money then printing becomes so simple that a child
they won’t be around to buy any more could do it – which, of course, they can.
squeegees. Which brings us to an important point.
Step 3 Letting the mesh come out of Let me ask you a really simple question.
the ink What’s the difference between a print
People have been asking the wrong ques- done on a handbench by a reasonably
tion for decades. They ask “How does the skilled operator and the same thing done
ink come out of the mesh?” To this wrong by a super-sophisticated press? The answer
question there have been many wrong is, basically, none. Of course the print from
answers. the press is of higher overall quality, but in
The right question is: “How does the mesh terms of ink deposit, edge definition and
come out of the ink?” Now, if I ask you that more or less any other criteria, the prints
question you’ll say “There’s no mystery to are about the same.
14
This is the single most important fact in the
whole of screen printing.
15
The formation of the liquid bridge is inevitable
The Theory Bit
Hopefully the drops smooth out giving you a nice level print.
Note that about 30% of the ink in the mesh at the start re-
mains attached to the mesh – something you can easily mea-
sure for yourself if you don’t believe the physics.
16
And that’s the 1-2-3 of screen printing. 9 out of 10 screen printers, when asked,
would say that screen printing produces
So let’s have some fun and go kill a myth pillars of ink between the mesh and then
or two by some process these pillars level out
(more or less). They would confidently
Death to myths predict that the thickest part of a print is
We’ve already killed a couple of myths on therefore between the mesh fibres.
the way.
17
When I first pointed this out to my mar- There’s another big myth which we need
keting colleagues they begged me not to to kill. It seems rather obvious that a high-
say it in public – it would make MacDer- viscosity ink should give a different (wet)
mid look stupid. Because it’s so “obvious” ink deposit from a low-viscosity ink. You
that “ink doesn’t go through mesh”, the ink often hear advice that ink viscosity should
deposit “must” be thicker in between the be carefully controlled in order to preserve
fibres than beneath them. But it takes only a uniform ink deposit. Yet the truth is the
a modest effort to prove to yourself that opposite. The viscosity of the ink has no
the thicker part of the print is, indeed, un- effect at all on the thickness of the ink de-
der the mesh. Just take some careful mi- posit.
croscope images of the mesh near some
obvious feature such as a corner, then take How do I know this? Well, first of all a PhD
images at the same magnification of the student at Leeds University spent years
print. When you line them up you find of careful measurements confirming this
that the thicker part of the print is under fact. But in reality we knew in advance
the mesh fibres. In fact, you find that it is that there would be no effect. Why? Partly
thicker under every other knuckle for rea- because the theory of the ink flow says
sons (I admit) I haven’t really worked out. there will be no effect (for the technically
minded, this is because of a plateau in the
effect of capillary number on viscous pick-
Whilst we’re here we can explain another common problem in screen up). Partly because of the basic fact that
printing. When liquid bridges snap they automatically produce a drop a hand-print gives essentially the same
ink deposit as a machine print – and if
or two and these drops can easily fly off in strange directions. This is
viscosity (and viscous drag) were impor-
due to the natural chaotic instability of liquid bridges. If you are doing tant then there is no way you would get
really wild printing then the flying drops can end up all over your print the same deposit. As we will shortly see
in the optional theory section, ink doesn’t
– classic ink splatter. When I first came up with the theory I had no idea have “a” viscosity it has many viscosities,
that ink splatter existed so I was gratified that the theory automatically so if ink deposit depended on viscosity
it would vary hugely as different parts of
produced an explanation for the effect. Of course when the ink is very
the process changed. The final argument
stringy then the liquid bridge doesn’t snap into drops but produces a came from work by Dr Eifion Jewell. The
classic cobweb. very early U. Leeds theory had predicted
a strong viscosity dependence. It was only
when Eifion produced data showing that
there was no dependence did we discover
the “capillary number plateau effect”which
18
explained why, in the speed ranges of in- the mesh surface. Therefore the surface
terest to screen printers, viscosity had no can have no effect on the ink deposit.
effect. That was one of those times when
being proven wrong was a real joy. There’s one get-out clause. If the mesh sur-
face were like Teflon then the ink remain-
There’s one final myth that we can easily ing on the mesh would tend to roll up into
kill. A fashion arose with mesh makers to a ball. But try sticking your stencil to a Tef-
sell meshes that gave “better ink release” lon mesh!
through “special surface treatments”. Don’t
get me wrong, some of the “special surface So if the surface treatment can make no
treatments” for meshes have been of great difference to the ink deposit, how come
help with stencil adhesion. But I can easily so many people say they’ve seen a differ-
prove that no practical surface treatment ence?
can have an effect on “ink release”. This is a
surprising claim, especially to those who’ve I was challenged on this by one mesh
seen wonderful marketing demonstrations maker, so I challenged them in turn to do
of how “special” meshes let drops of water careful side-by-side tests under controlled
through whilst “ordinary” meshes don’t. conditions. Remember, these were tests
done by the mesh maker, on meshes they
To prove it, I can ask a simple question. After thought gave a difference in ink deposit.
the first print, what does the new ink “see” When they did them under properly con-
when it arrives on the mesh? Does it “see” trolled conditions, they found absolutely
the “special surface treatment”? Of course no difference at all.
not. All it sees is the layer of ink which is
wrapped around the mesh, just as a spoon What had happened is that printers had
remains covered as it comes out of a jar of compared a “new” mesh with an “old”
honey. In the optional theory section you mesh and had assumed that the only dif-
will find (and it’s easy to prove this for your- ference was the “special surface treatment”.
self) that ~30% of the ink that we put into But often they were comparing 120/34’s
the mesh with the squeegee remains on with 120/31’s or the “34” values differed
the mesh. But even if you don’t believe me between different batches depending on
about the 30%, you surely know that at the weaving, calendaring etc. It was nothing
very least there is a slight contamination of to do with the surface treatment and the
the surface with the ink (try putting a clean demonstration with drops of water.
finger onto the mesh just after a print). So
the surface of the mesh is actually just old That myth is well and truly busted.
ink. The new ink never has a chance to see
19
Why is the 1-2-3 so important? I’m sorry to bore you with this list. But 1-2-3
Because everything else follows from it. makes it easy to identify the root cause of
Once you start to think 1-2-3 you start to all your problems. It also makes it easy ei-
be able to analyse your print problems ther to find a fix for it, or to explain why no
fix is possible.
The Theory Bit
20
The Optional Theory
Steven Abbott
=IMS
The mesh does the metering
The 1-2-3 stresses that the ink deposit
Ink in the mesh at the start
should be controlled by the mesh alone
– not print speed, not viscosity, not the
squeegee (unless you choose to go out of
control with a rounded or light squeegee),
not the stencil.
Ink Deposit = Ink in the Mesh at the Start – Ink in the mesh at the end – and on the print
Ink on the Mesh at the End
Or
Ink Deposit = IMS – IME The “Ink in the mesh at the start” is easy to calculate. It’s simple geometry.
Graphically we find
The total height of this ideal mesh is twice the mesh diam-
eter, 2D and the spacing M is 1/TPM (Threads Per Micron)
22
The total volume of this cube is:
OR OR
23
This gives us the ‘real’ TIV formula which
has a mixture of D and Dcompressed.
The Optional Theory
Although the formula looks a bit ugly, it’s the answer, try for yourself. Because in mains above the substrate thanks to the
very easy to calculate with a spreadsheet. general, 30% of the ink in the mesh at the stencil. When you move a few mesh open-
More importantly, all mesh manufacturers start ends up wrapped around the mesh. ings away from the stencil then the mesh
could and should use this formula. The fact When you look at the diagrams earlier in touches the substrate and the stencil has
that they use the simple but totally errone- this eBook you can see that this figure no effect, other than creating a (worthless)
ous “open area”formula is most regrettable. makes sense. But for most people it still re- thick edge.
The formula they quote is bad science that mains a shock. With every print stroke, 70%
often leads to the wrong conclusion. The remains on the substrate and 30% remains
TIV formula is good science and has always on the mesh.
proved to be reliable. It’s especially help-
ful when comparing stainless meshes (D So if you want a quick estimate of your ink
hardly changes) to polyester (D is com- deposit it’s
pressed a little) to liquid crystal (D is com-
pressed a lot). Ink deposit = 0.7 * TIV
24
Designing the perfect ink coverage of the image area with no
Now we’re experts on 1-2-3, the specifica- dripping beneath the mesh
tion of a perfect ink becomes easy. I’m not • The squeegee fills the mesh and the
saying that making a perfect ink is easy! I image area with the minimum possible
have huge admiration for ink makers and pressure in order to enhance squeegee
I am all too aware of the difficulty of what life and reduce distortion
they are doing. But those printers who • The mesh comes out of the ink with
don’t follow 1-2-3 make the ink designer’s the minimum effort so you can print
job literally impossible. Out of control with minimum snap-off (preferably
printers ask the ink to correct for errors in with zero snap-off) to minimise distor-
their mesh and stencil. Good printers fol- tion
low the 1st Golden Rule and let the mesh • Levelling takes place very quickly so
do the metering and the stencil do the no mesh marks are visible
shaping, so the demands on the ink are • There is very little slumping so your
greatly reduced. dots and lines are as close to the origi-
nal as possible.
Before we continue we need to remind
ourselves of one myth we killed some Levelling and slumping are somewhat
pages ago. We now know that viscosity contradictory. You want a high viscosity to
has no effect on the ink deposit. Instead, reduce slumping but this slows down lev-
the deposit is controlled only by the mesh. elling. Fortunately for us levelling theory
This is one less thing for the ink designer shows that we can get away with high vis-
to worry about. cosities as levelling times should be very
short for a well-designed ink.
So let’s assume 1-2-3 and design the per-
fect ink from first principles. The reason it is easy to specify the perfect
ink is that apart from the issue of levelling
During the print process the ink under- v slumping there is no contradiction be-
goes 5 steps. tween any of the desired properties. This is
• The flood stroke an astounding fact. Many ink makers think
• The squeegee stroke that improving one property will make
• ‘Mesh coming out of the ink’ something else worse. If you print with a
• Levelling high-Rz stencil then you really do find such
• Slumping contradictions.
But with the low-Rz, low-EOM stencil there
What we want to see is: are no contradictions at all. As I never tire
• Flooding gives a full (but light) of saying, screen printing is intrinsically a
25
simple, in-control process. Although both shear thin, we don’t want a
Years of misunderstanding have turned it thixotropic ink for reasons we will discuss
into a difficult art. later.
The key to designing the perfect ink is the We all talk about ‘shear thinning’ and we
ability to provide the right viscosity for know that this means that as you work the
each step. We can largely ignore surface ink its viscosity gets lower. But what does
tension as a variable because in practice ‘shear’ actually mean?
we can only tweak it over a modest range
(e.g. 25-40 dynes/cm). Of course choosing
the right surfactant is important for many
aspects of the ink (e.g. pigment dispersion,
adequate wetting of the substrate), but the
theory shows that it is not of crucial impor-
tance for the steps we are discussing here.
26
Suppose our flood bar is moving at V = 50cm/s and the flood gap is
H = 1mm. If we put these into units of metres then Shear = 0.5/0.001
= 500/s
For the squeegee stroke the speed might be the same, but the gap
is now very small, for example the spacing between two mesh fibres
which is 50µm. Now the shear = 0.5/0.00005 = 10000/s
When the mesh is coming out of the ink, the gap is the same 50µm,
but the speed is now the vertical speed of the mesh which depends
on the squeegee speed and the snap-off angle. If we say that this
angle is 5° then the speed = 50*tan(5) ~ 4cm/s so the shear is 800/s
Finally, when the print has to level or to slump it’s easy to show that
the shear rate is very, very low, <1/s.
If you look at a typical screen ink you will get a graph of viscosity v
shear rate that looks something like the Typical ink in this graph.
27
At the shear rates of the flood, squeegee dependent behaviour. If you stir a tin of
and mesh steps the viscosity is respectably thixotropic paint it gradually becomes thin
low at around 15Pa.s and at the slump stage enough for you to paint with ease. For a
The Optional Theory
in principle it will be 10x higher at 150Pa.s. few seconds after you’ve applied the paint
This is not bad at all. But just think what it remains thin so that your brush marks
it would be like with the Ideal ink shown can level out. But it’s designed to return to
in the same graph. At the typical shear its thick state before the ink can ‘sag’ down
rates, the viscosity is close to 1 Pa.s and at your nicely painted door. From the above
low shear it is 250, a factor of 250x higher. analysis we can see that thixotropy is, on
This would give us much less slump and balance, a nuisance. First, you will get in-
at the same time we would need to apply creased ink slump because it takes the ink
15x less pressure on the squeegee and the longer to recover to its low-shear, high vis-
drag from the mesh (assuming a viscosity cosity state. Second, you are never printing
at this shear rate of 1.5Pa.s) would be 10x with the same ink! After each stroke, after
less. Printing with such an ink would be a each addition of fresh ink, you have an ink
real joy. of indeterminate history and therefore of
different viscosity.
If that’s all there were to ink viscosity then
life would be very simple. The trouble is It’s quite difficult to get good time-depen-
that two other effects can cause us prob- dent data for screen inks because we are
lems: time-dependence and viscoelastic- interested in what happens over very short
ity. time-scales when we switch from very
high to very low shear. You need a high-
Time-dependent phenomena in inks are performance rheometer to get such data.
very common. It’s possible, for example, But because quick recovery is so impor-
that if you measured the viscosity one sec- tant for high-precision printing, it’s worth
ond after the mesh step, you would find it the effort.
to be very similar to its high-shear value,
even though the actual shear rate is very Viscoelasticity shows up as a stringing of
low. This would be bad news because you the ink when you pull it apart. It can be
want the viscosity to be very high to limit measured on complex rheometric equip-
slumping. If it takes 10s for the ink to re- ment and if you are lucky you can extract
cover to its low-shear value you might find some viscoelastic constants such as a
that your 75µm line has already expanded Maxwell relaxation time. Viscoelasticity
to 100µm. can give you horrible ‘cobwebbing’ in your
prints, but what concerns us here is that if
Inks which are ‘thixotropic’ show this time- you have a large Maxwell relaxation time
28
(or equivalent) then the levelling of your thin very rapidly to very low viscosities. And
print becomes very slow. The reason for they recover very quickly. Those who print
this is that such an ink is happy to absorb with them routinely produce high-quality
the forces that are trying to level it, just narrow width prints with low snap-off (off-
as an elastic band is happy to absorb the contact) and modest squeegee pressures.
forces you apply to it by stretching itself. This allows them to print with excellent
Without the elastic component the ink registration in order, for example, to make
has no choice but to level itself. Further- multi-layer co-fired ceramic circuits.
more, viscoelasticity fights you in every
other step. If your ink is purely viscous As soon as you go to polymer-based inks,
then every time you tell it to flow, it will (so-called ‘PTF’, Polymer Thick Film) inks
flow. But if it’s purely elastic, tell it to flow used for membrane touch switches, the
and all it does is stretch, which is not what story changes dramatically. These inks of-
you want. A viscoelastic ink will be some ten start off with a lower viscosity yet don’t
combination of good and bad behaviour. shear thin so rapidly and they show both
Things are even more complicated than thixotropic and viscoelastic behaviour.
that. The proportion of viscous and elastic This is the reason we have so much diffi-
behaviour depends on the timescale. At culty printing with them.
sufficiently high speeds, everything is elas-
tic. At sufficiently low speeds everything I’m not criticising the ink designers. It’s
is viscous. Now we see why our shear rate probably impossible to produce a PTF ink
calculations are valuable. We need our ink that could be as good as a cermet ink. But
to be viscous (as opposed to elastic) even the point of this section is to clarify what
when the shear rate is 1000/s (or our tim- properties we are aiming for, to show why
escale is 1ms). For those familiar with the we need those properties and what hap-
jargon, this means that we need to find the pens if we don’t attain them.
ratio of G’’ to G’ (loss to storage modulus) at
kHz oscillation rates. One bit of new(ish) science gives some
hope that even in the PTF world we can
come up with superior inks, closer to the
So far we’ve been talking theoretically. Has ideal. So-called ‘associative thickeners’ are
anyone ever made an ink that is close to popping up in all sorts of places. They
my ideal? The answer is ‘yes’ and I’ve print- thicken by gelation mechanisms that are
ed with one myself. The so-called ‘cermet’ very different from the polymeric entan-
inks (ceramic/metal) are made up of fine glement of normal inks and even modest
particles with a bit of solvent. They have shear can make these gels fall apart quick-
a very high low-shear viscosity, but shear- ly, ready to re-form when the shear stops.
29
I’ve come across examples in all sorts of Right at the start we need to kill a com-
fields that have nothing to do with ink de- mon myth about slump. As far as screen
sign so I suspect that smart ink formulators printing goes, it has nothing to do with
have more possibilities than they might gravity. Our dots and lines are far too small
suspect. to be affected by gravity and your prints
Of course I’m skipping over issues such as will slump just as much upside down. So if
ensuring particles are small enough not to slump is nothing to do with gravity, what
be sieved by the mesh, or solving issues of is the cause?
balancing evaporation to give quick dry-
ing without drying in. These are impor- It is simply the tendency of your ink to wet
tant aspects of the ink designer’s art but the substrate. If you put a drop of water
aren’t directly related to the 1-2-3 theory. onto the substrate it might do a variety of
However, because 1-2-3 makes it easier for things. If the substrate is Teflon then the
the ink designer, there is more freedom to drop will just sit there with no slump. If the
solve these other problems without hav- substrate is glass then the water spreads
ing to worry about problems caused by out, driven by surface tension, till the drop
bad printers. has become very thin. A typical polymer
substrate will be somewhere in between
In summary, designing the perfect ink is with intermediate slump.
simple. The good printer only asks the
ink to be highly shear-thinning with rapid The angle the drop makes to the substrate
recovery what I call a “High-Low-High” ink at any time is the ‘contact angle’. You start
and to give the other properties (colour, with an ‘initial contact angle’ and end up
conductivity, enzymic efficiency…) for with the ‘equilibrium contact angle’. A
which the print is intended. The ink doesn’t typical drop on glass might start with a 60°
have to compensate for a high Rz or a thick angle then slowly slump down to 0°.
stencil or an inappropriate mesh and the
designer doesn’t have to worry about con-
trolling the (wet) ink deposit because it
doesn’t depend on the ink at all!
Stopping slump
Slump is the common term used to de-
scribe the fact that a drop or line of ink
starts off at a certain height/width then
“slumps” to give a wider line with less Contact angle decreasing as the ink slumps
height.
30
The theory of spreading (often called Tan-
ner theory) is so complex that it needs a
computer model to work out what hap-
pens, but the basic (and approximate) rule
is straightforward:
The effect of time is amazing. If it takes 1 meaning. Even with very high viscosities,
second for a drop to grow to a certain di- if the drop has an initial high contact angle
ameter, it will take 1024 seconds to grow to then within a few seconds you can easily
twice that diameter! This is because as the spread the line by 25µm on each side. So
drop grows, the contact angle decreases a 50µm line becomes a 100µm line before
and the spreading speed decreases even you’ve had a chance to dry it or UV cure it.
faster (as the cube of the angle). By optimising the viscosity behaviour of a
silver ink printed onto polyester we were
For screen printing, surface tensions are able to print a 50µm line which spread
low and viscosities are high. So you would ‘only’ by 12µm each side to give us a 74µm
think that slump should not be a sig- line. If we had been able to cure the mate-
nificant problem. But as soon as you go rial faster we might have produced a sub
to fine lines, ‘significant’ takes on a new 70µm line.
31
The Optional Theory
32
Controlling slump As we’ve discovered in the previous sec-
So what can you do about slump? The tion, “viscosity” is not a simple concept so
table gives you good indications, but there it’s important to know which aspect of
are lots of complications. viscosity is important for slump. It’s now
obvious that a perfect ink has a low viscos-
Increasing surfactant levels should reduce ity during the shearing action of the mesh
the surface tension and therefore reduce coming out of the ink, followed by a rapid
slump, though this isn’t always the case in recovery to a high viscosity to avoid slump.
complex cases. But surfactants can inter- In the ceramic conductor industry they
fere with other aspects of the ink formu- can often come close to this ideal as their
lation so this isn’t always possible. Unfor- formulations don’t contain polymers. Poly-
tunately in the example above even if you meric inks tend to have less of a reduction
halve the surface tension you only gain a in viscosity with shear and strong thixotro-
few extra µm thickness. pic tendencies so they are slow to recover.
Hence the battle with slump is much more
The initial contact angle is largely a func- difficult. Specialist additives exist which
tion of your ink deposit. A thin ink deposit can improve the situation and if the ink
(fine mesh, low-EOM stencil) will give you designer knows what has to be done then
less slump. Remember that slump speed is there is hope that the slump can be re-
proportional to the cube of the initial con- duced. For example, the computer model
tact angle, so even modest reductions in says that to attain the 90µm thickness tar-
ink thickness can give large reductions in get with a 2 second delay before cure, the
slump. In the thick ink example, reducing low-shear viscosity should be increased
the starting thickness to 90µm reduces the from 10 to 50Pa.s.
width of the slumped line by 20µm.
Ceramic conductive inks are printed onto
The equilibrium contact angle is often ceramic substrates. These substrates are
ignored but it can be a vital part of your often microporous and they rapidly suck
solution. The ink will stop slumping when the solvent away at the leading edge of
the contact angle reaches the equilibrium the slumping ink. This sends the viscosity
value. So if you tuned your substrate so skyrocketing and the slump comes to a
the equilibrium angle were equivalent to halt. Crude porous substrates (such as pa-
the initial angle you would get no slump per) are obviously not a good idea as they
at all. This trick has been used in the world destroy edge quality. But micro-porous
of fine-line inkjet printing where they have materials (holes in the µm range) do not
very low viscosities and therefore very have a big effect on edge quality. There
large slumps. are some debates about whether micro-
33
roughness can slow slumping; it probably Discouraging and encouraging
does but I’ve not personally seen any con- This summary of slump might be a bit dis-
vincing evidence either way. couraging. If you have to start with a spe-
cific ink thickness onto a specific substrate
It’s obvious that if you have a solvent that then the only practical changes you can
flash evaporates your slump will also be make are to the ink. Changing the surface
reduced. The downside is that the ink will tension will have some effect, but it’s small.
dry in to the mesh. So in general you have to alter the viscous
behaviour of your ink. Because there are
Finally, if you can cool the substrate relative so many misunderstandings about the ef-
to the ink on the mesh (either by having fect of the viscosity on the ink deposit, a lot
a heated ink/mesh or a cooled substrate) of ink designers are confused about what
then the ink viscosity increases and the parameters can be adjusted to reduce
slump decreases. slump.
But if you are printing with a good low-
Slumping on the beach EOM, low-Rz stencil, the viscosity has no
Have you ever noticed a ‘beach’ effect effect on the ink deposit so you are free to
around your printed line or dot? It’s an engineer the ink for optimum slump. This
ultra-thin bit of something that lots of us is the encouraging aspect of this work.
have seen but never been able to analyze
or explain. It turns out that the science of Acknowledgement
slump offers some insight. Although there are many papers on the
science of slump, the work of Professor
Spreading of a liquid is impossible without Glen McHale at Nottingham Trent Univer-
a ‘precursor film’. This was at first thought sity is especially insightful. His papers on
of as a mathematical device to do the spreading of drops and cylinders are the
calculations, but these films, perhaps only basis for the computational results shown
0.1µm thick can be seen under the right here and his help is gratefully acknowl-
conditions. There are hints that the poly- edged. Readers are welcome to a copy of
mers in the ink can have difficulty enter- the MacDermid Autotype Drop Spread
ing the precursor film; if they can’t get in Modeller based on Prof. McHale’s theory.
then the ink can’t spread. This correlation
between beach and precursor film is only
speculative, but it might be possible for an
ingenious ink designer to take advantage
of this effect and produce a low-beach,
low-slump ink.
34
Mesh marking – causes and cures
We often see the marks of the mesh left
in our printed solids and lines. I would
love to offer you a simple insight into the
causes and cures, but so far I don’t know
what they are. What I can do is offer some
insights into what they aren’t!
35
Here are 3 images. The first is the stencil.
The second is the print with the mesh
marking. Under the microscope the mark-
The Optional Theory
36
For screen printers the important point is
that ‘Space between brush marks’ gets re-
placed by ‘Thread-to-thread spacing’ and if
you do the calculation you find that this is
so small that the levelling time is much less
than 1 second, even for very viscous inks
(>100Pa.s). It’s a very sad fact that even
with levelling times of many seconds we
still see mesh marking, so this simple mod-
el simply doesn’t seem to be relevant.
37
batches of the ‘same’ mesh. My favourite be followed up. If higher tension really
hypothesis (though I know of no research reduces mesh marking then this deserves
on this) is that differences in the shapes of to be more widely known - and the expla-
the knuckles will give variations in ink de- nation for the improvement would surely
posit and therefore different levelling times. follow.
If, for example, ‘warp’ knuckles are different
from ‘weft’ knuckles then the mesh mark- Mesh marking is ugly, it makes people feel
ing will be at half the frequency. The eye uncomfortable about screen printing and
is much more sensitive to low-frequency it degrades technical performance. Be-
visual defects so such a mesh might give cause many people have had the wrong
the impression of being worse. model for what it is, very little progress has
so far been made in solving it. Now that
Indeed, when I looked at the mesh mark- we’ve dispelled some myths and now that
ing from the 16µm mesh I was alarmed the ‘every other thread’ effect seems to of-
to find that the spacing wasn’t what I ex- fer a clue, let’s hope that one of the mesh
pected. Then I realised that it repeated makers will take up the challenge to deter-
with every 2 threads. In other words, one mine the cause and the cure. It would be
type of knuckle mesh-marked, the other a real money-making opportunity for the
didn’t. I then realised that I’d seen this ef- mesh maker and a real boost to the screen
fect on polyester meshes, but because the print industry.
mesh marking had been less clear I’d not
followed up on the observation. Acknowledgement:
Dr Nik Kapur the University of Leeds has
I am grateful for the expert observations of been most helpful in sorting out many of
Martin Duda. He has noted that the same the scientific issues of this complex topic.
ink printed on the same mesh under low
and high tension shows totally different
mesh-marking properties. The high ten- Precision registration
sion gives prints with much lower mesh We are all familiar with the problems of
marking, even with “tacky” or “thixotropic” registration when the temperature and
inks which, in his experience are the worst humidity change during printing on paper.
for mesh marking. Maybe the extra ten- There is less familiarity with the effects on
sion is smoothing out the second knuckle, plastics as these are generally quite small.
or maybe the cleaner snap-off gives less However, as the screen industry heads to-
tendency for the mesh to hang around wards ultra-fine printing for flexible elec-
in the ink and (somehow) produce worse tronics, the registration problems become
marking. These observations deserve to quite severe.
38
Let me give a specific example so you second pass. In other words we need to
can see the scale of the problem. Let’s register 1 million PLED printed dots on top
try to screen print a flat-panel display us- of 1 million transistor dots.
ing state-of-the-art plastic transistors and
polymer light emitting diodes (PLEDs). Assuming a display that’s 300x300mm with
Let’s assume that the screen printing of 1000x1000 resolution, each pixel occupies
each component is not a big problem in 300µm square. Let’s say that the PLED
itself. With modern stainless meshes, the element must be 250µm square, leaving
latest low-EOM, low-Rz stencils and with a 25µm border around each pixel. If our
inks optimized to reduce “slump”, we can transistor dot is smaller, say 160µm square
produce high-quality fine-line work down then in perfect registration we have a bor-
below 50µm. I’m not claiming that any of der of 45µm around the transistor. To make
this would be easy, but I just want to take sure that our PLED always fully covers
this part of the process for granted and the transistor we have to make sure that
concentrate on the real problem of regis- we are accurate to 45µm over the whole
tration. 300x300mm. The diagram illustrates the
idea. The dots on the left are all perfectly
To simplify even further, let’s just concen- arranged with the nice 45µm border. By
trate on two elements of the display and the time we reach the other end of the im-
assume (wrongly!) that we can print a age some of the dots are just about OK, but
transistor in one pass and the PLED in the one of them has gone over the 45µ limit.
39
The industry requires accuracies greater every 1°C of temperature rise. If the tem-
than this. For example a typical ‘pixel’ perature changes by 10°C it will expand by
might be 200µm square, but is made of 15*0.3*10=45µm.
The Optional Theory
We can readily find single effects that will 5.- If we are printing roll-to-roll then we
give us an error of 45µm over 300mm, so might want to keep our polyester under
the challenge of preserving this accuracy tension. If it’s 100µm thick then a typical
with multiple effects is severe. Here are the tension of 60N/m will stretch it by 45µm
first two effects over 300mm.
1.- Suppose our mesh is perfectly stretched These last effects are not so familiar to
and everything is in good registration. Let many printers. If you want to try calculat-
the screen relax a bit, by a tiny 0.015% ing them for your own system the equa-
(this means, for example, a tension going tions for temperature or humidity expan-
from 25N to 24.996N!). Over 300mm this sion are the same, with “Change” either
is 45µm. being ºC or %RH:
2.- Or let’s suppose that we use a large Expansion = Expansion-Coefficient * Change * Length
5mm snap-off (off-contact). Over the
300mm horizontal distance the image You will find large variations in expansion
becomes ~45µm longer. With extra dis- coefficients. For example, PET expands by
tortion because of squeegee pressure and 15µm/m/ºC, PC expands by 30µm/m/ºC
drag of the mesh coming out of the ink and PP by as much as 100µm/m/ºC. Simi-
(especially if the ink is too viscous), this will larly, PET expands by 15µm/m/%RH, the
get significantly longer. poly-olefins by ~1µm/m/%RH and PMMA,
which absorbs a lot of water, expands by a
Even if the press itself is perfect, this is still frightening 100µm/m/%RH.
a challenge. We can easily identify three
more issues: A good approximate formula for the
stretch of a substrate under tension is:
3.- Suppose we are using a polyester sub-
strate. It expands by 15µm across 1m for Stretch = Length * Tension / (Modulus * Thickness)
40
To check out the calculation for PET you the mesh during the squeegee stroke. The
need to make sure that everything is in only way we can do this is to minimize the
the correct units, so put in 0.3 for Length, drag on the mesh as it comes out of the
60 for Tension, 4,000,000,000 (4GPa) for the ink. A fine stainless mesh will experience
Modulus and 0.0001 for the Thickness. The less drag than a coarse polyester mesh.
result, 0.000045, translates to 45µm. Unfortunately, the liquid crystal meshes
gain strength in the length-wise direction
This list of problems (and it’s not exhaus- by sacrificing strength in the cross-thread
tive) means that we have to approach the direction so they tend to be a bit fat and
task systematically. Unless we have good might cause a lot of drag. But ultimately
temperature, humidity and tension control it’s down to the ink. It should be strongly
we can’t even begin to tackle the problem. shear thinning so that at the shear rates of
But assuming that all non-screen factors the mesh coming out of the ink the drag
are under control, how do we take care of is minimised.
the screen issues?
3.- We need to use the minimum squee-
We need to know what we’re doing when gee pressure so there is the minimum drag
we stretch our screens. Do it badly and the in the direction of the squeegee stroke.
tensions will sag both in storage and dur- Again this means a good shear-thinning
ing printing. There has been a revolution ink. It also means the thinnest possible
in understanding how to stretch properly stencil (provided it is low-Rz) so there is
and modern equipment does a far better the minimum work required to get the ink
job. through to the substrate. An alternative is
to get rid of the squeegee altogether and
But however good the mesh is, we can use a pressurised ink delivery system, but
harm it by stressing it too much so we this is more speculative.
have to get into good habits right from
the start: 4.- We should avoid applying the stress in
only one direction. So we need a squee-
1.- We need to use a mesh which retains its gee/flood system that can print in both di-
shape. Polyester is simply not up to the job rections. This is unusual for classic screen
for this high degree of accuracy. Stainless printing but is now quite common in high-
is, of course, very good. The newer liquid tech printing.
crystal meshes are also remarkably stable.
5.- We need to rely on feedback control.
2.- We need to print with essentially zero With automatic registration systems it’s
snap-off so that there is no need to deform possible to apply controlled tension to
41
the screen frame itself to compensate for Broadly there are two problems.
length changes from, e.g. relaxation of the
mesh tension. First, printers find ‘skipping’ in the portion
of a track immediately after (as defined by
Such systems will not be cheap. But we’re the direction of the squeegee stroke) it
talking about the high-end here. And crosses over another track.
what’s the alternative? If you are using ink-
jet you have the advantage that you can Second, they find that tracks get much
(in theory at least) place your drops exactly wider when they cross over another track.
in registration. But this too needs accurate
automatic registration systems with feed- It turns out that the answer to both prob-
back to the inkjet positioning systems. This lems is the same – make the previous track
isn’t cheap either. as thin as possible. And we already know
how to do that, by using a thin mesh and a
By understanding the individual elements low-EOM stencil (which has also to be low-
that affect registration, by optimising those Rz to minimise sawtoothing).
elements that are relatively simple to con-
trol (shear-thinning ink, thin mesh fibre, Before we start to explain why this helps
low-EOM, low-Rz stencil, near-zero snap-off, we need to address an obvious draw-
alternating squeegee strokes, temperature back of this solution. If, for example, you
and humidity control, substrate tension are used to printing a track that is 200µm
control) then the process is already off to wide and 16µm thick, going down to 8µm
a good start. (which would greatly help both problems)
would immediately halve your conductiv-
Printing tracks on tracks ity. So you’ve no choice but to use a more
In most of this eBook we focus on print- expensive ink which contains more (sil-
ing onto a flat substrate. Always the opti- ver) conductor, more cleverly optimised. If
mum combination to get good results is the price/kg is double and you’re printing
a low-EOM, low-Rz stencil, thin mesh fibre, half as much then you’re no worse off. But
shear-thinning ink with fast recovery, low there can be another problem. A more
snap-off, low squeegee pressure. They all highly-filled conductor might be much
work together in a natural way because higher viscosity so printing might get
the science of screen printing is essentially much more difficult. This is where it’s im-
simple. portant that you (and your supplier) know
how to design the perfect ink for screen
So what happens when we try to print one printing. The low-shear viscosity is not im-
track on top of another? portant (indeed, the higher the better), it’s
42
the high-shear viscosity which needs to be stroke will force the ink sideways, just
low and a good ink manufacturer might as if you had a high Rz stencil. If you do
still be able to give you this. anything with the squeegee, ink or press
speed to avoid the skipping you will auto-
Now we can address the skipping issue. matically increase the broadening. So your
If your squeegee is at a nice low pressure only choice is to go again to the 8µm track.
that is printing high quality tracks away You automatically reduce the forces that
from crossovers, it’s possible that there is lead to spreading and you gain a wonder-
not enough pressure to force the ink to ful advantage. Suppose that printing over
travel down the extra 16µm to be in con- a 16µm track gave you a broadening of
tact with the substrate ready for the print 16µm each side of your new track. If you
step. No contact = No print. Ahead of the print over an 8µm gap you don’t halve
crossover the squeegee is helped by the the broadening; you reduce it by a factor
fact that the ink travels both down and of 8 to a mere 2µm. This is because flow
forwards. Just after the crossover, there through a gap (if everything else is con-
is no forward-travelling ink so only the stant) goes as gap³.
downward motion is available. That’s why
the ink doesn’t get a chance to reach the As seems to happen very often with the
substrate. Increasing the squeegee pres- 1-2-3 of screen printing, the laws of phys-
sure will help, but there are practical limits ics are very much on our side. Everything
as to what you can achieve without intro- you need to do to increase the quality of
ducing distortions to the stencil. Making single-layer prints helps you (and some-
sure that the ink is highly shear-thinning times more than helps you!) print the sub-
will also help. And printing slower, giving sequent tracks with far fewer problems.
time for the ink to flow is also an obvious
option. Going down to an 8µm thickness
makes it much easier to get the ink down
to the substrate without excessive squee-
gee pressure or slowing down the print
process. If your mesh is 40µm thick then
instead of ink having to travel 56µm it only
has to travel 48µm. This requires 48/56 of
the pressure, a reduction of 14%.
43
Print Faults - Making and fixing them
Tricia Church
Like everyone, I get faults in my prints. To I can’t give you a copy of my bad prints, but
fix them I need to know the root cause. I can give you the next best thing which is
My favourite resource for finding the root pictures of many of those bad prints along
cause is a set of bad prints I made some with the explanation of what I deliberately
years ago. These are very special bad did wrong. Hopefully you will find this a
prints because, under the wise tuition of useful practical guide for your own prob-
Bill Appleton, I had set things up deliber- lem solving.
ately badly in order to see what happened It’s important to include a range of chal-
when things were wrong. I find that it is lenging features in any test printing. The
very easy to spot the deliberate mistake image from the Serilor Log test suite is par-
in my set of bad prints and then reset my ticularly challenging and insightful and is
printing in order to correct for that fault. highly recommended.
45
They include tape marks on the positive, a
thumb print in the drying filler, filler break-
down, coating lines in the emulsion from
using a (deliberately) bad trough, flooding,
filling in, etc. etc. Some of the details of the
print settings have been removed from
Print Faults
46
All these lines should look like the line
along the bottom of the image. But we Too fine a mesh
used a mesh that was too small for the
ink particles and we have classic “sieving”
where the particles block the mesh holes.
You can get something like this if the ink Sieving of large ink par-
dries in, but this ink was resistant to dry- ticles by too fine a mesh. The
ing in and we did not get the effect with printed stripes should look like
a coarser mesh. Note that the particles the silver (white in this image)
aren’t extremely large, but if a hole is <3x stripes on the dark substrate.
the width of the particles then it gets Note the blocking that has
blocked very quickly. In this case there started in the 3rd stripe up
were only 2-3 mesh holes/line width so from the bottom.
you can judge that the particles were near
the critical 3x limit.
47
Wrong ink - Too much viscous drag (with a large snap-off (off-contact))
48
How teardrops fall onto your print
This screen was deliberately badly cleaned. When we printed it there was a clear ghost
image visible. Under the microscope, the ghost is made of patches of unprinted ink. With
this mesh and ink, mesh-marking is especially strong and the ghost image seems to mag-
nify the effect.
49
Dust
Print Faults
We threw some dust onto the press dur- Ink flows from high to low surface tension Registration problems
ing printing and, not surprisingly, got these so you start to get instabilities. These insta- We don’t need to show you the images
“hickies” which would not be appreciated bilities work in 3 dimensions and you start because you know what they look like, but
by a customer! to get regular cells where solvent is rising it was a useful exercise deliberately to dry
in one point and sinking in another. Under or to humidify a print before printing the
Orange peel the right (or wrong!) conditions these cells same image on top of it. The dried print
This is hard to image but easy to spot.There can form perfect hexagons, the classic mark shrank by 2mm over a 400mm print (0.5%)
are many causes of orange peel, all coming of the extreme Marangoni effect. The cure and the humidified print expanded by
down to the fact that the ink is generally is either more gentle drying, more com- 1mm (0.25%). Such gross mis-registrations
unhappy when it’s drying. So printing an patible solvents (less difference in volatil- are easy to spot, but doing this test was a
incompatible ink on top of another gives ity, less difference in surface tension) or a reminder that for precision printing, exact
one type of orange peel (that’s what we more effective surface active agent which equilibration of the substrate between
did to ensure we saw it). Having the wrong swamps differences in surface energy. prints is of great importance. For paper,
solvent blend, or too much thinner is an- the effect of water is well-known. But the
other way. The cause of this sort of orange Belt marks effects on plastic substrates are less well-
peel is interesting and is sometimes called Again this is a problem that’s easily visible known. See Steve’s “Registration” section
the Marangoni effect. As the more-volatile on the print but hard to show in a photo- for a discussion of thermal and hygroscop-
solvent evaporates it leaves behind a sol- graph. You see a broad regular pattern on ic effects in ultra-high-precision printing
vent mix with a different surface tension. the print that coincides with the pattern of onto plastics.
50
Colour Shifts
Tricia Church
What’s the best order to print your four
colours? This is a question that has been
around for years and there’s been no defini-
tive answer. As a practical project we decid- Background
The printing literature is full of contradic-
ed to revisit the question to see if a clearer
tory reports on the best sequence for
answer would emerge. What we found is that printing CMYK (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and
subjective opinion left the question open, but Black). Many of them are said to be scien-
tific reports, but the fact that they so often
that science allowed us to come up with a contradict each other makes it hard for real
better answer. printers to know what is best for them and
their customers. Even more confusingly,
ISO Standards for colour printing refer to
them as “CMYK standards”which might im-
ply that CMYK is the standard order, even
though no standard order is mandated.
With a small dot, just after the squeegee has passed, there is a
modest amount of ink ready to be printed.
52
With a larger dot, there is much more ink ready to be printed
When the stencil is nicely in contact with you don’t have the basics in place. These
the substrate, a certain amount of ink is aspects of printing 4-colour jobs are entire-
printed. When the stencil is held above the ly under your rational control. If you don’t
substrate by the presence of a preceding do these then your nightmare with the
dot then more ink must be printed. dot-on-dot effects will simply be worse.
The definitive study of this effect was car- 1.- Use a low EOM, low Rz stencil
ried out in 1999-2001 by Eifion Jewell’s It’s now widely appreciated that a low EOM
team at Swansea University and Autotype gives you the smallest dots and therefore
reported on the implications of that work the minimum dot-on-dot gain. High EOM
in the 2001 SGIA magazine. Their study regularly gives “skipping” in addition to ter-
showed that the amount of gain depend- rible dot-on-dot gain. As “skipping” often
ed on the amount of dot underneath. gets confused with moiré a printer with a
A small dot gave a small dot gain, a large high-EOM stencil can get very confused
dot (i.e. something approaching a solid) in trying to sort out the various problems.
also gives a small gain, and intermediate The rule is simple – never do 4-colour
dots give the largest gain. This means that work with a high-EOM stencil! It is also
there is no simple correction process that appreciated that a low Rz (stencil rough-
can be provided to a print to compensate ness) is needed to stop squeegee-induced
for the effect. So we can guarantee that we gain. This gives the second rule – never
will have dot-on-dot problems and that no do 4-colour work with a high Rz stencil! If
print sequence can be perfect. you have a stencil with both low EOM and
Now we know we aren’t looking for perfec- low Rz then your mono-colour prints are
tion, can we at least find a good compro- under excellent control (dot gains typically
mise? That was the function of our study. < 10% and with a total immunity to squee-
gee settings, print speeds etc.) and your
Basic rules dot-on-dot problems are minimized. We
There is no point in doing such a study if used Capillex CP with a 3µm EOM and a
53
high-frequency (non-flooding) Rz of 4µm amount of the ink so the intensity of the
as this has consistently proved to be an first ink down is higher than that of sub-
excellent balance of stencil properties for sequent prints. With hindsight we should
high-quality printing. We found no skip- have based the inks to a compromise value
ping, our mono dot gain was under good based on, e.g. densities obtained by print-
Colour shifts
control and the job was easy to print. The ing onto a non-absorbent plastic substrate.
stencil also has a proven high fidelity from However, we found that we are not alone.
film to print so we were reducing stencil- Many printers make this error and ascribe
induced colour shifts to a minimum. the reduced colour of subsequent inks to
some mythical “trapping” effect. Simple
2. - Use a “thin”mesh experiments on non-absorbent substrates
In addition to choosing a thin stencil, you show that such “trapping” is a myth. We’ve
need to use the thinnest practical mesh learned from our mistake, we hope you will
which holds, and therefore prints, the least learn from it too.
amount of ink.
5.- Choose a mesh/lpi combination
3.- Choose an ink with a thin de- which will give zero mesh moiré
posit As we are not expert printers and were us-
Obviously solvent-based inks can give you ing a single-colour press we didn’t want
a thinner ink deposit. With UV inks the to be too ambitious so we chose to print
only relevant “solvent” is water and we all at 80lpi. Using the MacDermid Autotype
know that water-based UV gives less dot- Mesh Moiré Calculator we were able to de-
on-dot gain than standard UV. However, termine that our C,Y and M screens at 37.5,
water-based UV has its own challenges. 82.5 and 7.5° would be free of mesh moiré
We deliberately chose a standard UV ink on a 150/31 mesh but that there would
as this would maximise the print sequence be a strong moiré with the K at 67.5°. We
effects in which we were interested. therefore printed the K on a 180/27 mesh
which the Calculator showed to be moiré
4.- Make sure you have the right free. See Steve’s moiré section for an expla-
CMYK intensities from your inks nation.
We have to admit to making an error here
that is all too common. We printed our sol- 6.- Make sure you have good regis-
id inks onto our chosen substrate (a matt tration and fit
coated paper) then “based”the inks till they As this was a complex job done over many
reached the required ISO density standards weeks it was not realistic for us to have
for 4-colour screen. What was our error? substrates all stabilized perfectly to the
We forgot that the paper absorbed a small same extent. So registration and fit were
54
not perfect. However, careful inspection es. Our mentors narrowed the choice
showed that this in no way affected the down to 6 plus the two Caza sequences.
conclusions about the print sequence. This gave us
55
We formed our own (subjective) opin-
ions of the various sequences but were
then fortunate that FESPA Slovakia were
holding a meeting at which Bill Appleton
was speaking. The experienced Slovakian
printers gave their own opinions. There
was, of course, no agreement about which
sequence was best, though sequence 5
and one of the Caza sequences had their
supporters. Preferences depended, not
surprisingly, on what people were look-
ing for. As we will see, the 15° moiré effect
strongly biased many of the judgements.
As this effect can be taken into account by
a very simple process we will ignore this
aspect of the prints till we come to the sec-
tion devoted specifically to the effect.
Rather than rely on subjectivity, we decid- This portion of one of the Linotype-Hell test images shows the wide
ed to create an objective measure which colour variation from four of the eight test sequences. Clockwise
we call the Colour Fidelity Index, CFI. This from the top left, 4:MCYK, 5:MYCK, 6:YCMK, 8:CMKY
captures 3 independent factors, all of
which have to be right:
• Good greys –shifts in greys are a good measurements and plots on the CIE chart
indication of a print generally out of con- showed that there was no significant dif-
trol ference in gamut in any of the sequences.
• Good 3-colour tones – this captures We have no explanation for why our results
the fact that a lot of the subjective colour differed from Swansea’s and others might
judgement was based on the more com- like to include gamut in their own CFI.
plex tones which often looked far too The idea was to obtain objective measures
dark. for each of these factors, scale each of
• Good shadows – we want to lose as little them from 0 100 then divide the total by
shadow detail as possible. 3 to give us a 0 100 CFI, where 100 is the
perfect print.
We had anticipated (because of other
work done at Swansea) using a fourth cri- Getting the objective measure for the
terion – the colour gamut. But careful Lab greys was easy. For a 20%, 50% and 90%
56
grey, the Lab values of the printed and ref- So we were able to provide numbers for
erence greys were measured (you need a three values. To calculate the CFI we add-
spectrophotometer or spectrodensitom- ed the three values then divided by three
eter for this, but all serious colour printers to get their average. For example, Seq 1
should have these) and the colour differ- had values of 31, 60, 48 which gave a total
ence (DeltaE) calculated. The DeltaE’s for of 139. Divide that by 3, gives 46.
the three greys were then summed and
put on a 0 100% scale with the average 15° moiré
value ~50 and defined so that perfect Our subjective judgements of the print
greys (i.e. a DeltaE sum of 0) gave 100%. quality was greatly affected by the fact that
prints 1, 3 and 7 had terrible moiré visible in
For the 3-colour tones the most satisfacto- the pretty lily. The reason quickly became
ry method turned out to be a simple mea- clear. In each case we were printing a light
sure of the %K along a 0 100% 3-colour M tint on top of a relatively solid Y. This
tone strip followed by adding together the isn’t entirely obvious because sequence 3
difference between the measured %K and is YCMK; but the lily has almost no C so the
the specified value. Again the results were M was going directly on top of the Y. The
put on a 0 100% scale with the average next fact to check was the screen angles.
set at 50 and perfection defined as 100%. The Y and M are indeed 15° apart. You
would not expect any moiré from Y and C
Because the shadows are so important as they are 45° apart, and there isn’t much
for a good print, and because the Caza b K on Y printing. Why were we seeing moiré
sequence showed a clear advantage over only in M on Y? The important answer is
the other prints (there is no dot-on-dot that we weren’t! In the 4 image prints, it
shadow gain when the K is printed first) we happened that only the lily was set up to
wanted to do the same sort of measure as show the moiré. In the 2-colour test strips
with the 3-colour tones. Unfortunately our there was very strong moiré of both M on
printed 4-colour strip was a pure theoreti- Y and Y on M in the middle tones.
cal strip with no GCR/UCA. It showed enor-
mous dot-gain, making the measurement As explained in Steve’s moiré section of
technique unsatisfactory. We reluctantly the eBook, moiré depends on three fac-
resorted to an expert relative assessment tors. The first is the maths, the second is
of the degree of shadow clarity (using the the human eye, the third is amplification of
proof as a reference standard) and to be the mathematical effect. Mathematically
consistent with the other measures gave 15° moiré is always present. But generally
the prints a score either side of 50 with a the human eye accepts it if its amplitude
scatter similar to the other measures. is below a certain level. What happens
57
And the winner is...
58
Caza finds, for example, that for his very With a spectrophotometer (or spectroden-
high lpi printing that Caza a, which hap- sitometer) you can measure the grey scale
pened to have a low CFI for us, works very changes and with an ordinary % Dot den-
well. It would be interesting to see the CFI sitometer you can measure the 3-colour
data at these high linecounts. tone densities and the 4-colour black den-
sities. A simple spreadsheet will then let
What is applicable is our methodology. you work out your own CFI. In a shop with
First, the principles of dot-on-dot gain a 4-colour press the whole process would
need to be grasped by your organisation. be very quick and very insightful.
Next you need to make sure you are print-
ing with low-EOM and low-Rz to ensure Conclusion
you have the minimum dot-on-dot and As so often with screen printing, when
squeegee-based gain. You need to choose you strip away unnecessary confusions
a thin mesh and, if possible, a “thinnable”ink by getting the basic preparation right it
such as water-based UV. Then you need to becomes much easier to make sensible
decide which colour should be 15° from decisions that affect you and your custom-
the yellow to minimise the moiré effect. ers. Choosing the right stencil, the right
Then you can make up a simple test strip choice of mesh to remove mesh moiré, the
with 3 grey balance patches, a 3-colour right ink density, agreeing on a standard of
tone curve and a 4-colour black (with your “truth” made our task much simpler. With a
own GCR/UCA settings) and quickly print relatively few objective measurements, and
a few different sequences using your four with the simple understanding of moiré
stencils. we were able to come up with a couple of
print sequences which we would use on a
routine basis for colour printing. We hope
that you will be able to reach a similar con-
clusion by carrying out a few objective
tests on your own prints.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Bill Appleton, Prof John Davison,
Michel Caza, Prof Long Lin for advice and
practical help.
59
Getting the right exposure
Anna Harris
You can have the best ink, the best mesh, Photo-stencil sensitivity
the best press and the best film/emulsion, The emulsions used to produce a photo-
but if you don’t get the exposure right, you stencil (liquid or film) use light energy to
can get poor image quality on your sten- activate the sensitizer which initiates the
cil and/or poor print-life on the press. This crosslinking reaction that in turn cures the
chapter starts with a review of exposure stencil.
science and ends with a set of tips and
tricks for getting the right exposure. The wavelength of light that the sensitizer
absorbs will depend upon it’s chemical na-
Exposure ture. Typically emulsion sensitizers absorb
Definition : ‘On exposure to UV, light the light between 300 and 450nm, common
sensitizer within the photostencil materials absorption curves are:
reacts to crosslink the molecules in the stencil
to produce a layer insoluble in water’. Diazo – alone in single-cure emulsions.
The practical mechanics of exposure are Acrylate sensitiser – present with diazo in
fairly simple. The photostencil material is dual-cure emulsions.
held in intimate contact with a film posi- Photopolymer – used in ‘One Pot’ emul-
tive and exposed to an ultraviolet light sions.
source for a pre-determined time.
61
Getting the right exposure
62
As exposure time increases more of the Definition is the reproductive quality as
light emitted by the lamp passes through regards, for example, the straightness of
the stencil as less is used in the crosslink- edges of print. There are no real gains in
ing reaction. If only 418nm light is con- stencil durability from over exposure.
sidered then the reaction can be seen to The following diagrams outline the effects
be complete when the light reaches it’s of under-exposure at 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 of
maximum: the full exposure for a direct stencil.
63
3/4 full exposure Exposure time depends on many factors:
• Mesh
• Stencil (type, thickness)
• Lamp (type, distance, age of bulb,
reflector design…)
64
As the distance between the light source and the vacuum frame increases so less light hits
the stencil. This means that the time to achieve full exposure will increase. The formula
for calculating this is:
X = Y x (a)2/(b)2
Where:
X = New exposure time
Y= Original exposure time
a = New distance
b = Old distance
At the same time, the light hitting the stencil becomes closer to 90°. This will result in less
undercutting and improved resolution. This is because light rays that are not parallel can
expose bits of stencil that should have been masked by the film. This is often referred to
as light undercutting.
From a practical point of view poor light geometry effects do not present a problem when
processing general work, i.e. lettering down to about 6 point and halftones of 65 lines (25
cm) or coarser.
It is only when trying to accurately reproduce very fine line halftones or images that at-
tention must be paid to light geometry. Very high quality work uses a lens system on the
exposure unit which collimates the light, ensuring that it all arrives at 90º.
65
Getting the right exposure
White mesh transmits and scatters light, This makes using dyed mesh particularly
yellow and orange mesh absorb the wave- important for fine detail resolution on fine
lengths needed for the crosslinking reac- meshes.
tion, but scatter far less of the light.
Poor contact with positive
This means that dyed meshes require lon- The contact between positive and stencil
ger exposures (up to 4x for some yellow should be as perfect as possible, inade-
meshes) but give better resolution and quate contact results in light undercutting,
definition. Light scatter increases with more so when combined with poor light
mesh count and exposure time. geometry.
66
Here’s what can happen if the positive is
placed the wrong way up. Light undercut-
ting has resulted in loss of resolution.
UV light UV light
67
Undercutting from a rough stencil
Some brilliant detective work by Dr Eifion Jewell showed that high Rz stencils suffer seri-
ous problems during exposure. He used sophisticated equipment to measure “tone gain”
(i.e. size of exposed dot compared to expected dot size) in the dots on the stencil itself.
The scattering from the high Rz stencil made dots smaller and smaller as exposure was
increased. Here is a comparison between a capillary film and a typical emulsion:
Effect of exposure time on tone gain for an 85lpi test positive in a capillary stencil. There is
very little change from increased exposure times because there is very little scattering from
the smooth stencil surface.
68
Comparing lamp age fore a loss of resolution.
As lamps get older the light integrator will • A change of mesh-count has a compli-
ensure that the same amount of light hits cated effect on exposure time. There is no
the stencil so maintaining the level of cure good way to calculate the various trade-
by increasing the exposure time. As lamps offs, so if you change your mesh, you must
get older, however, the wavelength emit- re-optimize your exposure.
ted also shifts. The intensity of the longer
wavelength light decreases relative to Autotype Exposure Calculator
the shorter wavelength. The longer wave- Exposure is extremely important to the fin-
length light penetrates better than shorter ished stencil and the most frequent cause
wavelength light. So the lamp can dete- of stencil failure. The Autotype Exposure
riorate enough to give poor through-cure Calculator provides quick, accurate deter-
whilst still seeming to be bright. Regular mination of exposure times with all pho-
lamp changes are essential to prevent this tostencil systems. It can also be used as a
problem. printing aid to optimise print quality, or as
a means of process control.
69
Getting the right exposure
(or number of units) for that particular As part of the Autotype Digital Screen
stencil/mesh/light source combination. Printer software suite, the Digital Exposure
Calculator lets you explore many of the ef-
Example: 0.7 x 10 minutes = 7 minutes fects discussed in this chapter. Although
it cannot be a precise guide, the general
Correct factor x test exposure = Correct trends shown in the software can be help-
Exposure ful for thinking through exposure issues.
The graphs on the right are particularly
If there is still a colour change between helpful in understanding what happens to
Factor 0.7 and Factor 1, this indicates an the dots in the high-light and shadow re-
under-exposed stencil, DOUBLE the origi- gions – as you try to improve the situation
nal test exposure, and repeat the test. for one, you tend to make things worse
The Exposure Calculator can also be used for the other. The screen shot shows what
to assess printed edge definition (straight- happens if the Rz is set to a very high val-
ness/ clarity of the printed edge) and print ue – producing a very large change in the
resolution (fineness of detail achievable). dot-gain curve from the exposure.
The target is designed to allow the user
to select the best angle to position the Exposure tips and tricks
film positive stencils in order to avoid “saw • Get the right distance between lamp
tooth” and mesh interference. Resolution and stencil. Too close and you have in-
is checked by assessing the degree of “fill- sufficient exposure at the edges and also
ing in” at the centre of the target. strong undercutting.
70
Too far and your exposure times are un- • Make sure your glass is clean and not
necessarily long. scratched or hazy.
• Use a light integrator to ensure you have • Use a good vacuum. A loss in vacuum
the same exposure each time. gives a loss in resolution.
• Change out old bulbs as these can give • Re-calibrate exposures if you change
poor exposure. your mesh.
71
Solving problems in the real world
Anna Harris & David Parker
Over the years we’ve built up a large num- adding additional enclosure take care that
ber of case studies of problems found in air movement into the area is from a clean
the real world. Here we share our experi- source. For instance shutting the door will
ence of the things that have caused screen be a waste of time if the air is then going
printers real problems – and the solutions to be pulled from a dirty air space above
we have found for those problems. ceiling tiles.
73
The simple act of removing a sheet of film feature” gets you fairly close to the right
from a stack, or passing a film through a answer. For fine-line printing there is no
rubber roller nip produces static by sepa- alternative to the finest stainless mesh you
Solving problems
ration and friction. can handle. And if you are after accurate
Static is hard to eliminate once it has been registration then a stainless or liquid-crys-
produced so the best thing to do is to re- tal mesh are your most likely choices as
duce the chances of creating it. An envi- polyester simply does not have sufficient
ronment with a relative humidity greater long-term stability.
than 50% helps. Reduce handling and The other aspect of mesh choice is more
rubber-roller nips to a minimum. subtle. You must avoid mesh moiré. Fortu-
Then make sure you have anti-static devic- nately, the Mesh Moiré Calculator (see the
es at critical positions. An ionising air-gun section on moiré) helps you find the right
is useful for spot work (especially for the mesh-count for your 4-colour settings.
final cleaning of a screen). An ionising air- As most high-resolution screen printers
system installed on a press keeps critical are moving to stainless, there’s one more
areas static free. And although “Christmas tip we’ve learned from our most advanced
tinsel” does a reasonable job of removing customers. Get hold of blackened stain-
static, it doesn’t look too professional and is less mesh as this has a dramatic effect on
easily broken; modern anti-static bungee- improving resolution. It’s currently hard to
cords are a better alternative. get hold of, but the more customers who
demand it, the more the stainless mesh
The wrong mesh manufacturers will start to supply it.
We’re astonished at how often printers
choose the wrong mesh. The most com- Image too close to the frame
mon error is to use white mesh, then com- If you have a few mm snap-off (off-contact),
plain about lack of resolution. Next is an the pressure from the squeegee needed
inappropriate choice of mesh-count and to force the mesh into contact with the
diameter. What is puzzling about this is substrate might be modest in the middle
that the choice should be very simple. If of the mesh, but will be higher when the
the print contains large blocks of open squeegee gets close to the edge of the
image then desired ink deposit can only frame. This comes from simple geometry.
come from a relatively small number of
meshes – too coarse and the deposit is
too large, too fine and the deposit is too Middle of the
thin. If the print contains lots of fine detail mesh, relatively low
then the rule-of-thumb “2.5x the thread pressure required,
diameter is the minimum size of printable medium distortion
74
Edge of the mesh, relatively high pressure required,
large distortion
75
Emulsion coating cant EOM – when you have two troughs
The advice about cleanliness is really im- opposite each other, they don’t allow any
portant for emulsion coating. When we excess on either side.
developed ultra-clean emulsions for the
high-end electronics printers we were The high Rz of a simple emulsion coating
not able to properly test our own product gives lots of problems during printing. We
till our QC department moved into a full often have to remind printers where the
clean-room environment. Only then could Rz comes from. You start with a uniform
we be sure that our emulsions were as coating and the water evaporates. Let’s
clean as they had to be – before that we suppose (for simplicity) you have a 100µm
could never tell if a defect was in the emul- total wet coating on a mesh that is 50µm
sion or from the test laboratory. thick. And suppose it’s an advanced 50%
solids emulsion.
We’re not going to say much about coat-
ing troughs. Our preference is for a simple, Then the 100µm of emulsion in the open
sharp-edged trough and we take good areas of the mesh dries to 50µm, so is just
care of them because any defect in the level with the surface of the mesh. But
trough ends up as a defect on the stencil. the 50µm of emulsion sitting above 50µm
of solid mesh also halves in thickness to
Not everyone knows that controlling the 25µm. So above the solid mesh you have
level of emulsion in the trough is impor- 25µm, and in the mesh holes you have
tant. The amount that flows out as you 0µm. This means you have an Rz of 25µm.
coat is highly dependent on the level. A
full trough gives a higher EOM. So if you
don’t control this level, every stencil will
turn out to be different.
76
The lower the solids, the higher the Rz. If we The advantage of wet-on-wet coating is
had a 25% solids emulsion in the example that it is quick and easy. The disadvantage
above then in the holes it would shrink to is that it doesn’t do all that much. As you
25µm below the mesh surface and in the put on subsequent coats you drag away
solid areas it would shrink to 12.5µm, giv- plenty of the previous coats. The benefits
ing an Rz of 37.5µm. to both Rz and EOM are modest.
A low-solids emulsion gives a high Rz Our own experience is that by far the best
way to achieve a low-Rz, low-EOM stencil is
to use a capillary film especially designed
Here’s a 3D view of how Rz is caused by to give that balance of properties. It’s
shrinkage above the holes in the mesh: much faster and more reproducible than
all those wet-on-dry coatings!
Drying
It’s amazing how many printers don’t
understand that you can’t dry a stencil
without some warmth and some flow of
air that isn’t already saturated with water
vapour. The theory of drying says that air
flow is usually more important than mere
temperature. Just think of the difference
of drying your hair with a cool hair dryer
A 3D view of high Rz (plenty of air flow but little heat) and with
an electric heater (plenty of heat but little
air flow). The hair dryer wins every time.
And remember that overheating the sten-
cil will cause it to fuse and give poor re-
claim.
77
A quick tip to help with a poor drying setup that for prints onto smooth substrates
is to install a de-humidifier in the system. there can be a lot of static generated when
There’s a different sort of drying issue we the stencil and substrate separate. A fix for
Solving problems
see from time to time. If your print is being this is to use a rough stencil with lower
dried on a belt going through the oven, stencil/substrate contact. But generally
the pattern on the belt sometimes shows this reduces print quality. A stencil with
through on the print. a high-frequency micro-roughness (such
as Capillex CP and CX) gives the reduced
The higher thermal conductivity of the static but without the reduction in print
belt means that that part of the print dries quality.
faster, so ink flows from the less dried part
to fill in, and the net effect is more ink cor- Thick edges
responding to the areas in contact with It’s amazing how many printers try to use
the belt. a thick stencil to get a thick print. This can
work for narrow features, but then you
Exposure control get other problems such as negative saw-
Everyone’s in a hurry and likes to under- toothing described below. But in general, a
expose. It obviously helps with resolution thick stencil merely gives you a thick edge,
too. But it’s very easy for the current level simply because the stencil has no influ-
of under-exposure to be regarded as being ence on the amount of ink that’s printed a
full-exposure, so someone under-exposes few mesh holes away. As we’ll see in a mo-
a bit more … till you get a soft stencil with ment “no influence”hides another problem
poor edge definition and a poor print life. caused by thick stencils.
Drifts downwards in levels of under-expo-
sure, coupled with the drift downwards in
output from the lamps is the single big-
gest source of problems we’ve found in
the whole screen-print business!
78
With low squeegee pressure and this very Thick edges are evil in many ways. First,
thick stencil, the ink doesn’t properly reach they can look ugly. Second, they will cause
the substrate so you get skipping or nega- increased slump (see below). Third, they
tive sawtoothing: give you non-uniform properties over the
printed part. Fourth, they help mess-up
anything you print on top of them as their
uneven topography guarantees to give
uneven printing. (We knew one printer
who was so bothered by thick edges that
they were ground down in a special pro-
cess. Another printer filled the gaps be-
tween tracks to somehow compensate
for the thick edge.) Fifth, we’ve even found
The ugly effect of a thick stencil and inadequate examples where the thick edges destroy
squeegee pressure inter-layer ink adhesion!
79
stencil causes a thick edge needed modi- With the high-EOM stencil in the top
fication. graph, track resistances varied from ~7 to
more than 15 ohms. With the low-EOM
If you have a really strong squeegee pres- stencil, resistance was amazingly constant.
sure (relative to mesh tension) then instead See the next section for another example
of the 3rd bit of mesh being in contact of why the low-EOM, low-Rz stencil also
with the substrate (as in the picture above) performs much better compared to its
maybe the 1st is in contact – so the thick high-Rz alternative.
edge extends only a small way. With really
weak squeegee pressure then the mesh
won’t be in contact with the substrate at
all, so the whole track is “thick”. What con-
stitutes high or low pressure also (for subtle
reasons) depends on the orientation of the
line with respect to the squeegee, so we
end up with a nightmare of uncontrolled
ink deposit. This is not some theoretical The high-EOM stencil
worry. In our experiments, over a reason- (top) gives large thickness/
able range of squeegee pressures, angles resistivity changes with
and line orientations (captured in 81 differ- squeegee pressure/angle/
ent prints) here’s how a high EOM and low orientation. The low-EOM,
EOM stencil (both low-Rz) compared: low-Rz stencil (below) is in
better control
80
The rule is to use a thin (low EOM) stencil
with a low roughness (Rz) to give you uni-
form thickness and accurate edges.
81
This screen-shot from the Line Edge Dem-
onstrator from the DSP shows a high EOM
and high Rz leading to positive sawtooth-
Solving problems
82
The reason the high-Rz gives such a large variation is subtle. There are two competing
effects. A high pressure can give more total ink printed and therefore a lower resistance.
But much of that extra ink is along a sawtoothed edge which gives a higher resistance
because there is no continuous path. If the total volume printed is the same (compared
to a perfect stencil) but more of it spreads out into the sawtoothed edges then the overall
resistance is higher, which is what we measure.
83
A modest Rz gives a
modest absolute spot
gain and modest 13%
dot gain…
84
At 100lpi we have exactly the same absolute dot gain (30µm) but because the spot is only
203µm compared to 508µm there is 32% dot gain for a 50% dot.
This is the key reason why printers have so much trouble when they go to higher lpi in
response to demands from their customers. If they keep their same high Rz stencils, their
dot gain becomes enormous.
This is the opposite effect to positive sawtoothing. The printed line has chunks eaten out
of it. And mysteriously (to the printer) the negative sawtoothing only takes place on the
leading edge of the line.
The cause is a high EOM stencil. The squeegee cannot get enough ink into the stencil at
this point, and if the ink doesn’t touch the substrate then it doesn’t get printed, so you get
the chunk eaten out of your printed line.
Very often we ask “What’s the EOM of your stencil?” and the printer doesn’t know “ Because
our screen supplier told us it would be fine”. We generally carry an EOM meter around with
us, and on our laptop we have the Line Edge Demonstrator software that explains why the
high EOM leads to the negative sawtoothing.
85
Solving problems
The image is exactly the same setup as for the one shown in positive sawtoothing, but the
squeegee pressure has been reduced so the ink cannot reach the substrate right next to
the stencil edge.
The cure is simple – go to a low EOM stencil. But if the low EOM stencil is also high Rz
(which is usually the case) you swap one defect for another. You have to have both low
EOM and low Rz for a great print.
86
This is basic skipping. Generally you have to be completely out of control to get this in a
single colour. The real problem comes when you print the 2nd or 3rd colour in the set.
Now your stencil is often sitting on top of a big dot and the ink has even further to travel
before it can reach the substrate – so again it only prints a “puppy paw” in the middle of
the dot. This is classic skipping. As so often is the case, the Screen Print Animator shows
what’s going on:
The squeegee pressure isn’t high enough to force the ink down the extra distance caused
by the previous dots. So when the stencil rises, it only leaves little dots where the ink
touched the surface of the substrate.
It’s skipped!
Because the skipping fades in and out depending on where your new dot is with respect
to previous dots, the skipping isn’t uniform. To the uneducated eye it can look like moiré
and the printer then wastes a lot of time trying to fix the non-existent moiré! In fact, after
classic mesh moiré, skipping is the single largest source of “moiré” that we’ve seen. It’s
entirely unnecessary and can easily be cured. The most obvious cure is to increase the
squeegee pressure, but then you get lots more spreading and lose quality and resolution.
87
Now the ink fully fills the extra space caused
by the dots, but look how much more ink is
deposited compared to the places where
the stencil is in perfect contact with the
substrate!
So the only root-cause cure is to ensure or a high EOM so printers generally have
that your previously printed dots are as good stencils when they see this problem.
small as possible. To do this you must What’s so puzzling is that some of the edg-
either use low-solids solvent-based (or es are nice and straight and others are very
water-based) inks or use a very thin stencil sawtoothed. Closer examination shows
which gives the minimum deposit. How- that the quality fades in and out along the
ever, a thin stencil often has a high Rz so line. Here’s an extreme example of a silver
you get lots of dot-gain. You can only fix ink being printed with too coarse a mesh
skipping and avoid spreading by using a for the 50µm line/spacing:
specialist low-EOM, low-Rz stencil, either as
a film such as Capillex CP/CX or as a multi-
coat wet-on-dry emulsion process.
88
The explanation is simple. The printer has pushed the boundaries of the ink and the sten-
cil but has failed to push the boundaries of the mesh. You can’t print fine lines with a
coarse mesh! The on-off sawtoothing comes about when the edge of the line starts get-
ting trapped between a mesh fibre and the edge of the stencil.
Here’s an idealised image of an inappropriate mesh (a 120/20 mesh trying to print 40µm
lines/spaces)
The mesh simply gets in the way and stops ink flowing properly to the substrate. Higher
squeegee pressure can help a little, but fundamentally there’s only one thing you can do,
which is go to the finest stainless mesh you can find. Here’s a simulation using a 120/13
mesh:
89
Stencil X gives better dots than we started using our ImageAnalyzer soft-
Stencil Y ware with our digital microscopes. It then
Over the years we’ve learned to be careful became easy to measure two different as-
Solving problems
90
ers. We no longer have fruitless debates • Use the finest stainless mesh possible.
based on visual impressions of microscope We’ve loved using 16µm and have heard of
images, but hard numbers we can all agree lucky printers who have access to 13µm.
on. Our work on AI was particularly use- • Use blackened stainless to ensure opti-
ful in confirming that a low-EOM, low-Rz mum print exposure without losing reso-
stencil was by far the best for printing lines. lution from scattering. It’s hard to get hold
Not only was the AI high, it was almost of, but worth it.
independent of press settings and angle • Use a specialist low-Rz, low-EOM stencil
of the line with respect to the squeegee. – either Capillex CX or a multi-coat wet-
High-EOM or high-Rz stencils showed on-dry emulsion (if you have the time and
worse and highly variable AIs. patience).
• Use a clean-room environment.
Moiré • Find a reliable source of beautifully
We come across this all the time. Our sharpened medium-to-hard sharp-profile
digital microscopes help us diagnose the squeegees.
problems by following the ideas described • Set up your press with minimum snap-off
in the Moiré section of this eBook. All we (off-contact), minimum squeegee pressure
can say here from our experience in the (you’ve got a delicate mesh and an exqui-
field is that the techniques described in site squeegee!).
the moiré section really work! • Insist that your ink supplier gives you a
high-low-high, rapid recovery ink – as
Printing very fine lines close as possible to the printing behaviour
As many printers are struggling with the of the cermet inks that are routinely used
challenge of going down to 50µm and in ceramic-based electronic printing. (See
lower it’s worth summarizing here our rec- Steve’s ink design optional theory section
ipe for success. Well, not quite. It’s a recipe for an explanation).
for giving you the best chance of success. • Control slump through (a) the rapid-
What’s important is that those who don’t recovery ink, (b) a controlled (relatively
follow this recipe are guaranteed failure. high) static contact angle of the ink with
We are very happy to offer this advice, and the substrate and (c) as rapid a “cure” (UV,
very sad that each time it has been ig- solvent evaporation, solvent absorption) as
nored failure is inevitable. We learned all possible. If you can control/understand the
the mistakes the hard way when we first beach effect you are in even better shape.
embarked on our “50µm project” adven- (Again, see Steve’s ink section).
ture. That’s how we became so confident • When you can’t reduce the slump any
in the recipe. further, reduce the width of the line in the
film positive by the amount of the slump.
91
Moiré, causes and cures
Steven Abbott
In 2003 we published a handbook explain- Over the years the Mesh Moiré Calculator
ing the causes and cures for moiré. The has proven particularly effective at solving
original print run was very modest, but it the most frequent source of moiré. At one
soon proved so popular that we had to time it was used to solve a problem at a
print and send out many more copies. It printer’s in India whilst I was in America.
has been translated into a number of lan- The software comes with a video-record-
guages and has hopefully helped many ing capability and the video explaining
printers solve their moiré problems. why he got moiré with a particular mesh/
angle combination was sent to the printer
The original version of the handbook who was able to understand the cause
came with a personal guarantee. Since and cure in record time.
then we’ve been challenged many times
with moiré samples and each time the di- Introduction
agnostic techniques in the handbook have Moiré drives us all mad. Screen printing
proven capable of correctly determining without moiré would be a much easier
the root cause. So the guarantee remains: way of earning a living. There is no way to
eliminate moiré from our lives, but at least
we can reduce it to an acceptable level.
“I have strong opinions backed up by lots of
good data. I am happy when I’m shown to be This section of the eBook has only one aim
– to allow the practical screenprinter to get
right, but even happier when I’m shown to be
control over moiré and make more money.
wrong – because from error comes greater The first part gives you proven recipes for
understanding. As with all my screen publi- success. The second part (for those who
like such things) explains why these reci-
cations, I am happy to offer a public admis- pes work.
sion of error in the light of good data, and will
The recipes have been thoroughly tested
upgrade the Handbook accordingly. If you
in the real world and checked against a
are the one to correct me, I will be happy to huge number of moiréd prints. They are
acknowledge your input.” backed up by a sophisticated computer
model which examines moiré at a funda-
mental level.
We’ve found that we didn’t have to make
many changes to what follows, so if you A lot of bright people have helped pro-
have a copy of the original handbook, you duce the ideas in this article. A prime
don’t have to read this part of the eBook. source of inspiration is Mark Coudray’s in-
93
fluential article from ScreenPrinting 1991. lish “mohair” from which the French adapt-
From MacDermid Autotype, Joe Raymond ed moiré, a watered silk fabric.”
Moire, causes and cures
and Bill Appleton and David Parker have It then became the general word for the
been exceedingly helpful in all sorts of effect we are all familiar with when we see
ways. Finally, Mike Ware of Wasatch Inc. is railings on bridges, shimmering clothes
to be warmly thanked for his insights into on TV presenters and ugly patterns in our
moiré coming from his expertise in the screen prints. There was, alas, never a Pro-
field of RIPs. fessor Moiré who discovered the maths of
the effect.
Terminology can be tricky in screen print-
ing, so remember to refer to the glossary Moiré maths
to help make it clear what I mean by the You don’t need to know any maths to un-
various terms. derstand this section. But moiré is a math-
ematical phenomenon and can only be
The majority of the readers of this eBook analysed properly using some powerful
work in lpi and dpi so the examples are de- mathematical techniques.
fined in those terms. The conversions into The results have all been produced from
metric equivalents (lpc, dpc) are rounded powerful computer models. The good
for convenience. news is that there is an exact match be-
tween the outputs of the models and the
Angora goats facts of real life.
Not a lot of people know that the word
moiré comes from Angora goats! Here’s an One of the models, the Moiré Mesh Calcu-
explanation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia: lator is part of the MacDermid Autotype
“MOHAIR, the hair of a variety of goat origi- DSP which can be downloaded from this
nally inhabiting the regions of Asiatic Tur- eBooks’ website.
key of which Angora is the centre, whence
the animal is known as the Angora goat.
94
Where does moiré come from?
The human eye has evolved to be sensitive
to patterns. It’s rather important to know
that a set of stripes is heading in your di-
rection if you want to avoid being eaten
by a tiger. Moiré is seen when two regular
patterns combine to form a third pattern.
A typical example is seen when you pass
beneath a bridge. To your eyes, the railings
at the front of the bridge are at a slightly
different spacing from those at the back
and you get a pattern such as:
95
Figure ii. The over-
layed pattern from
Figure i, but shown Figure iii. Moiré when the
in colour. same two patterns are over-
layed at different angles, in
this case 5°.
96
These gross moirés are fun to play with,
but they aren’t the things that cause us so
much pain in our screen printing. What we
are faced with is much more subtle. But
Fig iv. Moiré from two the basic cause of our subtle moiré prob-
circular patterns of slightly lems is the same – regular, but different,
different spacing. patterns on top of each other, and the hu-
man eye evolved to pick out any regulari-
ties in the result.
97
Causes and cures of moiré – recipes that certain dot shapes and sizes will make
for success the unlucky moiré more or less visible. In
Moire, causes and cures
Note. These recipes assume that you have short, the maths of the MMC explains all
checked that you are not printing onto the mysteries we see when we have mesh
a regularly corrugated surface, and that moiré.
you’ve checked that there’s no moiré in
your film positives. Identification
Mesh moiré appears when you print a sin-
1 Mesh moiré gle colour on a flat substrate. It will gener-
Symptoms ally fade in and out at different densities of
We all know that the regular pattern of the tint. If you use a thin, low Rz (flat) stencil
mesh may clash with the regular pattern the moiré is reduced significantly and thin-
of the print and give us moiré. We all know ning the ink reduces it further. If you have a
that a coarse mesh and high lpi have a thick stencil or a high Rz stencil then there’s
high chance of giving a very strong moiré. not much you can do to change things.
So we choose fine meshes for our high lpi
prints. Yet still we get moiré. Sometimes Cross-check
the moiré occurs only in particular tints. Make sure the moiré isn’t in the film posi-
Sometimes it’s wavy. Sometimes it occurs tive for this particular colour!
only on one colour, sometimes on more
than one. It comes and goes. Cure
Ideal. Use the MMC to find a mesh/lpi com-
Cause bination that gives no moiré.
The Moiré Mesh Calculator (MMC) quickly Example: 63 lpi print with a 355 mesh. No
shows you that when you are at a reason- mesh moiré for the standard 7.5°, 22.5°,
ably high ratio of mesh count to halftone 37.5°, 67.5° set.
ruling (e.g. using a 150 tpc mesh with a 39
lpi halftone [380 tpi / 100 lpi] so you have Good. If just one colour is bad, keep the
a ratio of 3.8:1), you are very likely to find original mesh count for the other three
that at three of your screen angles you get colours and find a nearby mesh count for
no visible moiré. But at a fourth angle you which the MMC predicts no moiré.
might be unlucky. For some of these un- Example: 63 lpi print with a 305 mesh. No
lucky angles, small changes in the mesh mesh moiré except for the 37.5°. Change
(tension, angle) make no big difference, this to a 355 mesh and all is fine.
for others, the maths shows that small OK. Print your least noticeable colour (usu-
changes can give big differences and you ally yellow) at the angle which gives the
get wavy moiré. Finally, the maths shows mesh moiré.
98
OK. Use the smallest possible thread diam- OK. If you really, really can’t change any of
eter to reduce the visibility of the moiré. the above, and if you have an ugly wavy
Example: Going from a 34μm thread to a moiré, then get your screen stretched
27μm thread can make a big difference. properly. You’ll have a moiré, but it won’t
be quite so ugly.
OK. If the MMC says you have strong moiré
with a set of film positives at 0°,15°,30°,60°, Myths
change them to 7.5°,22.5°,37.5°,67.5° - or There’s a myth that if only you had a ‘per-
vice versa. But beware of the simple moi- fect’ mesh then moiré would go away. This
ré between your 0° colour and the mesh. is false. Imperfections in the mesh may
Problem solved/reduced. make some moirés more visible by making
them wavy, but if the mesh were perfect,
OK. If the mesh moiré is seen as lines rath- the moiré would still be there. Don’t both-
er than dots, make your printed dot-shape er looking for the perfect mesh to fix your
rounder. This will make the lines weaker moiré. Just use the MMC to find a mesh
and hopefully the dots won’t be so visible. that doesn’t clash with your lpi/angle com-
bination. Small imperfections in the mesh
OK. If the mesh moiré is seen as lines rath- won’t alter the fact that it doesn’t clash, so
er than dots the other possibility is that the you’ll get no moiré.
squeegee is amplifying the problem in the
direction of the squeegee stroke. Reduce
squeegee pressure and/or stencil Rz.
It’s characterised by a pattern that’s at an angle of 7.5° (i.e. halfway) with a repeat every 3.8
dots. You will see the 15° moiré very clearly in your film positives when you superimpose them.
This is completely normal. You see the moiré because (a) in black and white the contrast is very
high so the eye can see the pattern very clearly and (b) you are usually looking very closely at
your positives. If you step back to a more normal viewing distance, the moiré will seem less
awful.
You’ll have to read the long explanation later on to understand why you often don’t see it.
But here’s the recipe for keeping it as invisible as possible.
100
Symptoms This will make the lines weaker and hope-
Only seen when you print the 15° colour. fully the dots won’t be so visible.
101
on top of another region of dots. Skipping Cause
has been discussed at length in Anna and
Moire, causes and cures
Cure Identification
Good. For a given ink, there is only one Look at the regular pattern of your real
way to reduce skipping without increasing dots. If you have extra dots in between
spreading (or flooding). You most switch them then this is spreading transfer. It
to a low EOM, low Rz stencil. As this is very seems odd to look for dots that shouldn’t
difficult and expensive to attain with an be there, but once you get into the mind-
emulsion, you need to switch to MacDer- set, you find it very easy to track down this
mid Autotype’s Capillex CP or CX which are type of pseudo-moiré.
designed specifically to reduce skipping
and spreading. Cure
Good. For a given ink, there is only one way
Good. Switch to solvent or water-based to reduce spreading without increasing
UV, both of which give you a lower build skipping. You most switch to a low EOM,
which automatically reduces skipping and low Rz stencil. As this is very difficult and
spreading. expensive to attain with an emulsion, you
need to switch to MacDermid Autotype’s
3b. Spreading transfer Capillex CP or CX which were designed
Symptoms specifically to reduce skipping and spread-
Tricky! It looks like a normal moiré, but it ing.
comes and goes from print to print. Very
hard to pin down unless you know what Good. Switch to solvent or water-based
you are looking for. UV, both of which give you a lower build
which automatically reduces skipping and
spreading.
102
3c. PostScript banding low EOM with low Rz.
Symptoms
Bands in regular tonal gradients (vi- Myths
gnettes) The term ‘topographic moiré’ is often used.
Cause But there’s no such thing. Moiré is the
If you ask for a high lpi screen from a low interference of regular patterns and the
dpi imagesetter, the basic PostScript can moiré will be there whether those patterns
only deliver a limited number of different are topographic or perfectly flat. However,
grey levels. So instead of a smooth vi- as we’ve noted above, surfaces with rough
gnette you see distinct bands. topographies may show a more visible
moiré than their smoother counterparts,
Identification assuming that there is an underlying moi-
Found in PostScript vignettes. ré pattern in the first place. If you want to
talk about topographic effects, talk about
Cure ‘topographically amplified moiré’.
Ideal. Use a higher dpi imagesetter that The closest thing to ‘topographic moiré’
gives you more grey levels is the spreading pseudo-moiré discussed
above.
Ideal. Use a smarter RIP that knows how to
get more effective grey levels from a given 4 Unstable rosettes
lpi/dpi combination. Symptoms
Your 4-colour prints look very unhappy,
Good. Reduce your lpi (hoping that your but you can’t put your finger on why.
customer won’t notice).
Cause
3d. Mesh patterning in solids Your registration between colours is rath-
Hopefully it doesn’t need me to say that er poor, so what should be nice classical
this is not a moiré. But it can certainly rosettes are ugly, unhappy ones. Moiré
look ugly. Mesh patterning in solids is dis- maths show that it takes very little to go
cussed in the optional theory section. The from a nice rosette to an unstable one.
obvious things to try are a thinner thread
diameter and a lower viscosity ink, though Identification
neither is guaranteed to work. If you use a Under the loupe, your rosettes are highly
lower viscosity ink you will need a lower Rz variable.
stencil. And as you always need low EOM
for high quality printing, once again you Cure
need to use Capillex CP which combines Ideal. Better registration.
103
Ideal. Find a RIP with an option for ‘stable The science of moiré – the reasons
rosettes’ that are mathematically more re- for the recipes
sistant to mis-registration but which, in my
opinion, do not look so good in the first Moiré science
place. It’s only since the publication in 2000 of
Good. Any of the things above that reduce The Theory of Moiré Phenomenon by Isaac
the visibility of a moiré, in particular, print Amidror that it’s become possible to fully
thinner, high quality dots using a low EOM, understand and model what’s going on.
low Rz film. The maths of the MacDermid Autotype
Moiré Mesh Calculator and the Fourier
Summary Transforms used in MacDermid Autotype’s
The only tricky thing you need is the Mac- own Moiré Modeller are all inspired by
Dermid Autotype Moiré Mesh Calculator to Amidror’s beautiful book. The screen shot
make sure you have the right screen sets. from the Modeller gives some idea of the
After that, get yourself a decent stencil sys- complexity of the problem. The bottom
tem with low EOM and low Rz. You get an right-hand section, for example is the
extra benefit from this. You can use much Fourier Transform of the combined image
lower squeegee pressures, lower viscosity on the bottom left. The bottom-middle
inks and lower snap-off (off-contact). This image is the filtered inverse Fourier Trans-
means you are much gentler to your mesh. form that accurately models the perceived
So you can go to a finer mesh diameter moiré.
which reduces the intensity of any mesh
moiré and gives you a larger dynamic print
range. It is rather surprising that this virtu-
ous cycle exists; but that’s what the maths
says, that’s what we’ve found in real life,
and I’m confident that you will find it too.
This is the real recipe for success.
104
Moiré characteristics examining a large poster with a high-pow-
There are three things that characterise ered microscope is not relevant. On the
any moiré: its frequency, angle, and am- other hand, viewing a printed DVD from
plitude (or intensity). A lot of the confu- too far way is also not relevant.
sion about moiré comes from not under- It turns out that there is a useful rule of
standing the relative importance of these thumb – the MRN Rule of 4. Divide the fre-
characteristics. There is a fourth compo- quency of your print by the frequency of
nent which is often forgotten, and that is your moiré. This is your Moiré Ratio Num-
the human eye. It is the human eye that ber (MRN). In this case, Big is Bad. A high
dictates the relative importance of the MRN means a high visibility moiré. If the
three moiré characteristics. MRN is less than 4 then you’re probably OK.
So for your 80 lpi (32tpc) print, a moiré of
1 - Frequency more than 20 lpi (8tpc) will not be a prob-
We are all used to specifying frequencies lem. I recently had a startling reminder of
in screen printing. When we talk about the validity of this rule. I was shown some
an 80 lpi (32tpc) halftone we are describ- truly ugly prints with a really vicious moiré.
ing its frequency. Sometimes when we I was amazed that any customer had paid
talk about moirés we say that they repeat for these prints. But they were prints with
every 0.5” (1.3cm). This half inch is the pe- a very low lpi (32 lpi, 12tpc), designed for
riod and is the inverse of the frequency. So viewing from a reasonable distance. Sure
the frequency of a 0.5” moiré is 1/0.5=2 lpi enough, when you put them at their view-
(1/1.3=0.8 lpc) ing distance, not only did the moiré dis-
appear, but the prints looked stunningly
This talk about frequencies is very impor- good. Whoever had designed them had a
tant. It’s very easy to do theoretical calcula- great artistic sense, and the faith to ignore
tions and prove that you have a moiré with the strong moiré visible at close distances.
a frequency of, say, 40 lpi (16tpc). You then The particular moiré had a frequency of
have to ask whether this frequency would 8.4 lpi (3.3tpc) so its MRN was 32/8.4=3.8,
show up in the print. In one way, the an- just below the Rule of 4 limit, and great for
swer must always be ‘yes’ it will show up. the viewing distance of a 32 lpi image. An
Try hard and you will be able to find it. But 8.4 lpi moiré on an 80 lpi print (MRN=9.5)
as printers we are only interested in one would be a catastrophe!
question: will the customer see it? In prin-
ciple, the customer might try hard to find Why does the rule apply? Surely a moiré
it. But let’s assume that the customer has is a moiré? But remember the fourth fac-
some intelligence. The customer wants tor – the human eye. It only has so much
the print to look good for its purpose. So resolution and below that resolution it
105
can’t pick out any detail. Your customer has a strong moiré, but the frequency is
Moire, causes and cures
The following series of images gives you Note that the example with a MRN=2 is
an idea of the phenomenon. Each image the pattern between two colours at 30°.
MRN=3 MRN=2
106
This Rule of 4 has some important excep- in the face. Why? Because some other ef-
tions which I’ll discuss later. fects are increasing the amplitude of the
moiré.
2 - Angle
The angle of a moiré has some small effect The word amplitude is the scientifically
on the visibility of the moiré. The human correct word for discussing these opti-
eye is more sensitive to vertical and hori- cal effects, but it also provides a familiar
zontal moirés. But in general, the angle is a analogy with sound. A quiet sound has
useful ally for the printer. It offers a clue as a low amplitude, a loud sound has a high
to which parts of the system are produc- amplitude. A low amplitude optical effect
ing the moiré. As a simple rule, the angle of is hardly visible (subtle changes in tint), a
the moiré is 90° + the angle between the high amplitude optical effect (black and
two patterns. So a screen at 15° and one white stripes) is highly visible. In general
at 30° will have a moiré at 90+22.5°=112.5°. we hear loud sounds but don’t hear quiet
If you have a simple dot screen then you sounds. Yet if everything else is very quiet,
will also see a moiré at right angles to this then a quiet sound can appear loud (“You
(i.e. 22.5°) but if you have an elliptical dot, could hear a pin drop”). So a moiré of low
one of the angles will be stronger than the amplitude is generally not visible; but if
other. If you use a geometric screen then it’s in an area (e.g. a light, even tint) of low
your moiré will be a line rather than a grid. general amplitude (i.e. absence of strong
image contrasts) then it can become vis-
Using this simple rule, you can often pin- ible. Similarly a reasonably loud sound
point which things are interacting. For gets drowned in a noisy room, so a reason-
example, a 3.7° (or 93.7°) moiré is a symp- ably high amplitude moiré can disappear
tom of a mesh (0°) clashing with your 7.5° in ‘busy’ areas of a print.
colour.
If there were a simple way of predicting
3 - Amplitude amplitude, we’d have resolved all moiré
We’ll soon be discussing one type of moiré issues a long time ago. But it turns out
that’s always with us, but which we seldom that you need a sophisticated theoretical
see. Its frequency is close to our Rule of model to calculate the amplitude of most
4 cutoff so it’s a marginal call whether we practical moirés and that’s not something
see it or not. If you look closely at any print you’d have next to your press! The Mac-
(or if you overlay the original film positives) Dermid Autotype Moiré Modeller provides
you’ll be able to pick it out. Yet most of the helpful insights (and the images) for this
time it’s not a problem. However, this same Chapter. One thing that emerges from
moiré can sometimes leap out and hit you such a model is that moirés with higher
107
frequency tend to have a lower amplitude. The causes of moiré
This helps justify the Rule of 4 rule (high That’s enough generalities. Let’s get stuck
frequency means low MRN). At this fre- in to the real issues. I’m now convinced
quency the moiré is likely to be of lower that there are only three types of moiré
amplitude than one with an MRN of 8. So that cause us real problems in screen print-
although you might think that something ing. In theory, there are many more causes.
at the Rule of 4 frequency should be vis- By narrowing the field down to three, it
ible at a reasonable viewing distance, if the gets much easier to come up with ways
amplitude is low you won’t spot it. of making things better and we can stop
chasing alternative causes that are usually
This amplitude effect is what makes moiré not important. The other types of ‘moiré’
such a will-o-the-wisp. You might print a that cause us problems aren’t moiré at all.
moiré-free job yesterday with a careful I’ll discuss them later because you need
set of press parameters, then get a hor- cures for these pseudo-moirés as much as
rible moiré today with the same set. This is for the real ones.
because the amplitude of some marginal In the good old days there was a reliable
moiré happens to have increased to above fourth source of moiré – your film positives
the visibility limit. I’ll give you some help- could arrive with all sorts of scanning and
ful insights into this effect so you can go imaging artefacts. I’m assuming that you
some way to bringing it under control. have a reputable supplier who has these Figure 2 A typical mesh block-
sources under control. If you haven’t, then ing between a 380 mesh and a
4 - The human eye you are making life far too hard for yourself 150 lpi screen at 20% dot at 30°
Even with the sophisticated model I can’t - and there are plenty of good sources of to the mesh. Although this is a
predict some moiré effects. The model good positives that will solve your prob- calculated image, it looks very
says that they should be insignificant, but lems for you. close to the real thing.
there they are staring me in the face. It
turns out that the majority of these predic- 1 - Mesh moiré
tion failures are due to the fact that the eye
is incredibly sensitive to patches of white
within a dark area. Even a tiny change in
the number or size of little white areas
within (say) rosettes, is sufficient to pro-
duce a visible moiré. At this point, even
the most devout theoretician has to admit
that the human eye is smarter than a so-
phisticated computer model.
108
It’s been obvious to us all that the pattern Third, there’s ‘negative sawtoothing’. This ef-
of the mesh interferes with the pattern of fect is often seen as a rough leading edge
the print, so is guaranteed to give us moi- of straight lines when a printer uses a thick
ré. ink and a thick stencil. The same combina-
tion means that dots get off to a bad start
The mesh causes three types of interfer- when they coincide with the mesh.
ence.
For the discussions that follow it doesn’t
First, as shown in Figure 2, the mesh can really matter which type you have (you
block fine details of some dots making might even have a mixture). The fact that
them smaller than they should be. This ef- you have a strong interaction between
fect is well-known and the moiré from it mesh and stencil means that you might
can be quite distinctive. have a moiré. The question we all want
to know is whether you will see it in your
print.
109
is a half-truth. Given that most of us use
angles such as 7.5°, 22.5° etc. the real ratio
Moire, causes and cures
110
Figure 5 shows that the lpi and angle of the
moiré changes by modest amounts. In this
case, then, you will get a non-wavy moiré.
There has in the past been much puzzling Figure 6a. A change to a 380
about how accurate the mesh needs to be (150) mesh lets you print the
to avoid mesh moiré. We now see where 37.5° with no problem, but
the confusion has arisen. Exactly the same the 67.5° would be a disaster.
process can give huge differences in sen-
sitivity to the mesh. When you add on the
other factors (thread diameter, ink colour,
Rz/EOM of the stencil, type of ink) no won-
der the situation has seemed so unclear.
112
disappear with the other three colours. low EOM film with a low controlled Rz can
Oh, and of course don’t use a twill weave you benefit from this approach, in which
which effectively reduces the frequency case you can also use a lower viscosity
of the mesh by a factor of two and almost ink without fear of excess dot gain. How-
certainly will land you in big trouble. ever, if you reduce the EOM to 0 then the
thread will be in perfect contact with the
The list above is uncontroversial (or should substrate and no ink will be able to print in
be!) except, perhaps, for the low EOM. The the area between the thread and the sten-
reason for that (especially when you have cil. Increasing the EOM to, say, 2μm, lets a
thread eclipsure) needs to be discussed. small amount of ink through to the edge
of the stencil and the standard ink transfer
The usual diagram explaining thread eclip- mechanism (discussed in the 1-2-3 of this
sure and therefore this aspect of mesh eBook) ensures that you get a reasonable
moiré is rather misleading. If you took it lit- amount of ink printed in this area.
erally, then you’d always get horrible mesh
effects. The old adage that ‘ink is dumb’ so
it can’t flow through a mesh fibre is true
but misleading. In reality, as long as the ink
Figure 7.You might think that
can wet the substrate beneath an obstruc-
the threads in the middle
tion such as a fibre, it will have a chance
of the hole in the stencil will
to print. Otherwise a print of plain mesh
block the flow of ink, giving
would be impossible! Figure 7 helps make
very serious thread eclipsure.
this clear. In open areas it is easy to flow
But given adequate squee-
around the thread so you get no eclip-
gee pressure, a low viscos-
sure. As holes get smaller, and the thread
ity ink and a thin stencil, ink
gets closer to the edge of the hole, it gets
can flow around the thread
harder to flow. You can improve the chanc-
and print a full dot. When
es of flowing by increasing the squeegee
the thread is at the edge of
pressure or decreasing ink viscosity (these
a hole, it would block half
will reduce mesh moiré) but this usually
the thread diameter, unless
comes at the cost of higher dot gain. You
you have the right stencil/
can also improve the chances of flowing
ink combination. This is the
by decreasing the stencil EOM. If you do
same 2.54 mesh to stencil ra-
this with a simple 1+1 emulsion you’ll re-
tio as used in calculating the
duce the mesh moiré in one way, but give
mesh moiré in Figure 2.
yourself horrible Rz problems, including
the Rz-induced moiré. Only if you use a
113
So, surprisingly, we’ve suddenly found that high dot gain. If you know in advance which angles will give the worst moiré, you can
you can greatly reduce mesh moiré effects choose to print that with the yellow. The closer you get to this ideal, the happier you will
Moire, causes and cures
114
If you do the calculations, you find that 15° scribe dot-on-dot printing effects. In the
moiré comes in at close to the Rule of 4 first, the presence of a previous dot can
frequency limit (the MRN=3.8 in this case). cause the new dot to ‘skip’, i.e. to print a tiny
It’s an obvious moiré when you look at it fragment of a dot. In the second, the previ-
closely, but when you go to a normal view- ous dot causes the new dot to print bigger
ing distance it disappears. That’s why we than it would have been, i.e. you get dot-
can usually live with it (and, incidentally, on-dot gain. In any 4 colour print you are
the justification for the Rule of 4). Yet there guaranteed to get skipping or spreading
are times that it seems to stand out from (in some prints I’ve seen both!). All you can
the print and look positively ugly. Why? do is try to minimize the effects. As skip-
ping is usually very ugly, most of us end up
The answer, as hinted above, is to do with with the extra dot gain from spreading.
amplitude. Anything which increases the
amplitude of the 15° moiré can bring it out Now you can see how 15° moiré can be-
so it becomes unacceptable. come amplified. Each time a second dot
happens to be on top of a first dot, the size
Let me explain. Suppose that every other of the second dot will change from what
dot in the 15° moiré became a little bigger it would have been. The frequency and
because of interactions between printed angle of moiré do not change, but the am-
dots. If you calculate the moiré from that, plitude does.
you don’t see anything very different. It’s
still a 15° moiré. But the amplitude of that There’s a quick method for identifying 15°
moiré must be bigger – you are superim- moiré. Count how often a dot goes in and
posing an extra effect. Or suppose that ev- out of phase with another dot in your moiré
ery 3rd interacting dot got a little smaller. pattern. If it’s around once every 3.8 times
Again you’ll have the same 15° moiré but then you have 15° moiré. This is close to
its amplitude is bigger. This makes intui- once every 4 dots, i.e. close to the Rule of
tive sense and is confirmed by theoretical 4 limit, which is why it’s usually acceptable.
calculations. The important thing is that You can also measure its angle. It should be
these extra effects don’t introduce a new half way between whichever components
type of moiré, they just make the current are separated by 15° (or, more precisely, 90°
one more visible. This is a fundamental to the half angle). I’ve seen a very distinc-
law of moiré and every time I’ve forgotten tive 15° moiré as a set of clear lines within
it, I’ve landed myself in big trouble! print using “geometric” Postscript dots. It
was easy to relate the angle to the angles
Elsewhere in this eBook Anna and David of the geometric screens used in this case.
discuss ‘skipping’ and ‘spreading’. These de- But I was puzzled to see lines (rather than a
115
grid) in a conventional set that was printed Recognition of this dot-on-dot effect is, of
on the same sheet. How could dots give a course, not new. Coudray pointed it out in
lined moiré? They should give a grid pat- his article. The crucial new point is that the
tern. Close examination showed that the mechanism behind it is better understood
dots were elliptical. This provided suffi- as is the understanding of the only way
cient asymmetry to bring out the moiré in (smaller dots) to reduce it.
one particular direction. In both cases, the
moiré was amplified by skipping. Is that really the only way? At the system-
atic level, yes. But if you are willing to play
Other aspects of the 3D nature of screen various games you might reduce it via oth-
printing can introduce asymmetries that er means. First, you can swap around the
can also amplify the moiré. Once again it is 15° colour in the hope that in your particu-
these subtleties that can make moiré such lar print it won’t be too visible – the human
a frustrating will-o’-the-wisp. eye is less sensitive to some colours than
to others. Second, you can try printing the
In my opinion, backed up by looking at 15° colour as the 4th colour on top of the
countless moirés on a wide variety of previous rosettes. With luck those rosettes
prints, 15° moiré becomes a significant will have sufficiently planarised the sub-
problem only when you have skipping or strate that the dot-on-dot effects will be
spreading. So the only way to reduce it is minimised. Good luck if you try these. And
to reduce skipping or spreading. And, as sometimes this is the only thing you can do.
we’ve shown in recent articles, the only ef- But what we’re trying to do in this industry
fective way to reduce them (other than us- is stop the constant messing around from
ing expensive planarising layers) is to print job to job. So do whatever you can to print
a smaller dot. And the only ways to print a smaller dots in the first place and the am-
smaller dot are: plification of the 15° moiré will be reduced
1.- use solvent-based inks or water-based at a fundamental level.
UV
2.- use a thinner mesh There’s one other factor that can affect
3.- go to a low EOM stencil with a low Rz, the visibility of the 15° moiré. If you use
which means in turn that you have to go a round dot then the amplitude of the
to a modern film stencil material. moiré is equal in two directions. If you use
a highly elliptical, rhomboid (diamond) or
Note that 2 and 3 above also help reduce geometrical halftone then, as mentioned
mesh moiré. Thinner mesh and a better above, the amplitude is concentrated in
stencil reduce two types of moiré. It’s nice one direction and you see a line rather
that the laws of physics are on our side. than a grid pattern. By concentrating the
116
amplitude of the effect in a single direc- Finally, some advanced RIP suppliers of-
tion, the moiré becomes more visible (the fer a choice of a 15° with a certain degree
computer model confirms this). So if you of stochastic content. As you go higher in
choose an asymmetric dot shape (to avoid stochastic content the moiré disappears,
the tone-jump problems with symmetric but to some eyes the print starts to look
dots) it’s a good idea to use the minimum uglier. With a good RIP you can get the bal-
asymmetry that will solve your tone-jump ance right, just bringing down the visibility
problems. of the moiré without destroying that com-
forting halftone look in your print.
Out of interest I show a moiré that seemed
to be hard to explain. The printer was so 3 – Unstable Rosette Moiré
fed up with 15° moiré that he decided to Our beloved rosettes are a form of high
print CMK at 72 lpi and Y at 55 lpi. This in- frequency moiré. Because they are high
deed removed the 15° moiré. But it intro- frequency, we don’t really notice them,
duced an even uglier, low frequency moiré. indeed we instinctively have a nice warm
It was a pleasant confirmation of the power feeling about a nice rosette. But there’s an
of the computer model that the calculated ugly side to the rosette. In general, it is an
moiré exactly matched what was seen in unstable configuration. I’d have to go into
the print. some hairy maths to describe all this, but
Figure 9. A moi-
ré as a result of
trying to be too
clever.
117
what this means is that as soon as you go But you can’t get away with it if you are
even slightly away from the perfect rosette too sloppy in your choice of screen sets
Moire, causes and cures
configuration, you end up with some low- (and the error from the imperfections gets
er frequency sub-patterns in your rosette. worse the higher you go in line ruling) or if
And the human eye can pick these out. If you don’t register your prints accurately or
you try to simulate them, the amplitude is if you are sloppy in controlling mesh ten-
found to be relatively small. But the human sions.
eye can spot even low amplitude varia-
tions provided they are at low frequencies,
which is where you find yourself as soon as
you deviate from the perfect rosette.
Figure 10 This rosette is defi-
And the sad fact is that we are almost
nitely unstable. Your customers
guaranteed to be away from that per-
probably wouldn’t like it.
fect rosette. If you ask your imagesetter at
1200dpi to produce 100 lpi screens at 0,
30 and 60° the one thing you don’t get is
what you asked for. Instead (if the imag-
esetter is using standard PostScript® set-
tings) you get 0°/100 lpi, 30.964°/102.9 lpi,
59.036°/102.899 lpi. So before you’ve even
started, you have settings that are away
from the perfect rosette. Now introduce
some errors in placing your positives on
your screen (or in the registration of your
printed sheets), and add some changes
in mesh tension and you are even further
from the perfect rosette.
118
If you are seeing this moiré on a regular Although I have no direct evidence to sup-
basis, you need simply to attend to the fine port this assertion, I am also confident that
details. Get a better set of screens from the amplitude of unstable rosette moiré
your RIP (you might have to change your can be reduced by reducing dot-on-dot
supplier or your RIP as there have been a effects. So for a third time, the virtuous
steady stream of improvements to screen combination of fine mesh and low EOM
sets over recent years). Some theoretical low Rz stencil will help you reduce moiré.
analyses suggest that you can create ro-
settes that are intrinsically stable to small Other causes and pseudo-moirés
changes. If your RIP offers such a choice, Mark Coudray helpfully pointed out that
it’s worth a try. corrugated substrates can cause moiré.
Invest in improved registration control (or If your substrate has a regular frequency
better staff). And there’s no excuse for not close to that of your screens, you will see
keeping your meshes under good ten- some horrible effects. Because it’s so eas-
sion control. Modern stretching machines ily diagnosed by printing onto a sheet of
(combined with modern mesh fabrics) can known smoothness, I’ll not discuss it fur-
give you great uniformity over large areas ther.
and over large time scales. If you’re not
getting this, then change your supplier of The mesh will leave regular patterns on
stretched screens. your 100% solids and can look quite ugly
with coarse meshes and viscous inks. This
Once again I’m in disagreement with isn’t a moiré, nor should it be a problem if
those who worry about the fine details of your mesh frequency is significantly high-
meshes in relation to this type of moiré. er than your lpi. Thinner thread diameters
Of course a very low tension mesh and a and lower viscosity inks can help reduce
high snap-off (off-contact) will give large mesh marking. See the optional theory
distortions which will make unstable ro- section on mesh marking for a fuller dis-
sette moiré worse. But if you are this bad cussion.
a printer, you will have many worse things
to worry about. As long as you have rea- Skipping (puppy paws) – the effect that has
sonably good control over your mesh any sometimes been erroneously described as
wavy moiré you see will most likely be due thread eclipsure – is always very ugly. When
to spreading transfer (see below). This is af- looking for moiré in various prints I’ve seen
fected by bad control of your mesh, snap- ‘ugly’ effects that haven’t been a typical
off and squeegee pressure so my disagree- moiré but most people would describe it
ment is about the cause of such moiré, not as a moiré. In each case, an inspection with
its cure! a microscope shows that there’s skipping.
119
Arguably the skipping takes place prefer- bly anticipate such an effect as it assumes
entially in holes surrounded by mountains perfect registration every time!
of other dots, and these holes form some
sort of pattern. But the frequency of these If you have very low frequency variations
skipping dots are too high to be a real moi- in your process, e.g. if you use banks of UV
ré. Instead, the eye just picks them out as fluorescent tubes for exposure instead of a
being plain old ugly. UV lamp, you will be able to see variations
in your print. But because the frequency of
Spreading, gives another ‘moiré’ effect that the effect is exactly that of your variation,
has sometimes puzzled us. This particular it’s not really a moiré. Theoretically you can
effect drifted in and out during the print get additional moiré effects, but in practice
run and defied all rational moiré analyses. you would have to be very unlucky. Moiré
It also gave a peculiar wavy pattern that tends to be most severe when angles and
looked as if it might be a mesh moiré, but frequencies are very similar.
we had the data to rule out this particular Printers often complain of a type of moiré
cause. Then we realised that the effect was in their vignettes – those gentle fading
due to extra dots of ink appearing where tints that designers love and printers hate.
they shouldn’t. How can dots appear from This ‘moiré’ appears as regular bands. But
nowhere? They are remnants of spreading this isn’t moiré. It’s tonal banding resulting
dots underneath the stencil. If each sub- from the limitations of PostScript screens.
sequent print is exactly in register with the If you try to print at 120 lpi with a 1200dpi
previous print, then this extra amount of ink imagesetter you will only get 100 different
will print as classic spreading dot gain. But levels of grey. So instead of a gentle grada-
slight mis-registration means that these tion you will see 100 individual steps. The
dots can appear between other dots and fix for this is a lower lpi, a higher dpi im-
give rise to moiré-like effects. The waviness agesetter or a more sophisticated RIP that
came from the fact that the spreading dots can extend the tonal range.
were rather widely spaced on the bottom
of the previous print (because they are You can also get different types of tonal
long-range interactions with the underly- jumps depending on your dot shapes.
ing rosette) and only show up as a ‘moiré’ Round dots give one big tonal jump, ellip-
when, by chance, they span a pair of newly tical dots give two smaller jumps.
printed dots – and the positions of these One way to reduce moiré is to introduce
interactions are not regular. It was a good noise to confuse the eye. I once tried to
example of how important it is to combine do this and found that it needed a surpris-
both pure science and hands-on analysis. ing, and unacceptable amount of noise to
The pure computer model couldn’t possi- do a good job. However, there is some evi-
120
dence that poor-quality screens (high Rz, • Dot-on-dot amplified 15deg moiré
poor edge definition) can mask moiré. This
is not a recommended method. • Spreading dot-on-dot amplified
15deg moiré
Classification
We’ve found that terminology can lead to • Skipping dot-on-dot amplified
a lot of confusion. For example, the term 15deg moiré
‘topographical moiré’ means different
things to different people and can cause • Eclipsure mesh moiré (including
lots of confusion. Creating terminology dot loss in the highlights and dot
for its own sake is a waste of time, but we gain in the shadows)
have found that our own discussions have
been greatly helped by having a common • Rz enhanced mesh moiré
accepted classification. We offer it here for
discussion purposes among the screen • Negative sawtoothing enhanced
community: mesh moiré.
121
Summary Although I’ve not discussed film positives
in any detail, you must ensure that you
Moire, causes and cures
122
Problem solving Guide
Moiré
Description
An unexpected pattern in the print which was not in the artwork. It is always associated
with regularly repeating patterns in the print, either dots in 4-colur process or lines. In 4
colour process it is generally not present over the whole print area but related to areas of
particular density.
Cause
Moiré is caused by the interference of regularly repeating patterns. They can be dot to dot,
dot to mesh or line to line or line to mesh.
Technical reference
See ‘Moiré causes and cures’ chapter.
Solution
Use the MMC to find a mesh/LPI combination which will not cause moiré.
Change the screen angles.
Use the problematic angle for yellow to make the moiré less noticable.
Change the mesh count slightly for the screen causing the moiré.
Skipping
Description
Dotty pattern in the 4-colour UV ink print, usually in mid tones.
124
Under magnification the dots have not
printed cleanly and look like ‘puppy paws’.
Solution
Increase time between printing and cur-
ing to allow flow.
Cause Change to a mesh with smaller diameter.
Dots are not printed cleanly because the Change the ink to one with better flow
mesh is being held away from the sub- characteristics.
strate surface by previously printed dots.
Mesh marks
Description
The ink has a textured surface.
Cause
The ink is not flowing out well after the
mesh and ink have separated.
Technical reference
See ‘Optional theory’ chapter.
125
Cause
1. The most common cause of this is that
Problem solving Guide
126
4. Stepping caused by image angle to the 3. Use dyed mesh instead of white or
mesh blackened stainless instead of stainless
mesh.
Technical reference 4. Reduce the thread diameter.
1. See ‘Problem solving in the real world’
chapter.
2. See ‘Getting the right exposure’ chap- Negative sawtoothing
ter. Description
3. See ‘Getting the right exposure’ chap- More ragged edge on one the leading
ter. edge of an image parallel to the squee-
4. See ‘Problem solving in the real world’ gee.
chapter.
Solution
1. Reduce the Rz of the stencil, Capillary
and Indirect film give very low Rz stencils.
Using high solids emulsion or multicoat-
ing emulsions, wet on dry, will reduce the
stencil Rz, but be warned this will also in-
crease the EOM.
2. Find the correct exposure time by using
a MacDermid Autotype Exposure Calcula- Cause
tor. This should be done regularly because Ink is not filling the stencil.
as lamps age so their output changes. This
means that the lamp may look bright and Technical reference
register on the integrator but the light may See ‘Problem solving in the real world’
have changed sufficiently to not expose chapter.
the screen properly.
Solution
Use low EOM stencil.
Increase squeegee pressure but be warned
this could lead to flooding.
127
Dark spots / Hickies
Description
Dark spots in the half tone area usually
0.5-2mm in diameter.
Cause
The cause is dust or debris on the sub-
strate lifting the stencil away from it. This
allows the ink to flood under the stencil
causing a dark spot. The dust may stay at-
tached to the substrate or it may then stick
to the stencil causing the same blemish
over many prints.
Under magnification it can be seen that the ink is severely undercutting the stencil.
There is still evidence of the intended image within the blemish which means that
it is not a pin hole in the stencil.
Solution
The immediate solution is to wash up the
stencil and clean subsequent sheets of
substrate using antistatic wipes or tacky
rollers.
In the long term antistatic and clean room
measures can be taken.
128
Static use. Card and paper should be kept away
Presence of static will cause more dust to from the printing area if possible.
be attracted to surfaces. Static is produced 5. Raise humidity, care should be taken if
in 3 ways. damping down the floor to avoid slip haz-
1. Separation ards.
2. Friction 6. Wear clean room overalls.
3. Induction 7. Filter air conditioning. Care should be
taken if turning off air conditioning that the
The simple act of removing a sheet of film new source of air is not more dust laden.
from a stack produces static by separation
and friction. Light spots
Antistatic wipes, static eliminator bars and Description
antistatic air knives can be used to reduce Light spots in the print caused by gain in
the problem. the stencil.
129
Technical reference Technical reference
See ‘Getting the right exposure’ chapter. 1. See ‘Optional theory’ chapter.
Problem solving Guide
Rz 22.5
130
5. Over exposure. Solution
Reduce the EOM of the stencil. Capillex CX
Poor washout of the stencil causing re- and Capillex CP give controlled low EOM
duced image size of the stencil. stencils designed to resolve this problem.
1. Low washout pressure.
2. Stencil fogged by heat or light.
3. Low density positive. Image distortion
Description
Technical reference Unable to register multicolour prints or
See ‘Getting the right exposure’ chapter. change in the size of the print across the
stencil.
Solution
1. Optimise exposure conditions. Cause
2. Optimise washout conditions, most
stencils will benefit from washing out with
a high pressure gun from 1m distance.
Cause
Stencil EOM too high. 1. Off contact too high.
2. Squeegee pressure too high.
Technical reference 3. Image too close to the screen edge.
See ‘Problem solving in the real world’ 4. Screens of different tension.
chapter. 5. Too flexible mesh choice for the job.
131
6. Substrate unstable. Technical reference
7. Changes in temperature during stencil See ‘Print faults and fixing them’ chapter.
processing. Solution
8. Changes in humidity during stencil Use coarser mesh. Capillex CX will allow a
processing. coarse mesh to be used whilst giving a low
profile, fine resolution stencil.
Technical reference
See ‘Optional theory’ chapter and ‘Prob-
lem solving in the real world’ chapter. Cobwebbing
Description
Solution
1. Reduce off contact
2. Reduce squeegee pressure, using a low
EOM stencil minimises the need for high
squeegee pressure.
3. Use a larger screen for the job
4. Screen should be less than 1N/cm dif-
ference in mesh tension.
5. Stainless steel mesh gives minimum
stretch.
6. Condition the substrate before use
7. Always expose and print the stencil at a
constant temperature and humidity.
Random trails of ink spreading from the
image.
Ink Sieving
Description Cause
Stencil open but ink not passing through. Static.
132
Solution
1. Earth the press.
2. Raise the print room humidity.
3. Use deionised air reduce static on the
substrate.
Cause
1. UV curing unit not working correctly.
2. UV ink layer too high.
3. Substrate and ink combination are not
compatible.
Solution
1. Check lamp, power setting, lamp asse-
mbly cleanliness, bulbs and belt speed.
2. Check that the ink layer is not too high,
check the mesh count and use a low EOM
stencil.
3. Ensure that the ink and substrate are
recommended for use with one another.
4. Ensure that the substrate is not porous
to the ink.
133
Glossary of terms used in this eBook
EOM Rz
Emulsion Over Mesh (sometimes called A measurement of the roughness of the
Profile) – the extra thickness provided by stencil. A stencil profilometer can give dif-
the stencil material, i.e. ferent measures of the roughness, such
Thickness of the screen with stencil – Thick- as Ra or RMS. But Rz is the most useful as
ness of the screen without stencil. there is a very strong correlation between
One of the themes of this eBook is that in high Rz and bad edge definition. The pic-
general High EOM is a bad thing. tures illustrate where Rz comes from (the
stencil follows the ups and downs of the
mesh) and the difference between high
(bad) and low (good) Rz.
High EOM
Low EOM
Low Rz
Low EOM capillary film
134
MacDermid Autotype DSP called asymmetric because they are no
The MacDermid Autotype Digital Screen longer symmetric. This asymmetry can af-
Printer is a suite of PC programs that let fect the visibility of a moiré pattern.
you explore many aspects of screen print- Rosette pattern
ing science. You can download the suite When you print a 3-colour or 4-colour
from the same website as this eBook. halftone the dots overlay to produce the
MMC classic rosette pattern that printers and
Moiré Mesh Calculator – one member of customers seem to like.
the DSP which lets you calculate moiré Dot build
clashes between your halftone pattern The thickness of the printed dots of ink. A
and your mesh. high build will give you stronger colours
Mesh ruling but also gives you a rough surface (and
Meshes are specified as so many threads plenty of problems) if you print another
per inch or threads per cm. The finer the colour on top
mesh the higher the ruling. Dot gain
You have to be aware that some stain- Increase in size of the printed dot over
less meshes are measured in threads per the size in the positive and/or the stencil.
French inch, which is 0.9384 of an Ameri- Negative dot gain is a decrease in the size.
can inch. Sawtoothing is one form of dot gain.
Thread diameter Positive sawtoothing (or simply
The thickness of the mesh thread (or fibre) Sawtoothing)
is important as it influences the ink deposit When you print with a high Rz stencil, the
and the amount the mesh interferes with ink leaks underneath the stencil and con-
the image. The diameter is specified in mi- verts a smooth dot or a line into a saw-
crons, μm. toothed version.
Halftone ruling The sawtooth makes the dot or line bigger,
Halftone images are made up of dots so it’s called positive sawtoothing.
spaced at regular intervals specified as lpi Negative sawtoothing
(lines per inch) or lpc (lines per cm). Higher Here the dot or line is sawtoothed, but
quality usually implies higher halftone rul- the dot or line is smaller than it should be.
ing. This is negative sawtoothing and is usually
Dot shape caused by stencils with a high EOM.
The printer can choose the shape of the Moiré frequency
halftone dots. They can be circular, ellipti- A frequency is simply the number of times
cal, rhomboid etc. Shapes such as elliptical something repeats itself. So a moiré fre-
are different in each direction (thinner in quency is how many moiré spots or lines
one direction, thicker in another) and are you find per inch or cm.
135
Moiré amplitude general it’s what you want, but if the non-
The amplitude of a sound is how loud it Newtonian behaviour is time-dependent
is – you can easily hear a loud (high ampli- (i.e. the change in viscosity depends on
tude) sound and can’t hear a soft (low am- how long ago you sheared it) then that’s
plitude) sound. The amplitude of a moiré probably undesirable.
is a measure of how visible it is – a high Viscoelasticity
Glossary
136
a drop of water will form a drop with an sure) and produces minimum geometric
angle of ~60º to the surface. On Teflon the distortion.
angle is close to 90º. Clearly Teflon has a Peel-off is a separate motion of the frame
low surface energy, the plastic an interme- relative to the substrate; the end away from
diate one and glass or metal a high surface the squeegee rises during the print, giving
energy. The relationship between surface extra force to pull the mesh out of the ink.
tension and surface energy is important for
drop spreading and for tendency towards For cylinder presses it is the rotation of
pinholing. Contrary to popular mythology the cylinder which provides the effects of
the surface energy has nothing much to snap-off. If you do the geometrical calcula-
do with adhesion. This is easily proven as tions you find
PVC and PET have identical surface ener-
gies and most inks stick well to PVC and • The vertical separation speed for a flat-
few stick to PET. Adhesion is all about min- bed varies across the squeegee stroke
gling of polymer chains. Some surface (it’s obviously faster near the beginning
treatments which increase surface energy and end of the stroke) but is unvarying
happen to increase mingling of chains so for a cylinder press
increase adhesion. But once again PET is a
good counter-example. Some high surface • At any point during the squeegee
energy PETs can still have very poor adhe- stroke, the vertical speed is constant
sion. for the flat-bed but rapidly accelerating
Snap-off (off-contact) and Peel-off for the cylinder press
Snap-off also called off-contact is simply the
distance of the mesh above the substrate. • The first few µm of vertical separation
Many printers use a high snap-off (5mm). It (corresponding to ~0.5mm horizontal
takes a lot of pressure from the squeegee travel) are slower for the cylinder press
to push the mesh down into contact with but in the 10-20µm (>1mm horizontal)
the substrate to print, and there are large range the cylinder is significantly faster
geometrical distortions caused by such
large snap-offs. Many electronics printers • Science shows that these vertical
print with essentially zero snap-off – the speeds are not too significant for the
mesh is in close contact with the substrate print process so the differences are
during the squeegee stroke. The print is probably not significant – especially if
separated from the mesh when the platen the flat-bed is using a well-tensioned
drops. This requires the minimum pressure mesh with a relatively small snap-off,
from the squeegee (allowing a more deli- the sign of a good printer.
cate blade to be used under modest pres-
137
A Macdermid Autotype HowTo eBook
Edited by Professor Steven Abbott
Design by Jenniffer Avenell
ISBN 978-0-9551220-1-9
First published in 2008 by
Macdermid Autotype Limited
Grove Road,Wantage OX12 7BZ, UK