Forum > Screen

Screen PTR-4100

(1/12) > >>

Grimace:
Well, we finally got a Platesetter from a shop that sold off its business.
Got the 4100 for about $15,000 so we jumped on it. Now I have to figure out how to get it up and running.
We are trying Fuji's Eccomaxx-T plates to start.


Anybody familiar with such a setup? I'm sure to have some questions!

DigiCorn:
Same model we have. Was running Kodak when I started... now we're on [Agfa] Azura TS.


[edit]

Grimace:
The shop we got the 4100 from was also running Azura.


What was the deciding factor for the switch?
And, do you and the pressmen like it okay?


I'm not really locked into a manufacturer at this point, but we have a good relationship with the Fuji sales guy and wanted to give him first shot.
Also, I'm really wanting to be able to use our existing plate processor to develop the plates. It has a gum unit after the wash. If anybody has tried this, I'd be interested what chems you used, our press solution is too weak at the prescribed for press use. We are thinking of trying a very strong solution to se if that work.

DigiCorn:

--- Quote from: Grimace on May 10, 2011, 12:17:12 PM ---
What was the deciding factor for the switch?

--- End quote ---
I/We have found Kodak plates to be horribly inconsistent, even thermal (but especially violet/poly). Sceening is just miserable. Plate wash would sometimes even remove image from the plate too. Azura plates were cheaper, consistent as can be and have a long run life. We made a deal with Pittman (now Agfa) to buy plates from them for two years, and they gave us the processor for free, with a 1-year service contract (which we never used).


--- Quote from: Grimace on May 10, 2011, 12:17:12 PM ---
And, do you and the pressmen like it okay?

--- End quote ---
Both the pressman and I love Azura. They never had the consistency on rerun orders like they do now (but some of that may have been the previous prepress guy). Screening on a clean plate vs. a plate near the time the processor needs cleaning are pretty much identical. My dot reader has a + or - of 2 percent, and I am reading plates that vary by less than .5 percent. Kodak would be all over the place, but Agfa is steady.

--- Quote from: Grimace on May 10, 2011, 12:17:12 PM ---
Also, I'm really wanting to be able to use our existing plate processor to develop the plates. It has a gum unit after the wash. If anybody has tried this, I'd be interested what chems you used, our press solution is too weak at the prescribed for press use. We are thinking of trying a very strong solution to se if that work.

--- End quote ---
The Azura TS processor only has a gum solution. It's basically a chemistry free "processless" plate. The ph factor is neutral so any residue can safely be poured down a drain without a ProCam solution additive, and I don't think you even have to notify your local Hazmat of the Azura gum solution. Cleaning the processor (including rollers, scrub brushes, etc.) take 1 man about 2 hours or so give or take... and in between cleanings, just run rinse water and change the gum.

G_Town:

--- Quote from: DigiSig on May 10, 2011, 12:33:13 PM ---

--- Quote from: Grimace on May 10, 2011, 12:17:12 PM ---
What was the deciding factor for the switch?

--- End quote ---
I/We have found Kodak plates to be horribly inconsistent, even thermal (but especially violet/poly). Sceening is just miserable. Plate wash would sometimes even remove image from the plate too. Azura plates were cheaper, consistent as can be and have a long run life. We made a deal with Pittman (now Agfa) to buy plates from them for two years, and they gave us the processor for free, with a 1-year service contract (which we never used).


--- Quote from: Grimace on May 10, 2011, 12:17:12 PM ---
And, do you and the pressmen like it okay?

--- End quote ---
Both the pressman and I love Azura. They never had the consistency on rerun orders like they do now (but some of that may have been the previous prepress guy). Screening on a clean plate vs. a plate near the time the processor needs cleaning are pretty much identical. My dot reader has a + or - of 2 percent, and I am reading plates that vary by less than .5 percent. Kodak would be all over the place, but Agfa is steady.

--- Quote from: Grimace on May 10, 2011, 12:17:12 PM ---
Also, I'm really wanting to be able to use our existing plate processor to develop the plates. It has a gum unit after the wash. If anybody has tried this, I'd be interested what chems you used, our press solution is too weak at the prescribed for press use. We are thinking of trying a very strong solution to se if that work.

--- End quote ---
The Azura TS processor only has a gum solution. It's basically a chemistry free "processless" plate. The ph factor is neutral so any residue can safely be poured down a drain without a ProCam solution additive, and I don't think you even have to notify your local Hazmat of the Azura gum solution. Cleaning the processor (including rollers, scrub brushes, etc.) take 1 man about 2 hours or so give or take... and in between cleanings, just run rinse water and change the gum.

--- End quote ---


Going to have to disagree with you on the Kodaks, we run both thermal kodaks and agfa and we have issues with the agfas (plate wear, blinding, sharpening during make ready, Kodaks on the other hand don't seem to have those issues.

and a half percent range? Brother I want what you are smoking? Hell a freaking dot reader alone can have a variance of a percent depending how the patch is read etc..or how many times you read it.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version