Azura plate chemistry-free?

[J]

I just saw this post about Azura plates on Grow Your Biz - A blog about end to end solutions that help you grow in the graphic communications industry. the November 17 blog "Warning: Your Chemistry Free Plate Requires Chemistry"

Wild. What do you think?

J

[maxon]

Unscrupulous and immoral. That last sentence in the red box is truly offensive. Could've been drunk, who knows. I'm not a fan of Agfa, the platesetters I use are violet machines using (...oops !) VioletPrint Kodak plates. I've never tried Azura, although I've seen these plates in a Drupa demo, I hope to find chemfree violet plates available next year from as many manufacturers as possible. Why ? These plates take out the most important variable in the process, that is the developer. Hellooooo, ring a bell ? Could be he expects this gum to be some sheep milk and giraffe saliva mixture, would anyone please tell him it contains chemicals oh yes that bloody gum is synthetic, an aqueous suspension. Or walk him through some literature hoping he works out the main differences between chemical and physical interactions/processes. I'm too old for this.

[Cory Smith]

I've always questioned Agfa's claim to a chem-free plate with the Azura line. While it may not be "developer", it's still a chemical that is being used. Their process does have some advantages (longer shelf life, better contrast). I think calling it a chem-free plate is just not accurate. maybe developer free?

[J]

I think calling it a chem-free plate is just not accurate. maybe developer free?

Well that point is covered in the Kodak blog:
"International Paper's Pocket Pal, arguably the industry standard for definitions of graphic arts terms, defines "developer" as "in lithographic platemaking, the material used to remove the unexposed coating." Agfa's marketing literature clearly says that the purpose of their clean out gum for Azura is to wash away the non-imaged areas of the plate."

So I suppose that you can't say developer free either.

J

[RGPW17100]

If you use water it will remove the unwanted material as well. We had just water in the clean up unit to do monthly cleaning. I typically leave water in the system all weekend to clean it out. On monday we forgot it was just water and the plates cleaned up and rolled up on press just fine. If the plates were run with just water and not gummed they would oxidize just like any other aluminum plate either silver or thermal. Fuji thermal plates pretty much need a rapture type processor to remove the finish from their plates or it totally contaminates the complete inking and water system on the press. We noticed this as well with the Kodak thermals. We used more defoamer with Kodaks then we do with Azura. At the end of a month the azura 5 gallons of clean up solution is turned into a couple of quarts of green slime that can be tossed. This is much better then cleaning a full blown photo polymer or silver halide system processor each month.

[Green Printer]

Removing coatings from plates and containing them in a controlled system is the preferred method.

Putting exposed plate material in water and ink systems that contains hundreds of different chemicals that can combine with the removed coatings and turn into who knows what doesn't sound safe. To properly dispose of the spent fountain solutions and ink they would have to be analyzed first to determine how and where they can be disposed properly.

[SteveAgfa]

I believe RGPW's observation about the Azura "gum" put's this whole debate into perspective.

Since Azura's launch in 2004, the debate over semantics has largely been quieted, based on
actual use in the field. As GreenPrinter also notes, it's better to contain the emulsion removal,
rather than having this possibly contaminate the press chemistry. Azura's core Thermofuse
technology was first launched in 2000 as an on-press imaging plate, where the emulsion was
pulled off after wetting, and deposited on the first few sheets. Sound familiar? Based on the
limitations of this process, and the limitations that some press architectures imposed, Agfa
rolled-out the Azura implementation with the preservative gum as the only "chemical". This
has proven in over four years of use to be a practical application serving a wide latitude of
conditions. Yes, as RGPW notes, one could use water, and the plates would clean-out and
roll-up and print fine. The gum acts not as a developer, but rather a traditional oxygen
barrier to prevent oxidation, beyond what simple water could do as a clean-out. The imaging
process of Azura is purely physical, dependent on no chemical interaction to help define proper
exposure. And, the plates are not white light sensitive (under practical conditions), so there is
no need to mount on press within a short time frame, nor shield in dark boxes or bags.

If one is interested - "Santa" has been posting here for 4 years on this subject. Search
his comments for more real-world opinions on its use. Thanks to RGPW & GreenPrinter's
real-world responses as well.

Regards,

[SteveAgfa]

J:

I finally took a look at that "blog" you cited.

You failed to mention that this is a Kodak site,
and that the author of this piece is the marketing
manager for Kodak's Thermal Direct line.

I'm happy to debate technology in a public forum -
it appears that some of the "competition" would
rather have a monologue within their own site.

Azura's users are actually our best spokespersons,
so I'll let our users continue to respond based on
their real-world experiences.

Regards,

[J]

J:
I finally took a look at that "blog" you cited.
You failed to mention that this is a Kodak site, and that the author of this piece is the marketing manager for Kodak's Thermal Direct line.
I'm happy to debate technology in a public forum - it appears that some of the "competition" would rather have a monologue within their own site.
Regards,

When I pasted the URL into my initial message it unexpectedly became a hot link otherwise you would have seen "growyourbiz.kodak.com" - I wasn't trying to hide the fact that it was a Kodak blog. BTW I did mention it in my second response.
That Kodak blog is a public forum. Pat Berger has posed a couple of comments on it. Maybe you should too.

J

[SteveAgfa]

Hi J:

No Thanks. I'll let them enjoy their space.
(Although I did get a kick out of the notion
that Agfa's Azura is a response to Thermal
Direct (!). Here's a previous post from Beer-
monster that also comes to the "Azura"
conclusion.

Regards...




beermonster
Member Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 58



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ok firstly can i clarify i am in no way connected to any vendor at all - i'm just a simple pre-press jock ok

i was indeed against the idea of ANY chemistry in pre-press. Initially I jumped on the processless bandwagon, BUT there were issues for us with those plates. firstly they keep on developing - and i dont have space/room for a special area for storage. clean out on press is not good for us. we use one plate size only (B1) and it's our sheet size that varies. since the plate coating gets taken away by the substrate, what happens to the coating outside of the substrate size - and what are the long term affects? again - only applicable to us maybe.

so it was a question of the best alternative. sure - there's "less chemistry usage" plates from everyone - fuji, kodak, agfa - all the players, but my goal if i couldn't eliminate all chemistry was to get as close as possible. i wanted to reduce man hours cleaning, chemical usage, power usage, disposal costs - all the usual things but give a CLEAN plate to press

water usage in plate development is substantial over a year - all that has gone now. yes i have a ctp, yes we have had to slow it slightly with the azura (am going to an open day next week to view the new azura ts faster plate), and yes we have had an issue with aggressive substrates and inks.

however - the plate is quite robust under fair conditions - by which i mean with non aggressive inks and substrates. we have had very long run lengths and press have had to alter two things - nothing and nothing!

after a few months i now have a grand total of three 10ltr tubs to "dispose" of - actually it is possible to dilute the stuff and tip down the drain depending on your local authority rules. i dont however - and i'm very happy with my prediction of a max of 15 tubs a year for disposal, less than an hour a MONTH spent on the gum unit (including changing the gum tub which takes about a minute) and the excellent set up and back up agfa have given us

believe what you will, but i'm not an agfa fan - never have been, but there were good drivers for using this plate and agfa, and we are extremely happy.