Chem-free plates pros/cons?

[RGPW17100]

This is my first post but I have been down this road. We started with the Kodak no process plates. Problems they scratch real easy and are very sensitive to light. We had to have black paper slip sheets in dark envelopes for plates that sat for more then 10 minutes. Image is light to non existant and press operators kept hanging plates on the wrong units. Can not proof very well and a plate reader for these plates is very expensive. The advantage was that the plates rolled up clean on press and ran well.

Fuji thermals were real problematic. They would not clean up on press very well and the coating on the plates contaminated the ink and water system real bad. Chiller had much higher foaming issues and the yellow ink fountain would turn gray after the second plate was hung. Also impossible to read with a plate reader. Only advantage was they did not scratch as easy as the kodak.

We finally went with the Agfa Azura. Has a good image and we were able to do a linear plate using a $2200 dollar plate reader. These plates must have a clean up unit which uses a water/ corn starch solution which is quite expensive. 5 gallons is $150. This lasts for about 3 weeks and gets so dirty it needs to be tossed. We have completed G7 certificataion on these plates with our Speedmaster and have been using the plates now for over a year. If you go this route try and get your plate vendor to throw in the plate clean up unit for free. You will also have to investigate if your CTP devise can be bridged to the cleanup unit.

I just heard from my Fuji rep they have modified the finish on the plates and supposedly they are more user friendly. Good luck

 

[PantherMac]

This is my first post but I have been down this road. We started with the Kodak no process plates. Problems they scratch real easy and are very sensitive to light. We had to have black paper slip sheets in dark envelopes for plates that sat for more then 10 minutes. Image is light to non existant and press operators kept hanging plates on the wrong units. Can not proof very well and a plate reader for these plates is very expensive. The advantage was that the plates rolled up clean on press and ran well.

WoW! Really? Not my experience at all, what kind of lighting do you have?
We leave our TD's out (E-down, factory slip sheets between them) on a table in plating for hours at a time if the job's due on press that day.
Long term storage (8h - 30-days (yes, we had one job sit for 5 weeks after imaging!)) is in a flat-file plate/film storage drawers. Nary a problem w/ development. I've been caught on the phone for 10-minutes w/ the Creo holding the plate in the eject position, and no fog issues ever!
If I don't close the black plastic wrap back up when I'm done shooting jobs for the day, the top edge of the 1st plate, develops a little fog.
I use a 24-pt type in the plate gripper, and have no troubles QC'ing the plate.
Very different experience, I've been extremely happy w/ the Thermal Direct's from Kodak, and have room on my floor for a Digital press since there's no processing equipment at all.

- Mac

 

[jlind]

Any particular reason why there's nary a mention of Presstek processless plate use in this thread? I'm looking at the Aurora plate for imaging on a Brisque platesetter. Water wash, excellent readout. If you have been down this path before me, what did you find? Now I don't have to get a Presstek plate burner, wash the plate off with water, sounds like plug and play to me. Yet, no one in this thread has mentioned these pioneers of process free plates. Just curious.
John Lind
Cranberry Township, PA
724-776-4718

 

[RGPW17100]

WoW! Really? Not my experience at all, what kind of lighting do you have?

We have standard 4 ft fluorescent tubes in a suspended ceiling. Plates are imaged on a Magnus device. We Used large manila envelopes with slip sheets and our plates were standing up and fogging was terrible. Are you processing or rolling the plates up on press? Sounds like you are rolling them up on press. I don't understand the difference. The other issue was the scratching which was the main reason for switching to Agfa.

 

[Lukas Engqvist]

Pressteck used ablative process before, (when we were considering the issue) that means you burn off what you don't want. If means more energy and you need to burn off all that doesn't print, instead of fuse the molecules that are to be inkbearing. The ablative process means more dust, which is never a good thing. Don't know if they have re done their work.