Jane Stewart:
>I think the photo is a nice idea; but, really prefer a logo. The photo
>is too much like a grandmother shirt--and my hair is getting white fast
>enough. j

I've been involved in the production of a few t-shirts, and have found
that line-art (or scratchboard) produces results superior to screens
of photos, or photos taken of (say) paintings.

One problem is that a fine screen is necessary to maintain detail when
dealing with a photo. This then limits the range of inks available
in various colors (some are too viscous). I've not done one for
several years, but the tendency of most inks usable with such fine
screens was to be less resistant to fading than those usable with
line art. Also, cotton (and I'm one of those who think cotton Ts
are most comfy) absorbs inks, the thinner the ink the more easily
absorbed it is, and detail is lost. So, with photos you always fight
loss of detail from too coarse a screen and loss from a fine-screen,
with bleeding and blurring in the fabric.

I'm just picky about details in photos, I guess :)

Of course, line art can have areas filled in with color if we want
to do a multi-color version (each color requires a separate screen
and pull, so costs more, of course). These can be done with a coarse
screen and gloppy, very permanent inks which is why you see so many
shirts done this way.

At the risk of being a bit too detailed considering the fact that
we've not actually decided to do a t-shirt yet, I'll state that I
greatly prefer 100% cotton Haines Beefy-Ts (long-sleeved!). I don't
know current prices, but the last shirt I did (three years ago? something
like that) cost $5-$6/shirt + setup charges ($20 or so, I think) for
a one-screen/one-color job, quantity 120 shirts. At that time costs
seemed to be going about about 10% a year, for some reason.



- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>