The most forward-looking development is an AI-assisted quality-control system currently being tested on one screen-printing press. The system photographs a target print and then checks subsequent prints against it, flagging visible differences so operators can intervene before inconsistent garments continue through production.
For UK custom-clothing businesses, the story is useful because it shows where automation is moving next. Faster print engines are only one part of productivity. Decorators are increasingly looking at quality control, screen preparation, colour consistency, job tracking, fulfilment and transfer production as areas where technology can reduce rework and shorten response times.
What is EPCC changing in its production setup?
According to the September profile, EPCC now operates across two production locations in Kent. Screen printing has been moved into a Ramsgate site, while Margate continues to support DTG, embroidery and fulfilment activities.
The company says its combined production footprint has expanded substantially, and its current equipment mix includes automatic screen presses, multi-head embroidery, Kornit DTG systems and DTF production alongside warehousing and fulfilment.
Recent investment has focused on several linked production problems rather than one headline machine:
- increasing automatic screen-print capacity;
- improving screen imaging accuracy and repeatability;
- reducing manual screen-reclaim labour;
- standardising ink recipes;
- testing AI-assisted print inspection;
- producing DTF transfers internally for faster response;
- and connecting jobs through the company’s in-house Cloudtex workflow platform.
That combination is significant because garment-decoration capacity is often limited by the slowest supporting step, not the rated speed of the main printer.
How the AI quality-control test works
Images Magazine reports that EPCC has been testing an AI-assisted inspection system since the beginning of 2026 on one of its smaller MHM screen-printing machines.
The system captures a photograph of the approved first print as the target. It then photographs subsequent prints and compares them with that reference. When the system detects a difference, it flags the issue on-screen and triggers an alert so the operator can inspect the job and reset production if necessary.
Managing director Justin Baker describes the technology as an additional verification layer rather than a replacement for operators. The company is still training the system and plans to extend it to additional presses later in 2026 if testing proves successful.
That distinction matters. Automated visual inspection can help identify variation, but a garment-printing environment is difficult: fabric can move, garment shades vary, print surfaces are not perfectly rigid and acceptable tolerances can depend on the artwork. Human judgement remains important when deciding whether a detected difference is a true defect.
Why AI-assisted QC could matter in garment printing
Traditional print quality control often relies on a combination of setup approval and periodic visual checks during the run. Experienced operators can catch many issues quickly, but intermittent inspection creates a risk that several garments are produced before a developing problem is noticed.
A camera-based system can potentially inspect every impression rather than only selected pieces. In a high-volume environment, that could help reduce:
- registration errors;
- missing or inconsistent ink coverage;
- obvious print shifts;
- repeated defects that continue through a run;
- rework discovered only after curing or packing;
- and variation between repeat production batches.
The commercial value is not simply fewer rejected T-shirts. Defects consume garments, ink, labour, dryer capacity and production time. When a job has a tight event or campaign deadline, discovering a problem late can also create delivery risk.
Screen preparation is becoming more automated too
EPCC’s investment is not limited to inspection. The company has added a Saati LTS direct laser computer-to-screen imaging and exposure system as part of its screen-printing workflow.
The profile says the unit can image two screens in roughly two-and-a-half minutes and is intended to improve stencil accuracy, edge definition and repeatability.
For screen printers, repeatability at this stage matters because the finished print begins before ink reaches the garment. Screen exposure, stencil quality, registration, mesh selection and setup all affect how consistently artwork can be reproduced.
The company has also introduced an automatic screen-reclaiming system capable of processing multiple screens while recycling water and solvents. That targets another labour-heavy part of screen production: cleaning used screens so they can return to the coating and imaging cycle.
Automated ink mixing targets colour consistency
Another recent addition is a custom-built Wilflex DM4 ink-mixing system. EPCC says stored recipes allow colours to be reproduced consistently for later jobs rather than relying on repeated manual weighing and mixing.
That is particularly relevant to repeat corporate, merchandise and event orders. A customer may reorder the same branded garment months after the original production run. If the ink mix changes noticeably, the new garments can look inconsistent when worn alongside existing stock.
Digital recipe control cannot remove every source of colour variation — substrate colour, ink deposit, curing and screen setup still matter — but it can reduce one avoidable variable in the process.
EPCC has also brought DTF production in-house
The September report says EPCC has installed a four-head Adelco DTF system with a 600mm print width, powder application and inline drying/cooling.
The company had previously been buying DTF transfers from outside suppliers. Baker says outsourced transfer spending had reached around £30,000 per year, creating a commercial case for internal production as well as faster response on urgent work.
The in-house DTF line is expected to support smaller, multicolour runs where screen-print setup may be less economical and where producing transfers internally can shorten the time between artwork approval and pressing.
This is a useful example of how DTF is fitting into established print businesses. It is not necessarily replacing screen printing or DTG. Instead, it fills production gaps where artwork complexity, quantity, garment type or turnaround make a transfer workflow more practical.
Why DTF is often added alongside other processes
A mature garment decorator may use screen printing, DTG, DTF and embroidery for different jobs.
Screen printing remains highly efficient for many repeated runs and can deliver specialist ink effects and strong colour control. DTG suits detailed digital artwork on appropriate garments without traditional screen setup. DTF gives decorators a flexible transfer route across many compatible fabrics and is attractive for detailed multicolour graphics and short batches. Embroidery remains important for workwear, polos, caps and premium stitched branding.
The investment question is therefore increasingly about routing. Which production method gives the required quality at the right cost and deadline for this particular job?
Bringing DTF in-house gives a multi-process operation another route for work that might otherwise wait for outsourced transfers or occupy a less suitable production line.
Workflow software is becoming part of production capacity
EPCC’s proprietary Cloudtex system connects orders, stock, production records and fulfilment. The company says customers can access order and stock information, while previous designs and production imagery are stored to support repeat work.
This reflects a wider change in custom apparel: a printer can invest in faster machinery and still struggle if the administrative workflow remains manual.
Modern production may involve ecommerce orders, artwork approval, garment picking, decoration, quality checks, personalised packing, stock holding and direct-to-customer fulfilment. If each stage requires re-entering information, operational errors and labour can grow faster than print capacity.
For UK decorators handling many smaller orders, software integration can therefore have as much impact on turnaround as another increment of print speed.
The customer expectation problem
The Images report notes that EPCC is seeing increasingly short lead times, including rapid top-up orders for events and touring merchandise.
That pressure is familiar across ecommerce and personalised products. Buyers increasingly expect visibility and speed similar to mainstream online retail even though custom garments require artwork checks, production setup and physical decoration before dispatch.
Automation helps only when it removes a genuine bottleneck. A camera that spots defects, a screen imager that improves repeatability or software that prevents manual re-keying can directly support faster delivery because each reduces avoidable intervention.
Buying technology without enough suitable order volume, however, can simply add cost and complexity.
What smaller UK garment decorators can learn from this
Most local print shops do not need a 20,000-garment daily capacity or multiple automatic screen presses. The useful lesson is the sequence of questions behind the investment.
Before buying equipment or software, identify where jobs actually slow down:
- Is artwork approval taking too long?
- Are screens or transfers being prepared slower than presses can consume them?
- Is colour matching inconsistent on repeat orders?
- Are operators finding defects late in the run?
- Are outsourced transfers causing delays on urgent jobs?
- Is order information being entered more than once?
- Is packing or fulfilment the true bottleneck after decoration?
The best automation investment is normally the one that removes a repeated constraint rather than the one with the most impressive specification sheet.
AI quality control is promising, but evidence matters
AI is currently being added to many manufacturing products, and the label alone should not be treated as proof of better production.
For automated garment inspection, useful measures would include how accurately the system distinguishes real defects from harmless garment variation, how many false alerts operators receive, which error types it can detect, how much production it can monitor and whether the system reduces actual spoilage or rework over time.
EPCC’s current setup is explicitly described as a test. That is the right way to interpret it: a potentially useful application being trained and evaluated in live production rather than a finished industry standard.
If the trial succeeds and expands across additional presses, it would provide a practical UK example of computer vision moving from general manufacturing into day-to-day garment decoration.
Search opportunity around AI garment-printing QC
Search results around garment-printing automation are still dominated by machinery, workflow software and general manufacturing AI. There is comparatively little UK-focused coverage explaining AI quality control in screen printing, automated print inspection, or how camera-based checking fits into apparel decoration.
That creates a useful long-tail opportunity around phrases such as AI quality control garment printing, screen printing automation UK, garment printing quality control, automated print inspection and DTF production automation.
For ElitePrints, the topic also broadens industry coverage beyond printer launches. It shows how professional decorators are investing around the complete production system: preparation, consistency, inspection, transfer production and fulfilment.
What this means for ElitePrints customers
Customers ordering printed T-shirts, hoodies, workwear or merchandise do not need to know whether a supplier uses camera inspection or automated ink mixing. They experience the result through consistent print quality, accurate repeat orders and reliable turnaround.
Technology is valuable when it supports those outcomes. The wrong lesson would be that every order now needs AI. The better lesson is that quality control is becoming more measurable and that professional printers are looking for ways to catch problems earlier rather than after an order is packed.
For customers placing repeat branded-clothing orders, this reinforces the importance of keeping approved artwork, garment specifications and production details consistent from one run to the next.
The bottom line
A fresh September 2026 profile of The Embroidered & Printed Clothing Company shows a UK garment decorator investing across several layers of production at once: additional automatic screen presses, laser screen imaging, automated reclaiming, digital ink mixing, in-house DTF and an AI-assisted print-inspection trial.
The AI system is still being tested, but its purpose is commercially clear: compare every print against an approved target and flag differences before defects continue through a run.
For the wider UK garment-decoration market, the development highlights a shift from judging production only by machine speed toward judging the entire workflow. The strongest operations increasingly compete on how well they control quality, repeatability, job data, labour, turnaround and the choice of process for each order.
That is where the next stage of garment-printing automation is likely to create the most practical value.
Sources
