RE: Another vellum question
Interesting. Too bad that Print 1000 didn't work too well as a negative; I've heard it makes very nice digital prints. I bought some no-name 100% cotton vellum a while back and tried it as a substrate for pt/pd. My exposure times were very close to my Pictorico times, but the print quality on the vellum (and ultimately the print) left a lot to be desired. Camden Hardy camden[at]hardyphotography[dot]net http://www.hardyphotography.net On Fri, September 29, 2006 1:22 pm, Don Bryant wrote: > Hi Camden, > > It's odd that you asked this question today since last night I tested > Clear > Print 1000 vellum. Unfortunately, it seems to be nearly opaque to UV > light. > > A one hour exposure only produced minimal density with traditional > cyanotype. Perhaps a more powerful UV source would work more effectively. > > I was interested in using Clear Print since negatives printed on it have a > large dot gain producing a very soft looking image. > > It does make an interesting inkjet print though, used with a RIP for B&W > printing or just color using the printer driver might yield a unique look. > > Don > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Camden Hardy [mailto:camden@hardyphotography.net] > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 3:05 PM > To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca > Subject: Another vellum question > > While we're on the topic of vellum, I too have a question (I didn't want > to hijack Sandy's post, so I'm starting a new thread). > > How about a high quality vellum that would make a good digital negative > substrate? I'm looking for something that prints well on an inkjet > printer, but is transparent enough to act as a negative. > > Thanks, > Camden Hardy > > camden[at]hardyphotography[dot]net > http://www.hardyphotography.net > > > >
|