RE: bromoil boot camp
(had to cut and paste this to the list because for some reason I cannot change my webmail browser when on the road to not reply to MY email address but the list's, even when I try to take out my "default reply address". Therefore, Don's message went to me personally instead of the list, and I think it is valuable info. Chris Don, >Thanks for this!! I will forward this on to David. How >did I miss this discussion, I wonder, on the PDN forum??? > >You are right--it is a perfect substrate for BW but MIGHT >be excessive for alt. I intend to test it when I get back >into my dimroom. The grain issue you see is certainly not >a factor in bromoil or gum--and I was using the 1280 at >Penland. And at 17c a sheet--wow. Do you think Ilford >was/is manufactured in Switzerland??? > >I remember way back when at the start of BW negs, Pictorico >white OHP was the recommended choice for BW printing and it >was quite pricey, and at this workshop I would have had to >charge each student $1.78 for a negative on Pictorico, so >it was really a great thing for us. > >OK, so you a) think it is repackaged Ilford, b) think it is >unsuitable for alt just because of its thickness or because >it has a UV inhibiting layer? I found it with BW printing >to be about 1 1/2 stops dif in density than Pictorico but >if there is UV inhibitors in there that might make it a >bust for gum. > >And c) the main issue--the watermark--unfortunately one has >to BUY a package to find out if the watermark is there or >not, so maybe others on the list can chime in whether other >glossy ink jet papers do not have the water mark? E.g. >Epson? But is Epson 17c a sheet? Or Ilford? Or is this >perhaps the "cheapest ink jet in the west"? > >I will test the sheet with a transmission densitometer when >I get back to school... >Chris----- Original Message Follows ----- From: "Don Bryant" <dsbryant@bellsouth.net> To: <zphoto@montana.net> Subject: RE: bromoil boot camp Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 22:58:02 -0400 >Chris and all, >> >One ingenious thing i will share with the group--he hit >upon Kirkland Ink Jet Paper available at Costco as being a >perfect digital negative substrate for bromoil > >.. > >At 17 cents a sheet of 8.5x11 this is a STEAL compared to >Pictorico. David is going to try to see if the manufacturer >would produce bigger sizes of this substrate, but the name >of the manufacturer is not on the box except that the >company is in Switzerland. >> > >I think it is fair to point out a few things about the >Kirkland Inkjet paper for use as a substrate for inkjet >negatives: > >1) The current release of the Costco Kirkland glossy inkjet >paper is manufactured in the USA leading some people to >speculate that this 'new' paper is different that the paper >manufactured in Switzerland. > >2) My informal tests of this paper (the one made in >Switzerland) using it strictly as a paper for making inkjet >prints seem to suggest that it is made by the same >manufacturer that produces inkjet paper marketed as Ilford >glossy inkjet paper. I came to this conclusion because the >ICC profile that one can download from Ilford works >perfectly with the old Costco Kirkland paper. > >3) Because the old Costco Kirkland paper was probably >manufactured by the same company that produces Ilford >inkjet glossy one can speculate that the paper is indeed >Ilford inkjet paper which means that larger sizes of the >paper can be found under the Ilford label, though I have >never tested this. > >4) It should also be pointed out that this substrate will >only work well for white light applications, not for >processes requiring exposure to UV light, though I've also >never tested that either. However I will speculate that the >UV density of this substrate is probably in excess of a log >density of 3.0. > >5) Pierre Oliver discovered and reported this to the >Precision Digital Negative Yahoo group over a year ago and >has been using it as an inexpensive replacement for >Pictorico for silver gelatin printing. He may have >discovered this independently or may have heard about it >from other sources. This leads me to also speculate that >other inexpensive brands of glossy inkjet paper without >"water marks" could be used for making digital negatives >for silver gelatin printing. Apparently when this substrate >is used with printers such as the Epson 220, Epson 1800, >1400, or 3800, printers with extremely small droplet sizes >excellent results can be had for silver gelatin printing. >The same results would probably hold true of other inkjet >papers with similar surfaces and translucency. > >Unfortunately for me my Epson 2200 still produced a little >too much texture to make it a good choice for silver >gelatin paper. Pierre was kind enough to send me a small >sample print and the result is quite remarkable; though >there is still a slight visible texture in certain parts of >the tonal scale it is probably quite acceptable for small >format film users and folks making bromoils. > >And another somewhat unrelated side note, the folks at >Bostick & Sullivan have discovered that the Ultrafine matt >surface inkjet paper makes a very good transfer paper for >carbon printing. The Ultrafine matt paper is also >relatively inexpensive and may be purchased in larger sizes >than 8.5x11. > >Don Bryant > > > > > > Assistant Professor of Photography Photography Option Coordinator Montana State University College of Arts and Architecture Department of Media and Theatre Arts, Room 220 P.O. Box 173350 Bozeman, MT 59717-3350 Tel (406) 994 6219 CZAphotography.com |