U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | RE: bromoil boot camp

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