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.

>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
>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