Re: Paper negative

To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
Subject: Re: Paper negative
From: Katharine Thayer <kthayer@pacifier.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 09:35:14 -0800
Comments: "alt-photo-process mailing list"
In-reply-to: <FB22225D-37D1-41D8-B736-11CAE2A62695@pacifier.com>
List-id: alt-photo-process mailing list <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
References: <C37B4680.16F%mail@loris.medici.name><F87C70A8-82BB-4661-866C-7E3ECE1C8DC2@pacifier.com><FB22225D-37D1-41D8-B736-11CAE2A62695@pacifier.com>
Reply-to: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca

John, it sounds like baby oil is probably a better choice, now that I know it's a thinner version of mineral oil. From your description, and from logic, it seems like it would soak into the paper easier. The mineral oil is so thick that it really requires rubbing and heating and rubbing some more to get it to permeate the paper completely; I found by experience that if I skimped on any of that, I would get mottling in the negative as a result of incomplete/uneven absorption of the oil in the interior of the paper.
kt

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Paper negative
  - From: davidhatton@totalise.co.uk

References:
- Re: Paper negative
  - From: Loris Medici <mail@loris.medici.name>
- Re: Paper negative
  - From: Katharine Thayer <kthayer@pacifier.com>
- Re: Paper negative
  - From: Katharine Thayer <kthayer@pacifier.com>