U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: Paper Negatives

Re: Paper Negatives

At 07:29 AM 12/5/07 -0600, Keith Gerling wrote:

You may be interested in some of the offerings from Freedom Paper.  I received this yesterday:


That's 200 sheets for 28 bucks and free shipping.  It is very thin but is works perfectly in my Epson 1280.  The un-oiled/waxed paper in (by the eye - I haven;t tested it yet) appears to be as translucent as oiled copy-machine paper.


Oh, yes, that is very budget-conscious! Too bad there is no image of the stock, but it sounds very similar to the Chartham Translucent I use. I've bookmarked your link in case I ever switch to inkjet printing for negatives. I don't mind the slight screen look to the digital negatives for my purposes, so I'm pretty well set for cheap negatives.

Just for fun, I tested baby oil on a black laser print made on cheap 20 lb. bond paper, and it worked like a charm, without smearing or removing any toner, and no scrubbing required, so there's another really cheap option.

Take care,

On Dec 4, 2007 12:55 PM, <pulpfic@telus.net > wrote:
Hi all,

I've always used transparency material to make laser-printed negatives for
cyanotype (and my few mediocre attempts at one-coat gum).

Something is wrong with my laser printer these days, because there are
clear lines along the transparency where it seems some toner has been
scraped off  by something along the drive path in the printer. But as there
is no toner removed when printing on ordinary paper, I've decided to stop
using transparencies for negatives.

Oiled paper was one of my choices as a substitute, but I thought I'd give
translucent paper (fake vellum) such as Chartham Natural Translucent (17
lb.) a try as a shortcut to the effect of oiling regular paper. Haven't
tried it yet, but I'm sure it will work just fine. As soon as we get some
solid sunshine again, I'll try it out.

I have all my C.N.T. stock cut to 8 11 as that's a convenient size for
me, but it comes as 23 35 inch parent sheets, if anyone has the ability
to make printed negatives that size. Not sure if it will print well with
inkjet, though; it doesn't like "wet" ink all that much.

The only drawback I can see is that Chartham Natural Translucent is about
the same cost as transparencies, if not actually a little more. But I've
already paid for a big stack of it cut to size, so now it's "free". 8^D

Just a thought.

Take care,
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
                                     Ms Randi DeLisle
              bookbinder, publisher, printmaker & photographer
                         pulp fictions & pulp fictions press
        Grand Forks BC  Canada    pulpfic (at) telus.net
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *