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

Re: Paper Negative Details

Henk, thanks for response. In an active discussion like this, one can lose track of the thread, I guess. I'm not looking for a solution. I have two solutions, in fact; one for paper negatives and one for film negatives, both quite reasonably priced and both giving good results. I don't make paper negatives any more, now that I have a 1280 and can print on film (my old Epson EX wouldn't print on film, at all) but I did use paper negatives for a number of years and so I've responded to questions about paper negatives. The paper I used quite successfully for all those years was Epson Photo Quality Inkjet Paper; the only problem right now is that that paper is unavailable to me at the moment, because the store where I used to buy it doesn't carry it any more, and to get more I'd either have to drive to Portland or send away for it. Since the only reason I wanted it was to make a comparison for the list to demonstrate the difference between paper and film negatives, it didn't seem worth the trouble. Thanks,

On Dec 5, 2007, at 5:33 AM, henk thijs wrote:

On 5 dec 2007, at 0:53, Katharine Thayer wrote:

And I would want to do this... why?

You said:

Doesn't work well, to my taste. You need a light coating on the paper to hold sharp edges; uncoated paper (a) tends to make a softer print and (b) tends to have more internal texture that can print.
that is the reason i mentioned the rabbit glue coating; with the glue it acts like a real inkjet-paper (so one can use all the paper one collected over the years .....:-).
And for the transparencies .... to coat the clear material is cheaper and if the negative is not ok, just in hot water and you can use it again.
On the other hand if money is not the point why messing around .... :-)