Re: Paper Negative Details

[Katharine Thayer <kthayer@pacifier.com>]

John, again,

I think you as well as Henk may have missed my point, and no doubt  
that's my fault for not saying it enough times.   But I'll say it  
again:    I don't need to experiment with paper for paper negatives  
because I found a paper years ago that works beautifully, and still  
does, as far as I know (Andrea's recommendation suggests that it  
indeed still does).   It's Epson PhotoQuality Inkjet Paper; it's  
quite cheap,  currently about $13.99 for 100 sheets, and it works  
very nicely.   It has a light coating on it that takes the ink nicely  
for a sharp crisp print,  but doesn't interfere with oil.  It's the  
papers with a heavier coating, the glossy photo papers (more  
expensive) that I was not recommending because they tend to mottle  
and crack when treated with either oil or wax, in my experience; the  
PhotoQuality Inkjet paper isn't subject to that problem.  Hope that's  
all clearer,
Katharine



On Dec 4, 2007, at 2:50 PM, Katharine Thayer wrote:

> John, re using cheap uncoated paper for paper negatives:
>
> 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.   But thanks for the suggestion.
>
> kt