Re: Paper Negative Details
Katherine,
Gotcha ! Thanks.
John- Photographist - London - UK
.......................................................................................
----- Original Message -----
From: "Katharine Thayer" <kthayer@pacifier.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 9:05 PM
Subject: Re: Paper Negative Details
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
|