Re: best film for 3800 PT/PD negs
I agree. I've been able to work better with straight OHP Premium. Ultra was too dense for my workflow as well. Of course, OHP Premium has recently been reformulated. The two rolls I have in stock have apparently been obscolesed in favor of a slightly thinner version of OHP Premium. I have a few months before I run out of the old stuff and have to retest, so I sincerely hope Pictorico (now Mitsubishi) know what they're doing. The stuff was perfect for me as it was. Jon On 5/21/2008, "Clay Harmon" <wcharmon@wt.net> wrote: >I just finished a roll of the 'utlra' premium, and I was glad to be >done with it. I hated it. I am back to using the plain old 'premium'. >The ultra premium had a milky translucent look to it, and the exposure >times were about 33% longer than the regular stuff. > >What is really weird is that I could never get the blackest black with >this material. On my palladium prints made using the ultra stuff, any >coated part of the print that was not under the film and was exposed >directly to the light was always slightly, but discernibly darker. No >matter what the exposure. My advice would be to stay away from it. > >my 2 cents > >Clay > > >On May 21, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Diana Bloomfield wrote: > >> Bob, >> >> That's the downside-- Pictorico doesn't make this in 17x22, >> unfortunately. I can't figure out why they don't. I also used this >> other transparency that Don also recommended-- DAS. I'm not home >> now, so don't have the information, but it's Digital Art Supplies-- >> you can Google it. Their transparencies are also excellent, and >> they make it in the larger sizes. The price is comparable to >> Pictorico. I only buy the Pictorico Premium-- I'm not sure what the >> Ultra Premium does, but I'm sure somebody here has used it. It sure >> sounds better, doesn't it?? >> >> Diana >> On May 21, 2008, at 10:47 AM, BOB KISS wrote: >> >>> DEAR DON, CHRIS, & DIANA, >>> Two more questions: >>> 1) On the Pictorico web site I see Premium and Ultra Premium. What >>> is the difference and which to your recommend. >>> 2) As I need to make 16X20 prints I need the 17X22 film but I don't >>> see if on the Pictorico site. Am I missing something? >>> CHEERS! >>> BOB >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Christina Z. Anderson [mailto:zphoto@montana.net] >>> Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 10:32 AM >>> To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca >>> Subject: Re: best film for 3800 PT/PD negs >>> >>> Hi Bob, >>> >>> I second Don. Pictorico is wonderful. It is now cheaper, too--20 >>> sheets >>> for what used to be 15 in a packet of 8.5x11. I just finished a >>> project that >>> >>> required me to print about 140 negatives and I had nary a problem. >>> And I >>> figure at $1 a sheet, that's only $3 per gum print and with all the >>> time I >>> put into gum that isn't so big a deal. >>> >>> Pictorico.com but I think Mitsubishi now owns it or something... >>> Chris >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "BOB KISS" <bobkiss@caribsurf.com> >>> To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca> >>> Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 7:50 AM >>> Subject: RE: best film for 3800 PT/PD negs >>> >>> >>>> DEAR DON, >>>> Thanks for the quick reply! A few questions: >>>> 1) Which of the two do you prefer, Pictorio or Inkpress? >>>> 2) From which supplier do you prefer to buy the Pictorio? >>>> CHEERS! >>>> BOB >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Don Bryant [mailto:dsbryant@bellsouth.net] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 9:39 AM >>>> To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca >>>> Subject: RE: best film for 3800 PT/PD negs >>>> >>>> Bob, >>>> >>>> Since price isn't a consideration go for Pictorico OHP. Or you may >>>> wish to >>>> try Inkpress Transparency: >>>> >>>> http://www.inkjetart.com/cart/press-transparency-film-c-1_753_937_986.html >>>> >>>> Don Bryant >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> __________ NOD32 3116 (20080521) Information __________ >>>> >>>> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. >>>> http://www.eset.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> __________ NOD32 3116 (20080521) Information __________ >>> >>> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. >>> http://www.eset.com >>> >>> >> >> > >
|