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

Re: Paper negatives

Indeed, unoiled negatives require a longer exposure time. If there are
people like me who doesn't like to deal with oiling (because while working
I can put my negatives everywhere; on my printer's output tray, on my
keyboard, on my coating area ect. ect. and I'm kinda fastidious) then you
can just purchase a much thinner paper (such as freedompaper.com's 18 lb
translucent inkjet bond) and get rid of the extra step + extra care you
need with oiled negatives - with even shorter exposure times. For
instance, my exposure time with unoiled ordinary 80gsm photocopier paper
was 15 mins (20% dichromate), with the thinner paper it's just 6:30 (10%
dichromate), unoiled.  That makes something like 1.3 stop - without taking
the halving of the dichromate into consideration (= actual / practical
difference is more).

Plus, in my case the translucent inkjet bond is much cheaper than Epson
paper (BTW, I use 13x19" sized sheets - I don't even know if Epson is
offered at that size?) therefore I will continue that way, which I found
more convenient / logical for myself.

Thanks for taking the burden / sharing results.


12 Ekim 2008, Pazar, 1:12 pm tarihinde, Guido Ceuppens yazmış:
> Laura,
> I like the image but I think the second one (un-oiled paper) needed
> far more exposure.
> I tried a quick exposure comparison between oiled and un-oiled Epson
> PQP, using a 31 step tablet and cyanotype. For my setup I found a
> difference of 2.5 stops:
> oiled PQP : exposure 8 mins,
> un-oiled PQP : exposure time 48 mins
> I did not make a complete image as I cannot see any advantage in using
> un-oiled paper, the extra (not too messy) step does not, FOR ME,
> warrant the extra exposure time needed for each negative, especially
> in multy-layer gum.
> Greetings,
> Guido
> 2008/10/12 Laura Valentino <laura@this.is>:
>> I never got a clear answer about whether it is possible to use the Epson
>> photo quality inkjet paper as a negative un-oiled, so I did a little
>> test :)