U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | RE: Paper negatives- Ink Selection

RE: Paper negatives- Ink Selection



I think that there is something in Pictorico's base that blocks UV a little.
I use cheap OHP film made by 3M, 12 for 100 sheets A4 size. Gum exposures
for me are about 4 to 7 minutes depending on pigment. I'm keen to try the
paper Loris is using so I can print bigger than A4 at a realistic price.
Pictorico is not in my budget.

J

-----Original Message-----
From: Katharine Thayer [mailto:kthayer@pacifier.com] 
Sent: 18 October 2008 03:28
To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
Subject: Re: Paper negatives- Ink Selection

  I scanned a negative printed on this transparency material, along  
with a print made from the negative, so you can judge for yourself.   
The negative looks odd to me because the scanner filled in the clear  
parts with white instead of leaving them clear, even though I scanned  
it as film.  I guess it's been a while since I've scanned black and  
white negatives, but I thought it left the clear areas clear.  Oh  
well, the point was that the negative is very thin, but prints a full  
range of tones, or as full as gum can manage in one coat.

http://www.pacifier.com/~kthayer/html/orangeneg.html

Also, I've thought about it some more, and looked back through my  
files, and realized that I did print greyscale negatives (all color  
inks) on this  transparency material on my new 1280 for about a year  
before I switched to colorized negatives.  Like Laura, my exposure  
times with these transparencies are about the same as my exposure  
times with oiled paper negatives, and my exposure times with  
greyscale (all color inks) on this transparency film were about the  
same as my exposure times with colorized negatives on the same  
material.   But my exposure times with Pictorico, when I used  
Pictorico,  were longer than my exposure times with oiled paper  
negatives.

Katharine


On Oct 17, 2008, at 1:18 PM, Katharine Thayer wrote:

> Hey Laura,  forget everything I've said about this transparency  
> film; I have better information now.   I just discovered something  
> amazing and embarrassing; I got to looking at the box this stuff  
> came in, and it says right on the box what it is.   It's made by  
> Precision Imaging Inc, it's called Transparency Film for inkjet  
> printers #10-401, Clear, and I searched out the manufacturer and  
> called them and found that it's a lot cheaper ordering directly   
> from Precision Imaging than from filmsource ($10.55 for a box of 50  
> vs $17.50 from filmsource).   Here's the website:
>
> http://precisionimageinc.com/productguide.html
>
> Thanks a million;  if you hadn't asked, I may never have figured  
> that out.
> Katharine
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 17, 2008, at 7:38 AM, Laura Valentino wrote:
>
>
>> I'll just say, gimme the stuff Katharine gets... :)
>>
>> Laura
>>
>> Katharine Thayer wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 15, 2008, at 12:35 PM, Laura Valentino wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Katharine Thayer wrote:
>>>> With the cheap
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> transparency film I use, I won't have any need to go back  to  
>>>>> paper unless for some reason I can't get that film any more.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Katharine...what type of cheap film? I have the same printer  
>>>> as you. (actually the 1270, which is the Euro model).
>>>>
>>>> Laura
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Oh dear, I always paint myself into this corner whenever I  
>>> mention the cheap transparency film that I use.
>>> The problem is that I don't know what it is.  It's something I  
>>> get from filmsource.com, on recommendation of a friend from this  
>>> list who gave me a few sheets to try.  This company buys  
>>> different manufacturers' films and repackages them under their  
>>> own label.  Unfortunately, they market different films under the  
>>> same stock name and #, so I can't even tell you the stock name  
>>> and # with any expectation that you'd get the same film I use.   
>>> Once they sent me a different film when I ordered the same stock  
>>> number again; the other film behaved entirely differently.  They  
>>> wouldn't take it back because they said all the film they sell  
>>> under the same # should behave similarly enough to not make any  
>>> difference, but there was a big difference as far as making  
>>> digital negatives with.  I did eventually figure out how to make  
>>> so-so negatives with the other film,  since they wouldn't take it  
>>> back, but since then they have been careful to send me the same  
>>> film I got the first time, and I'm happy.  But.... I have no idea  
>>> in the world what it is, so if they go out of business or lose my  
>>> records or something, I won't have any way of finding that film  
>>> again, which rather terrifies me.  Sorry, I'm afraid that's not  
>>> very helpful, but it's all I know.
>>> Katharine
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>