U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: Richard Bensons's new book

Re: Richard Bensons's new book

Yes and no on the image quality.  The solution ran and dripped all
over and sort of made for a nice abstract, but I didn't get anything
worth keeping.

Today's printer drivers with all of the options for controlling ink
volumes, etc., should allow for far greater finesse than was at my
disposal.  I'm half tempted to try it again.

On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 10:26 AM, jefulton1 <jefulton1@comcast.net> wrote:
> Keith . . big mess? I am fearful of that as well. Did you get any results
> that were of an image quality?
> JF
> On Jan 2, 2009, at 8:02 AM, Keith Gerling wrote:
>> I tried this many years ago with an Epson PhotoEX (I think that is
>> what is was) and it made a big mess until I thickened the cyano
>> solution with some glycerin.  It still made a mess and I gave it up as
>> I figured the novelty-to-hassle ratio was not in in my favor.
>> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 9:47 AM, jefulton1 <jefulton1@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Why would one do this?
>>> Hopefully, if the image was prepared correctly like one does in Mark
>>> Nelson's digital negative plan/method, you would be able to print with
>>> the
>>> chemistry directly to a piece of paper and expose it to the sun or light
>>> source and, voila, your cyanotype would appear. Then wash . . . no
>>> negative
>>> needed. The other hope is that w/Photoshop we could slowly perfect the
>>> appearance on screen so the printing would be able to render both
>>> highlight
>>> and shadow correctly.
>>> I think it might be a shot-in-the-dark, so to speak, and my own question
>>> has
>>> been that if the material is sprayed on how would the varying densities
>>> come
>>> about in the shadow or highlight w/out such a negative. But, we have a
>>> printer and an idea and the testing will be fun.
>>> Jack F
>>> On Jan 2, 2009, at 6:57 AM, Barry Singer wrote:
>>>> What an interesting idea.  Instead of ink, use your printer to spray
>>>> chemicals.  I suppose you then expose and process as usual.  I guess you
>>>> would get clear highlights, as no chemicals would be present there, but
>>>> other than that, why would you do this?
>>>> B Singer
>>>> davidhatton@totalise.co.uk wrote:
>>>>> Hi Jack,
>>>>> It may be a good idea to have a set of cartridges with de-ionized water
>>>>> only in them. This way you could flush the heads through after every
>>>>> printing session. I think that should keep the nozzles clear.
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> David H
>>>>> On Jan 2 2009, jefulton1 wrote:
>>>>> I've got hold of an Epson 3000 printer, an older model. It used dye
>>>>> inks but we also tried and used
>>>>> pigmented inks. This idea bantered about regarding printing with cyano
>>>>> chemicals or VDB has been
>>>>> on my mind for years. Now I'll give it a try.
>>>>> But before doing so would like your opinion on whether you think the
>>>>> cyano chemistry will work in
>>>>> the printer. The initial worry is whether the concentration of the
>>>>> chemicals themselves, though
>>>>> fully dispersed in water, can clog the nozzles.
>>>>> Secondly, the print should be made in dim light, most likely also kept
>>>>> with an opaque covering as
>>>>> well. So, do you think the heads might 'cake' up?
>>>>> Surely I could just go ahead and try to see what happens but
>>>>> cumulative foresight may prevent
>>>>> glitches.
>>>>> I'd like to think a decent watercolor paper would be fine.
>>>>> Will try to delay print head speeds to allow for some drying or
>>>>> soaking in between passes but I
>>>>> cannot remember if the software allows that.
>>>>> But any of your thoughts would be appreciated.
>>>>> And, let's hope this new year is about five time better than the last
>>>>> eight.
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> Jack F