Re: Poor man's negatives
Loris Medici schrieb:
Hi Phritz,
Will check avery, I think we have a distributor here (but they're more
into labels and such). Thanks for mentioning.
hi loris,
just just check for the number-code "2502".(the code for the 50 sheet
box, the 10 sheet box has a different n#). the avery products are
pretty easy to find if you know the number.
those are for inkjets. there are transparencies for other printer
avaiable too.
Phritz, the color (or, more correctly -> the chemical structure of the
ink) will change UV opacity. Therefore you only can test this by
exposing a 21/31 step tablet to determine the DR the process requires
then see if your printer is able to give you paper white with that
process. Then you'll know your inks are OK for that particular process.
ah! thanks for phrasing it like that. lately i've been having an
irrational fear that my negs could be of too low contrast. but of
course, if i can get paper white and d-max on one step tablet,
everything's fine.
with my 101-step tablet from chartthrob (printed on a transparency with
my printer), i can get dmax and paper white with the classic vandyke
formula. since it's a notoriously low contrast process iirc, everything
should be fine.
thanks. .
Regards,
Loris.
2009/8/11 phritz phantom <phritz-phantom@web.de>:
hi,
i'm using overhead transparencies as well. my brand is: avery "overhead
transparencies" 2502 (~$25 for a box of 50 sheets). they are doing the
job... i suppose, i've never using anything but these and my canon printer.
lately, i got a little concerned, because the maximum density i can achieve
with this combination (reading taken with the white channel of my
color-densitometer) is between 1.00 and 1.10. (i don't have a
uv-densitometer, but i could make measurements from the color-channels, if
those were more significant).
is a maximum gradient of 1.00 too little? i've printed vandyke and cyanos
quite well... at least to my eyes. gum and carbon too, but these processes
allow for more contrast control.
phritz
Jacek Gonsalves schrieb:
Hi Loris,
I've never used Pictorico, as here in Australia its hard to come by and
too expensive to import. There is Folex and Ulano you can try, all European
brands from what I gather. Though i'm not certain if the HP inks will work
with the transparency brand?
On a side not I am thinking of getting a Vivera ink, the Z3100 PK
cartridge and using Paul Roark method of diluting the ink into different 5
different ink shades. Then using that ink in the R1800 and see if I can get
a good enough graduation on film negs as well as inkjet prints.
One thing I've noticed is that matte inks dont work on transparency medium
so well, as some are classed as a glossy substrate. On the other hand the
Photo Black or PK inks work well on the transparency classed as glossy.
Thanks for your previous posts, I've seen the Meyer coating rod and there
is a nifty website http://site.booksmartstudio.com/ which sells just that
item.
Long link! --->
http://www.booksmartstudio.com/store/inkaid-inkjet-precoatings-250/coating-rods-stainless-steel-5-8-diameter-25-inch-length-1014.html
I wonder if coating rods would help us with our alternative process? Gum,
Cyanotypes?
Cheers
Jacek
Quoting Loris Medici <mail@loris.medici.name>:
Indeed there are several cheap inkjet transparency products in the
shelves.
For instance I was using Photowarehouse Ultrafine Crystal Clear OHP when
I
had an Epson 1290 (dye inks!). Price for one 11x17" sheet was USD 0.75
which
is not too bad. Unfortunately, most of those cheap transparencies won't
work
well with most printers with pigmented inks; I can't use Ultrafine with
the
inks of my current HP9180 anymore. (Can't say something about R800's inks
BTW.) Therefore, your advice (even if being good) may not apply to all...
Can anyone name cheaper (than Pictorico!) transparency brands which will
work with HP9180 (Vivera inks) and will give equivalent quality w/o much
hassle?
Thanks,
Loris.
-----Original Message-----
From: Katharine Thayer [mailto:kthayer@pacifier.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2009 3:17 PM
To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
Subject: Re: Poor man's negatives
I guess I don't understand why you would go to this trouble when there
is
very good cheap inkjet transparency film available that's already nicely
coated. The transparency film I use is $10.55 for a box of 50
letter-sized
sheets and around $20 for a box of 50 11x17; that's my idea of a "poor
woman's negative" and a lot less bother, and works great.
katharine
On Aug 7, 2009, at 9:53 PM, Jacek Gonsalves wrote:
Hi all,
I purchased some Golden digital ground from my art supplier. Its
called Non Porus Digital ground, it comes in clear. So I tried it on
some sheets of 75 micron melinex and acetate.
You apply it in one direction first. Let it dry. Then apply it on
another direction. Let it dry. So only 2 coats.
Printed it on a R800, use the matte setting in the driver.
Problems!
The image does get applied on the transparency, though if your brush
strokes are uneven the image degrades in that area.
Plus with my R800 I had an issue with the roller feeder leaving roller
marks on the coat, before the printer head got to it.
Is prone to any slight touching, it smudges the print, no matter how
long you left it to dry! :) Any dust gets trapped in the coating.
So why would you use this? No idea! Well its more of the fact that
this can't be used in any fashion to give you better or equal results
to normal inkjet transparencies.
There would be other methodologies on brushing better, and perhaps
even fixing the ink so it doesnt get smudged, with a varnish, gel etc.
InkAid also sell a digital ground.
Cheers,
Jacek
|