Re: Poor man's negatives
hello paul,
thanks for the link. i've been putting off doing in depth testing for
the best negative color for the last few days. it will definitely be the
first thing done after some darkroom re-organizing is finished;
hopefully within the next days. afterwards i might be able share some
info on the transparencies and canon printers/ ink sets.
phritz
Paul Viapiano schrieb:
Check out this site to find a blocking color methodology:
http://www.inkjetnegative.com/images/RNP/rnp.htm
Or use Mark Nelson's excellent and well-documented system:
http://www.precisiondigitalnegatives.com/
I use an Epson 3800, and find that QTR profiling using (almost) all
the colors provides UV blocking for any contrast scale/range I need.
Other printers may work better with one of the above methods.
Paul
----- Original Message ----- From: "Loris Medici"
<mail@loris.medici.name>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: Poor man's negatives
Hi Phritz,
Will check avery, I think we have a distributor here (but they're more
into labels and such). Thanks for mentioning.
BTW, Jacek, Ulano didn't work for me. (I had ordered a sample pack
from them...)
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.
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
|