[alt-photo] Re: Arista II OHP transparencies/gum

[francis schanberger]

First let me state that I am a big Arista OHP fan. With that said I do think
there are some minor issues with Arista.

Depending on the day of the week it is made (OK, just when I have ordered
it) it might come with interleaving sheets of paper or none at all with the
same size of transparency film. When I first started using Arista for the
vandyke brown prints in May of 2008, every box came with the paper
separators. Now none do except for one recent batch of 8 1/2" x 11".

Occasionally I have noticed "dings" that look like something a car collector
might look for when evaluating a vintage mustang for possible body work.
They never caused me any problems with continuous tones in my negatives.

I haven't compared different substrates in a while although I got a few
samples of pictorico from the vendors booth at SPE.

Like Paul said, it is a drop in replacement for Pictorico. I have used my
original workflow on both Pictorico and Arista which involve a couple of
curves to build up density. For some reason my students insist on buying
Pictorico because they are usually buying other things from B & H and I
provide them with a palladium curve built upon Arista. It still works for
their Pictorico.

The lack of a clipped corner can frustrate students so I find myself at
workshops clipping the corner off of transparency film ahead of time. I gave
a Vandyke Brown workshop last Saturday (Bruce, I'll get you handouts) and no
one used the wrong side of the transparency film.

So my question is "Who decided 17" x 22" was a good size for inkjet media?"

-francis

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Christina Anderson <zphoto at montana.net>wrote:

> OK I take back some that I said.
>
> Inkpress is 7ml thick. PIctorico is 5.2 ml thick. Thus it is thicker than
> Pictorico, or, at least, the Pictorico that came in the mail today.
>  Inkpress is milky just like Pictorico now that I look at it.  But it does
> not have the cut corner.
>
> Why I am confused is I bought a box of it when I did the workshop at
> Photographer's Formulary--a 50 sheet box. I only have Pictorico and Arista
> locally at our bookstore, not Inkpress, but I was confusing it with an off
> brand like Staples.
>
> 8.5x11/50 sheets is a buck a sheet.
>
>
> http://www.photoformulary.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=2&tabid=9&CategoryID=103&langID=0
>
> So yes, Jeremy, Inkpress is a drop-in replacement for Pictorico and appears
> to be equally thick but apparently not--the difference in thickness may
> account for a difference in exposure times a bit.
> Chris
>
>
>
> Christina Z. Anderson
> christinaZanderson.com
>
> On Apr 29, 2010, at 4:52 PM, Jeremy Moore wrote:
>
> > I don't see that the Arista II is so much cheaper than the Pictorico.
> > Inkjet Art has Pictorico for $47
> > (
> http://www.inkjetart.com/cart/pictorico-premium-transparency-film-13x19-sheets-p-10252.html
> )
> > and the Arista II is $42
> > (
> http://freestylephoto.biz/39313-Arista-II-Inkjet-OHP-Transparency-Film-13x19-20-sheets
> )
> > for 20x 13"x19" sheets. (8.5x11 it's $19 for Pictorico and $17.99 for
> > the Arista II.)
> >
> > Am I missing something?
> >
> > Chris, with the Inkpress was it also a drop-in replacement for Pictorico?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Christina Anderson <zphoto at montana.net>
> wrote:
> >> Jeremy,
> >> I have used both and have not had any problems with either.  Ink Press
> is much thinner, more along the lines of the old Photo Warehouse I used to
> use but doesn't smear.  Arista is by far the nicer of the two and is
> essentially a close enough dupe of Pictorico but perhaps thinner and also no
> cut corner so you have to watch it.
> >> Chris
> >>
> >> Christina Z. Anderson
> >> christinaZanderson.com
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
>
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
>



-- 
francis schanberger

www.frangst.com