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

[Diana Bloomfield]

Hi Francis,

I hear you about those dings and marks-- as I've certainly been there,  
but not with either Pictorico nor with the 2 boxes of Arista I've used  
(and both boxes had the interleaving sheets of paper between each  
transparency).  So I'm optimistic.  I have used only the 17x22 Arista  
size, though.

I honestly don't see a big deal about not having a notched edge to  
tell me which side to use.  Actually, I always thought that was a bit  
of overkill in Pictorico's manufacturing/design.  Convenient, but not  
really necessary.  If in doubt, just tell your students to remember  
that the top side out of the (Arista) box is the correct side for  
printing, or simply wet a finger and touch an edge.  The side that  
sticks is the side that prints.  If not having that notched edge can  
frustrate them, I shudder to think about what doing (some) alt  
processes might do to them.  Cutting that edge for your students ahead  
of time sure is nice of you-- and definitely above and beyond.  I'm  
impressed.  They wouldn't be spoiled, would they?  ;)

As far as the 17x22 size, I assume that's because of a 17" carriage.  ??

Diana

On Apr 29, 2010, at 10:46 PM, francis schanberger wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo