I think just using the black ink is permanent enough. You can use the
driver screens to just set the cartridge to B&W.
I played with some film yesterday. I found some 8x10 film of unknown brand.
My idea was to use film that had been fixed and washed and dried. In other
words a clear film base. Instead I just ran the film unfixed and unexposed
through my Epson 800. It works fine. BUT... when held up to the light there
is visible scan lines and grittiness in the image. This was similar to the
results I got with the clear film base stuff that I bought for ink jet
printers. I have concluded that film/gel based transparency stuff holds the
dots real well whereas paper wicks them a little. With paper you get some
softening of the dots and thus gain some appearance of higher resolution.
Dave Fokos separates his digi negs with a piece of mylar to get a similar
effect with his platinum prints. All of this is stuff with these new
printers is tantalizingly close. I think fer sure, the next generation of
printers will do it for us. We are hearing about an 8 color 1200 x 1200 dpi
printers. OOoooohhweee!!!, but then we'll be a wantin the 2400 x2400. won't
we?
--Dick
At 04:30 PM 12/16/97 -0500, you wrote:
>I have a question about this subject in general regarding negatives made
>this way for alt processes. Are we talking about UV exposure thru these
>negs? If so, my experience with ordinary color images from inkjets is
>that they fade unbelievably fast when exposed to sunlight. Wouldn't
>the UV exposures just accelerate this phenomenon??, Wouldn't this
>fading affect the density and then the exposure thru the negative?? Or
>is this all about something else that I know nothing about??
>Thanks
>
> John
>
Bostick & Sullivan
PO Box 16639, Santa Fe
NM 87506
505-474-0890 FAX 505-474-2857
<http://www.bostick-sullivan.com>http://www.bostick-sullivan.com