Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Mon, 18 Jan 1999 16:26:17 -0500 (EST)
Hi Hans, thanks for all the good info. The reward, of course, is a couple
of questions.
Meanwhile, I myself may cancel, or at least modify, part of yesterday's
message. It's possible my "expert" was familiar with only high-end
commercial usage. An offlist message today suggests that an inkjet print
takes wax for "waxed paper negative" better than a laser print -- the
laser has some problems with offsetting of toner. I've found ways around
that, still under development, but it seems the inkjet waxes without the
problem at all. So my own plan to buy an 11 x17 inch laser printer (for
about the cost of a small island off the coast of Maine) is under
re-assessment.
On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Hans Oosterom wrote:
> I used a HP laserjet 4P, that had rather big dots (worked at 600 dpi
> although). The density was just allright but could have been better.
Displaying my ignorance once more -- the laser I'm advised to buy is HP,
but I gather that "laserjet" is actually a euphemism for inkjet???
> ....the result on paper is a much better image,
> however on acetate the same effects take place AND the density is less.
I've put 2 kinds of "acetate" through my laser printer. The one, the
cheaper one, as described yesterday, was quite unusable. The other, Rayven
Copier Transparency Film: overhead transparency film for plain paper
copiers with white stripe, was far superior, although the box I have cost
$1 a sheet about 5 years ago in 11 by 17, so I'm saving it for that size.
As noted I have no experience with inkjets, but is it possible another
make of acetate would perform better?
> Thinking about the density it is quite normal that as the toner gets finer,
> the dots can be smaller (which is good) but they get lower as well (which is
> bad for the density but good for the dotgain)
> So I decided to print on calque-paper, that still is giving a too low density
> and than transfer it to lithfilm, of which I am using a UV type as I don't
> have a darkroom(yet).
What is calque-paper?
> I have tried several Inkjets a couple of years ago HP as well as Epson. I
> realize that ink is THE key to it and that developments are going fast. But in
> 1996 I tried what was suggested on this list and pushed the amount of ink to
> over 100%. Even on the special acetates that are sold for Inkjets the ink run
> away at 150% max. And of course on 100% it didn't give enough density.
> Having stopped my ceramic activities for about 2 years I am starting them up
> again. One of the first things that I have done is doing tests with digital
> negatives from a service bureau. At 200 lpi they do fine, although I still am
> in the process of calibrating. They have more details (of course) and a good
> density and at a reasonable price, however I feel as a problem that you
> cannot test and redo your negatives directly.
>
I agree about frustration of an "operator" between you and your "art".
(Besides which, my ideal is never having to leave home.) But I gather
then that the operation you're doing in ceramics uses a color separation?
One color at a time?
thanks in advance, & cheers,
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:42