Charles Walters (CWalters@ColoradoCollege.edu)
Thu, 15 Apr 1999 13:02:55 -0600
Judy, could you tell me what you used to wax the paper? And was it the
Epson Photo paper, or Photo-Quality Inkjet paper?
Thanks.
Charles.
Charles Walters
Darkroom Supervisor
The Colorado College Art Department
(719) 389-6369
FAX (719) 389-6882
cwalters@coloradocollege.edu
> ----------
> From: Judy Seigel
> Reply To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 1999 4:14 PM
> To: User659199@aol.com
> Cc: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca;
> alt-photo-process-error@sask.usask.ca
> Subject: Re: Epson Platinums?
>
>
>
> On Sat, 10 Apr 1999 User659199@aol.com wrote:
> > As you say D max doesn't seem to be the problem - but waxed paper
> couldn't be
> > a quit satisfying solution.
>
> Granted I'm a peasant gum printer, not a noble platinum-ite, but in my
> tests a waxed paper negative was consistently better than one printed on
> acetate or any of the film-type sheets sold for digital printers. In fact
> if it were properly waxed (a cinch with the Epson, trickier with laser
> toner) I could find nothing at all wrong with it. I'm wondering if the
> fault is something I've missed, if it's just a feeling, or apparent in
> some media, & not others... or possibly some other eye than mine ...?
>
> I mention again in passing that the paper neg is faster, presumably
> because it doesn't inhibit UV as does plastic.
>
> Judy
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:39:31