Charles Walters (CWalters@ColoradoCollege.edu)
Sun, 18 Apr 1999 10:07:05 -0600
John,
She did not reply. Is there anyone else out there who has waxed inkjet
negatives for alt printing?
I very recently tried oiling an inkjet negative printed on Epson Photo
Quality Inkjet Paper--the initial test looked very promising. There seemed
to be no problem getting plenty of density for traditional palladium,
setting the high values in the digital file as follows: input 0, output 25.
A little more contrast would be ideal, perhaps an output of 20. These
negatives were oiled with Extra Virgin Olive Oil--it was all I had on hand.
I was wondering if the oil used on the negatives would eventually go rancid;
certainly, this is the first time I have ever worried about a negative
getting rancid.....
Thank you.
Charles.
Charles Walters
Darkroom Supervisor
The Colorado College Art Department
(719) 389-6369
FAX (719) 389-6882
cwalters@coloradocollege.edu
> ----------
> From: John R. Crankshaw
> Reply To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 1999 6:34 AM
> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Subject: RE: Epson Platinums?
>
> Charles, did Judy ever reply with the answer to your question? I'm also
> interested.
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Walters [mailto:CWalters@ColoradoCollege.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 1999 3:03 PM
> To: 'alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca'
> Subject: RE: Epson Platinums?
>
>
> 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