DanPhoto@aol.com
Sun, 18 Apr 1999 14:20:29 -0400 (EDT)
The Epson Back Light film takes oil very nicely. That material is a
smooth clay coated onto acetate. You can print either clay-down or
clay-up, depending on the effect you're after. Katherine Thayer has
suggested mineral oil as a way to avoid stinking rancid negatives.
Even sesame seed oil works in the short term!
Dan
In your email you stated...
>From: CWalters@ColoradoCollege.edu (Charles Walters)
>Reply-to: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
>To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
('alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca')
>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
>> >
>>
>
>
>----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
>Return-Path: <alt-photo-process-error@skyway.usask.ca>
>Received: from rly-zb03.mx.aol.com (rly-zb03.mail.aol.com [172.31.41.3])
>by air-zb02.mail.aol.com (v59.4) with SMTP; Sun, 18 Apr 1999 12:15:09 -0400
>Received: from skybat.usask.ca (skybat.usask.ca [128.233.1.27])
> by rly-zb03.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
> with SMTP id MAA19884;
> Sun, 18 Apr 1999 12:14:52 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from process.sask.usask.ca by sask.usask.ca (PMDF V5.2-31 #35001)
> id <01JA6AWQTCPC9I47T1@sask.usask.ca>
> (original mail from CWalters@ColoradoCollege.edu); Sun,
> 18 Apr 1999 10:07:22 CST
>Received: from tikki.cc.colorado.edu (tikki.ColoradoCollege.edu
>[205.170.0.3])
> by sask.usask.ca (PMDF V5.2-31 #35001)
> with ESMTP id <01JA6AWPURLG9I47TS@sask.usask.ca> for
> alt-photo-process-l-expand@process.sask.usask.ca
> (ORCPT rfc822;alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca); Sun,
> 18 Apr 1999 10:07:10 -0600 (CST)
>Received: from exchange1.ColoradoCollege.edu
> (exchange1.ColoradoCollege.edu [205.170.0.15])
> by ColoradoCollege.edu (PMDF V5.2-31 #34557)
> with ESMTP id <01JA6AXVYS0M8WW0F5@ColoradoCollege.edu> for
> alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca; Sun, 18 Apr 1999 10:08:06 -0700 (MST)
>Received: by EXCHANGE1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
> id <J1VWTV84>; Sun, 18 Apr 1999 10:07:06 -0600
>Content-return: allowed
>Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 10:07:05 -0600
>From: Charles Walters <CWalters@ColoradoCollege.edu>
>Subject: RE: Epson Platinums?
>To: "'alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca'"
>><alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
>Reply-to: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
>Message-id: <DF5022BE008AD211B9A000005A4401A401456A0E@EXCHANGE1>
>MIME-version: 1.0
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
>Content-type: text/plain
>Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
>Comments: "alt-photo-process mailing list"
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:39:31