Larry Roohr (roohrphoto@orci.com)
Sun, 18 Apr 1999 15:24:52 -0600
Regarding the backlight film. I ran a neg with a test strip under the film
and another one outside of the film but on the paper (Gum, btw) and the
backlight film is a full 4 stops slower than no-film. My densitometer
predicted one extra stop. This backs up a point Judy made earlier that the
plastics block more UV than you'd think.
Anyway I get an hour and a quarter for an exposure if I figured it right,
there's one in the oven right now so I'll know shortly.
Would oiling a plastic film help? Guess I should check it out.
Larry
-----Original Message-----
From: DanPhoto@aol.com <DanPhoto@aol.com>
To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
<alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Date: Sunday, April 18, 1999 12:23 PM
Subject: Re: RE: Epson Platinums?
>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