From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 01/26/01-10:44:43 PM Z
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Sarah Van Keuren wrote:
> Judy, I am printing desktop negatives on inkjet acetate at 1440dpi,
> using an Epson 1200 printer. I use Dan Burkholder's colorized
> grayscale method to get a negative with orange-black tones.* Even
> after drying such an inkjet negative overnight it can remain tacky and
> if sandwiched against clear acetate can make blobby patterns that
> print. I don't dare print with the inkjet surface directly against my
> cyanotype/gum because of my experience with leaving an inkjet negative
> face down overnight against a plain sheet of BFK and finding that when
> I coated that sheet with cyanotype solution the next day a ghostly
> image appeared due to variable absorbancy imparted by the inkjet
> negative. Printing with the inkjet image against the glass of the
> contact frame resulted in ink adhering to it. So my solution is to
> sprinkle corn starch on the inkjet image and gently work it in with a
> cotton swab. Then I sandwich it against clear acetate and contact
> print.
Sarah, I'm MUCH obliged for that info. Parallels some of what I'm finding,
tho I REFUSE to believe (yet !! hope springs eternal) that there's no
workaround. For instance, there are several sprays (Krylon, etc.) made for
*painting* to *isolate* -- or exactly prevent bleed surface to surface.
Have you tried any of them?
> *I tried to produce such a negative on Ernestine Ruben's Epson 2000 that has
> archival inks and found that it smeared as it emerged ‹ whatever propels it
> out of the printer made a mess of the image. I imagine this is because
> archival inks don't dry as fast and at 1440dpi I was exceeding the 360dpi
> that is recommended for inkjet acetate.
So far I found that I see the "dots" at anything short of 1440 with the
loupe, not really with naked eye, tho my glasses are 10 years overdue for
change, maybe the non-visually impaired would see without loupe.
I also have not found any difference in drying between the 740 & the 1440
dpi, tho not sure I tested the 360 dpi, hunch is it would be the same --
VISUALLY the area is covered, & assuming a difference in drop size, I
figure the smaller drop (the 1440) might actually dry QUICKER than larger
drop (?). I also found, BTW, that when I stuck my finger in the part that
was still wet (I'm printing ramps in black, so far), it smeared (duh!).
BUT, the next day, the smear gave about twice the reading on densitometer
of the area with the nice dots -- and much dryer to the touch. Leading me
to think it might be possible to wait a while till highlights harden, then
BLOT with absorbent paper, blotter, whatever....
At this point I'm going to experiment with other substrates, since I don't
have any inkjet acetate on hand, and sounds from what you say, not a good
investment of time & $$.
For what it's worth, I mention that these problems do NOT occur with plain
copy paper, which when waxed (as per P-F #4) prints very well, actually
better range and quicker than film, since paperbase doesn't block UV the
way film does. Moreover, inkjet printed on plain paper is VERY easy to
wax -- doesn't offset or blotch the way laser toner will if you're not
very careful.
I gave up on the plain paper because of problem re-registering, but now if
I can sweet-talk Peter Fredrick into explaining his method with the large
acetate sheet clearly enough for January, that might do it (also a few
other ideas, to be continued).
PS. The ramp on the acetate in BLACK never at any dot size went over log
0.7 on the densitometer, so black on acetate is out. The smear, as noted,
went to about 1.4 !!
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 02/05/01-11:45:23 AM Z CST