From: Rocky J. Boudreaux (rocky@pdq.net)
Date: 08/28/03-08:26:07 PM Z
Seems it's really easy to reprint a digital negative if necessary.
Of course this is not possible if you scratch, damage or get solution on a
traditional negative.
Pictorico just isn't expensive enough, for me at least, to require it to be
archival.
My solution would be to just print another negative and move on.
Just my thoughts.
Rocky
Houston, TX
-----Original Message-----
From: kateb@paradise.net.nz [mailto:kateb@paradise.net.nz]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 7:17 PM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Re: Archival qualities of Pictorico OHP film.
Quoting Julian Smart <julian@jsmart.fslife.co.uk>:
> Hello All,
>
> for the past two years I have been producing my gum negatives on
> Pictorico
> film.
> Prior to April this year I was printing on an Epson 1290, using
> standard
> Epson cartridges. I recently had cause to examine some of my negs. and
> found
> them to be faded beyond use. There is a marked colour shift towards the
> red
> and a corresponding density decrease, making them now unuseable.
>
> I believe this is an issue with all non-archival inks - however, this is
one
of the advantages for digital negs - keep the files and you can just
reprint.
Much better than scratches on a traditional negative! Anyhow, frequently
used
negs should be tested for density from time to time using a step wedge.
I have since changed over to (but not yet tested) Lyson Quad(hex?)
> black
> inks. I hope these will be a little more stable and will give me a
> smoother,
> more delicate neg than the Epson inks .
>
> I would be interested to hear of anyone else's experiences with this
> film,
> particularly if anyone has returned to reprint a neg after several
> months
> and produced a different result because of a faded neg.
>
> I now have a 2100 (2200 in the States) but have yet to make any negs on
> this
> as my gum printing season runs from September. Might I expect similar
> results or will the pigment inks be naturally more archival on this
> substrate?
sorry, can't help here :)
Kate
> Many thanks in advance,
>
> Julian.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 09/05/03-09:30:46 AM Z CST