From: John Campbell (tojohn@texas.net)
Date: 02/11/03-02:54:48 PM Z
Judy--
Yes, the neutral carbon inks I'm referring to are the Cone variety (or
varieties, I should say--they now have several tonal sets available). I
gave up on these for the purposes of making negatives because they refuse to
adhere to transparency strata. They just pool-up and roll off. Or, once
dry, they powder and drop off the sheet. I tried various coatings, some of
which worked, but all of which muted the image.
I still use neutral carbon for positives, mostly in a persnickety old Epson
3000. As I said, I appreciate the tonal transitions of these inks. I do
NOT, however use the Cone Peziography B/W driver--I use the Epson driver.
As to the Epson 7600 and Mark's question--
In advance of the 7600's release, I spent some time with an Epson rep here
in Austin and tried out various applications on a demo unit. The dye inks
were far superior to the chrome for the purpose of making negatives. Here
again, the chrome did not adhere well to the transparency surface. A caveat
is that Epson sells these printers as *either* chrome *or* dye--meaning that
they are somehow configured differently, depending on which ink is intended
for use. Although I remain a bit skeptical on this either/or configuration,
I bought one of each and have been very happy with the results.
Judy--I'll be glad to send you a care package from Texas, assuming your mail
is being delivered. Just let me know which you prefer, Mild or Spicy. That
will free up your tea and raisins for toning.
With apologies to those who fail to see the "alt" of all this,
John
www.photogecko.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 10:56 AM
Subject: Re: metamerism with Epson printers
>
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, John Campbell wrote:
> > I spent many months--years?-- agonizing over these neutral carbon inks
for
> > negatives, and finally gave up the chase. Epson dyes are the way to go,
> > negatively speaking.) I still prefer the *idea* of carbon for B/W
> > positives, mostly because I like the subtleties of tonal transition. I
use
> > the Cone inks with the Epson driver. My workhorse printer for carbon
prints
> > is still the 3000, temperamental and arthritic as it is.
>
> John, I've been trying to figure out negatives on the Epson, and found
> precious little information available -- Of course I have Burkholder, but
> the only "carbon" in his index is "carbon curve," which I doubt is what
> you mean.
>
> I have deduced some things & had good help from mavens here, but still, am
> starting from a hole. So, could you possibly explain why you say you
> "gave up the chase" of the "neutral carbon inks"? And what are the
> "neutral carbon inks"? Is that the quad tones, like Cone? If they're not
> good,, what is it...? That they're fragile? Or? I don't expect a 3 year
> summary (tho that would be nice), but.... the gist?
>
> thanks in advance,
>
> PS. If "neutral carbon inks" are something else ... well, that often turns
> out the best way to get info on the list: Make a mistake !
>
> PPS. If I don't starve to death in the interim: It's 19 degrees F outside
> & the cupboard is bare... I wonder, how long can you live on tea and
> raisins?
>
> cheers,
>
> Judy
>
>
> > I have yet to see any third party profile that improves on what's
possible
> > in the resident PS options--given time and understanding (Zen and The
Art of
> > Epson Maintence). . . but I'm open to new experiences!
> >
> > My best to all,
> > John
> >
> > www.photogecko.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 03/04/03-09:19:08 AM Z CST