Re: ink jet neg substrate

Loris,
     Yes, the inks that come with the 2200, altho I don't see "ultrachrome"
written on the box. They're all labeled with a "TO300" number.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Loris Medici" <loris_medici@yahoo.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 1:06 AM
Subject: Re: ink jet neg substrate

> Christina, you're using Epson 2200 to print negatives
> right? Anyone tried not-glossy-friendly-inks like
> Piezotones or older MIS inksets on this substrate? I'm
> very interested in this transparency; the price is
> very very nice!
>
> If it comes out that this is suitable for these
> inksets, I guess I will have to use a service like
> myus.com to order from them - because they don't ship
> internationally.
>
> Regards,
> Loris.
>
> --- "Christina Z. Anderson" <zphoto@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
> > Mark,
> > I am not too scientific on this but I have noticed
> > absolutely no puddling on
> > any of the substrates, as long as you print on the
> > correct side. :) As far
> > as drying time, I literally print out and
> > immediately expose, so I don't
> > wait 15 minutes if I can help it, for the neg to dry
> > as sometimes I see
> > suggested. No difference in b+f in practice because
> > I expose all at 4
> > minutes under UVBL. Every neg, every RGB
> > separation, every YMB color
> > pigment. I have been experimenting with doubling my
> > pigment this week, and
> > I am finding that I have to expose my final layer a
> > tad longer if I want to
> > spray develop. I am beginning to beg to differ that
> > blue prints quicker
> > than red. As the saying goes, "Not in my practice".
> >
> > If I were to say there was any difference in dot
> > gain, I would say the Photo
> > Warehouse may be like, what do you call it, 0 dot
> > gain? But I don't notice
> > an ounce of dot gain on any of it, but it is not
> > under a microscope. In
> > practice, no dif in sharpness between all. But this
> > is gum, not platinum.
> >
> > If I ruin a neg I'll scratch it for you; otherwise,
> > I avoid scratching my
> > negs, just my eyes out lately, gum printing day and
> > night. I have never
> > noticed a scratch on any of them. But after I'm
> > done, I put each into a
> > sleeve in a notebook to protect.
> >
> > Nighty-night,
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > >>Did you notice any difference in dot gain,
> > puddling, drying time between
> > the
> > substrates?
> >
> >
> > Any difference in base + fog when printing?
> >
> > Resistance to scratching?
> >
> > Usually the films have an emulsion side to take the
> > ink and wetting it will
> > make it show easily, as you did.
> >
> > Thanks for the great rundown!
> >
> > Mark Nelson
> >
> > In a message dated 4/2/04 8:54:53 AM,
> > zphoto@bellsouth.net writes:
> >
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > > Just wanted to share the following with those
> > unknowledgeable ink jet
> > > neg enthusiasts (not the big wigs, like hehehe
> > Mark and Kerik, etc). I
> > have
> > > been printing gum negs since summer, both on a
> > cheapy Epson printer and
> > then
> > > on an Epson 2200 (which for me is a dream come
> > true). I have found this as
> > > far as substrates go: anything I get at Office Max
> > or Staples or Walmart
> > > (gasp) that says ink jet on it and mentions Epson,
> > works. I have tried 3M,
> > > Staples brand, Apollo, and other names I no longer
> > remember, but for gum
> > > they are all just fine. The only problem, of
> > course, is they are all
> > 8.5x11.
> > > Apparently the business market doesn't want large
> > overhead projections...
> > > I ordered Photo Warehouse ink jet film sheets that
> > are cut 11x17, and
> > > they work great, too. One caution: a lot of the
> > Office Max/Staples brands
> > > have a bumpy side on which you print, and this is
> > easily discernible. The
> > > bumps make no mind on your prints, of course, but
> > you always can tell the
> > > printable side.
> > > Photo Warehouse is smooth on each side. I thought
> > side didn't matter,
> > > and I did not have any indication of a printable
> > side in the box. One day
> > > my printer was acting up, leaving streaks of messy
> > ink all over, and I
> > > thought the 2200 was finally rejecting me because
> > of all the work I put it
> > > thru.
> > > Then I got smart, and licked a finger; there is a
> > printable side, and
> > > it is stickier to a wet finger. No more problems.
> > But I guess most on this
> > > list already know this or it has already been
> > reported, so maybe not
> > > helpful. For me, I just had to learn the hard way.
> > > BTW, Photo Warehouse 11x17 is about 80 cents a
> > sheet.
> > > One last thing: whenever I would get these little
> > microlines that run
> > > parallel with the printer feed slot, micro lines
> > so small you can barely
> > see
> > > them, but the gum process unfortunately prints
> > them (so much for "can't
> > > resolve fine detail"), that when I cleaned the
> > print heads right before I
> > > began a negative printing session, the lines
> > disappeared. I also made sure
> > > ink was not low in any of the cartridges.
> > > Bye!
> > > Chris
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Received on Sat Apr 3 07:37:26 2004