Re: Thinking of building a UV contact box...

Maybe something else in their product line is more UV appropriate.
My digi-neg reading to date seems to suggest older papers/films, and
am wondering if there is something out their, currently, which is
considered the best material to use for holding inkjet ink (and,
still allowing UV, of course)...

On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 11:24:23AM -0700, Nick Makris wrote:
> Jeff, I speak from great experience with this type of film (Ceramic
> Particle Coating) - it is very probably a great UV blocker which makes it ok
> for silver and lousy for UV processes.
>
> n
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Dilcher" <dilcher@hiddenworld.net>
> To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 11:11 AM
> Subject: Re: Thinking of building a UV contact box...
>
>
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Thanks for answering my questions. I may work with just silver based
> contact printing, at least
> > until I am confident in my digital negative enlargements- if I can get
> that process down to my satisfaction,
> > then I'll go full tilt, and build the UV box and try some more exotic alt
> processes.
> >
> > I think my initial challenges are going to be consistantly getting a
> negative with what I consider to be a smooth
> > and accurate tonal scale. I've been reading some Burkholder, and some
> other stuff on the net. I have an Epson 1280,
> > and have been getting reasonable quality doing standard inkjet paper
> prints w/ quadtone inks.
> >
> > Perhaps I should start w/ something more basic as to paper/developer while
> I am first twiddling w/ negative
> > enlargment? I hate to waste to much expensive paper and developer.
> >
> > Also, don't know if many of you are doing inkjet negatives, but was
> wondering if anyone has any comments
> > on relative merits of this pictorico high gloss white film:
> >
> > http://www.pictorico.com/Secure/eCommerce/Catalog.asp?prdc=8
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Thu Jul 29 13:25:10 2004