Re: Pig Poop, was Re: crummy printers and gum

Sandy,
     Ha ha, this brightens up a perfectly MISERABLE weather day here in
freezing, gray, MN.

     Hmmm, now both you and Don recommended the C80/C84 printers....that is
really tempting. What do you mean by cheap??
Chris

> Chris,
> Well, you missed a lot more than your printer by not being in South
> Carolina today. There was this absolutely hilarious story today in
> the Greenville News. It seems that the republican governor of the
> state, Mark Sanford, tried to make a point about pork barrel spending
> by bringing two live pigs into State House Chambers, but the action
> backfired on him and ended up in a bipartisan fire-storm against the
> governor, with both democrats and republicans calling his action
> insulting and childish. The headline story in the Greenville News
> today was, "Sanford's pig stunt raises stink." It seems that as soon
> as he put the two pigs down in the House chambers one of them
> promptly defecated on the marble floor. Rep. Bob Leach, R-Greenville
> related the story, "Sanford appeared out on the floor with two small
> pigs under his arms. Then he sat them down and one of the pigs
> crapped all over the floor and we had to clean it up. It smells bad
> there." A democratic leader added, "it is unfortunate that Sanford's
> spokesman, Will Folks, actually had to clean up the pig poop from the
> marble floors of the statehouse today. However, in some ways it is
> appropriate since Folks has to clean up behind this governor on a
> regular basis."
>
> Anyway, to keep this on topic, have you tried making negatives with
> the Epson C84? This is a very inexpensive printer with pretty high
> resolution that uses pigmented inks and in my experience works nicely
> for making alt process negatives.
>
> Sandy
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >This week, I decided to test my old Epson Stylus 660 printer and see if
it
> >would print out halfway decent negatives for gum. My Epson 2200 is back
in
> >SC (sob!) and I am here with this crappy piece of work for 3 months. I
> >brought 30 negs with me, but you know...there's always one more you want
to
> >do (can't wait to show this to Sam, heheheh--nude in landscape a la Chris
> >Anderson....).
> >
> >The printer is maybe a $100 jobbie, very kindergartenish printer driver.
> >The negatives came out pale and bluish, and next to the 2200 negatives
were
> >a joke.
> >
> >My first printing with them of a cyano layer was unusable. I was going
to
> >throw them away, but decided to print them in a layer of gum at my usual
4
> >minute/*low dilution* am di time. Still unusable--almost completely
blocked
> >up and no contrast.
> >
> >This time I saw the obvious, which I usually miss (as with the hair
> >dryer/brush thingie) and decided to cut time drastically, and exposed
them
> >for 1 or 2 minutes instead-- realizing contrast changes with exposure.
> >
> >Not only did they work, but they look really pretty good! So those of
you
> >with aging, cheapy printers and no $700 for a 2200, it is not a lost
cause.
> >
> >Last summer I could never get this printer to make suitable negatives
even
> >with using a very dramatic contrast curve, because I was using saturated
> >ammonium dichromate--way too powerful for crummy negatives that don't lay
> >down enough ink. I remember someone once saying a year or two or three
ago
> >that gum "laughed at" the density in a digineg. This is what happened to
> >me, too. With the lower dilution (1 tsp pigment mix which is a 14ml tube
of
> >pigment in 50 ml gum + 1 tsp gum arabic + 1 1/2 tsp water + 1/2 tsp
> >saturated ammonium dichromate) they work.
> >
> >I thought I'd report this while thinking of Don Bryant struggling with
> >making suitable negs for kallitype. Gum is so much more flexible because
> >you print layer upon layer, so you don't have to rely on one perfect
> >exposure :) One more reason GUM ROCKS!
> >
> >HEYYY! Don, any reason you couldn't double print a kalli??
> >Chris
>
>
Received on Sat May 29 15:48:27 2004