Thats interesting, its the opposite of what I've observed on my recent A4
Pictorico OHP batch (in UK) which is decidedly thinner than previous batches
of 8.5x11. The new, thinner material also seems much more susceptible to
scratching, pizza wheels, etc - I now have raised every wheel that can be
raised on my 2100 and still get some surface scratches. Some of them show up
on Palladium prints, I never experienced this with the thicker material.
I'm thinking of trying the Agfa Copyjet which some people have been
recommending. Its a shame its 50% more expensive in UK than France, and I
notice that suppliers in any country are unwilling to ship overseas. Still
works out 20% cheaper than Pictorico though.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sandy King" <sanking@clemson.edu>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 2:47 AM
Subject: Pictorico Bummer
> I just opened a new box of 13X19" Pictorico and made a negative this
> evening. I noticed that the stock was quite a bit thicker than the
> previous stock of 13X19" material that I had been using so I decoded
> to take a reading of the UV base with my densitometer. It measures a
> full log .20 more than the old stock, .16 versus .37.
>
> What a pain. I have been basing my printing on first making a smaller
> negative on 8.5X11" material and then honing in exposure before
> making a larger one on 13X19", and getting perfect exposures. That is
> now no longer possible due to the change of stock.
>
> Anyone know if the the thickness of the 8.5X11" is still the same?
>
>
> Sandy
>
Received on Sat Aug 20 07:35:13 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 09/01/05-09:17:20 AM Z CST