Re: potassium vs. ammonium citrate pd developer

fyi,

and they save digital is cheaper lol
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Bryant" <dstevenbryant@mindspring.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 9:03 PM
Subject: RE: potassium vs. ammonium citrate pd developer

> Chris and all,
>
> One way to cut your ink cost by about half is to purchase 220 ml carts
> sold
> for the Epson 4800 and transfer the ink into 3rd party sponge less
> refillable carts or use a 3rd part CIS ink system with the ink drained
> from
> the 4800 carts.
>
> Roughly, this reduces the cost of ink from an estimated price of 0.93 per
> ml. to about 0.51 per ml.
>
> The downside is that the initial cost of purchasing 8 220 ml carts is
> almost
> $900.
>
> Unfortunately, the Epson 2400 has a voracious appetite for ink. For
> example,
> each time you replace an empty cart (which still has an estimated 2+ ml of
> ink remaining -- it may be even possible to siphon the dregs and save it
> for
> refilling 3rd party carts) all of the carts receive a purging cycle to
> allow
> the fresh ink cart to prime its respective print head.
>
> One technique to save a little ink is to print negatives or prints in
> batches, printing as many images as possible per batch. Each time the
> printer is turned on, a large amount of ink is wasted needlessly.
>
> One of the nice things about using a 1280 printer is that are some really
> inexpensive inks available for making inkjet negs. These inks are
> available
> in bulk or cart.
>
> As for the B&W prints from the new K3 inks and new generation ink jet
> paper,
> will they are astounding to say the least but also expensive, possibly
> more
> expensive than palladium prints.
>
> BTW, for an emergency developer for plt/pld prints Dick Sullivan
> recommends
> 7-Up.
>
> Don Bryant
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christina Z. Anderson [mailto:zphoto@montana.net]
> Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 7:10 PM
> To: Alt, List
> Subject: Re: potassium vs. ammonium citrate pd developer
>
> Yes I did, Sandy, and it shorted out, and would cost $400 to replace it.
> I
> tried to locate a new one, but the only place I could was a place that I
> could not verify if it was reputable, and given my Nikon D200 horror
> story,
> I will not do that again. A refurbished one is in the neighborhood of
> $500,
> so after several weeks of angsting about this, I decided to bite the
> bullet
> and get the 2400. Mind you, that means I have to recalibrate ALL my
> curves
> (VDB, cyano, 4 gum, palladium, argyro, salt, and silver).
>
> Anyone who has a 2200 is blessed....
>
> Now, as far as the 2400:
> Upon the first printing of the CDRP in Nelson's system, I was shocked to
> find that the black ink does not hold back as much light as the colored
> inks
> (e.g. G255B0) right next to it! I got paper white with a 6 minute
> exposure
> with palladium with no having to up ink density. So, in my book, the 2400
> has the 2200 beat if you are using colored inks.
>
> Also, Mark Nelson said that digital BW prints with the 2400 are awesome,
> but
>
> of course I never do things the easy way....it'll be a cold day in hell
> before I print a digital BW print, darkroom junkie that I am (doesn't mean
> I
>
> don't LOVE digiprints).
> Chris
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sandy King" <sanking@clemson.edu>
> To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
> Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 4:59 PM
> Subject: Re: potassium vs. ammonium citrate pd developer
>
>
>> Chris,
>>
>> Did you not have a 2200 before the 2400? For digital negatives, is there
>> any advantage to the 2400?
>>
>> Sandy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>OHMAGOSH john,
>>>The 2400 is wonderful. I just finished printing my 10th and final 13x19
>>>negative and ran out of ink on one of the cartridges....and I've printed
>>>9
>>>of those negs in palladium and the ink is extremely dense, except for the
>>>black ink which is less dense than the 2200. However, I am not using
>>>black
>>>ink, only colored inks. So, as far as I am concerned, the printer is
>>>PERFECT (except for the price--$800).
>>>Chris
>>>
>>>>Chris,
>>>>I read somewhere recently that pigment inks as on the R2400 function
>>>>much
>>>>less satisfactorily than dye based inks for digital negatives. For this
>>>>reason I was going to hang onto my 1290 for the time being, to dedicate
>>>>to transparency printing. As a newbie to alternative processes, I was
>>>>wondering what the concensus of the forum was on this subject
>>>>John Fontana
>>
>
>
>
>
Received on Sun Apr 9 20:46:10 2006