> This past weekend I spent some time with the "Kwik print" process that
> Is anyone familiar with this process? Where does it fit in the
> genealogy of alternative processes? I know it uses ammonium
> dichromate ast the sensiteizer (the only thing in mentions
>
> hold the emulsion. One advantage being dimensional stability. Is
Obviously there's a difference of opinion on this, because the company
stays in business & has for about 20 years. In MY, opinion, however,
there are only 2 advantages to Kwik Print. The first one I'm not even
certain of, but I think it's a less toxic form of dichromate. (It's clear.)
The second is the dimensional stability of those plastic sheets -- and
re-registering is an on-going problem with gum printing (the clear
"alternative" to Kwik Print).
But, when you consider the unpleasantness (to me anyway) of printing on
plastic (and the material takes so much sizing to work on paper it might
as well be plastic), being dependent on one company for your materials,
the fact that the colors & the emulsion have a shelf life of only 6
months, the difficulty of the buffing and the coating (to me more
difficult than coating gum) the fact that it doesn't do continuous tone
very well, if at all, and just generally the reluctance (on my part
anyway) to do "kit" photography if I can help it (I call "regular"
photography "kit" photography too, of course -- you buy a pack of paper, a
bottle of developer and get a set of instructions ........), well, welcome
to gum bichromate. It's easier. Honest. (Isn't it Adam?)
Did I say Kwik Print costs more? A pound of Potassium dichromate will last
the rest of your life .......costs about $10.
Cheers,
Judy