RE: was Chris Andeson there? now digineg smear

From: Jeremy Moore ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 10/05/04-10:46:35 PM Z
Message-id: <001901c4ab5f$759b2080$6400a8c0@lilymonster>

Just to add a little to this discussion, I use 11x17" photowarehouse
substrate cut down to 8.5x11" in my Epson C66 at the highest resolution
on the Epson Durabrite glossy paper setting and have ZERO trouble with
smearing. I believe these are also pigment inks and I can build up
enough density for palladium and cyanotype prints so it may be in the
exact pigment configuration for the 2200.

In a thickness comparison, Christina is on the ball, the photowarehouse
is much thinner than the pictorico by what to my eye seems to be at
least a factor of 2.

Jeremy Moore

-----Original Message-----
From: Christina Z. Anderson [mailto:zphoto@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 10:55 PM
To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
Subject: Re: was Chris Andeson there? now digineg smear

Mark,
     Forgive me if this is a mishmash, but I am going to bed, and
leaving
for the weekend (not at the same time, mind you), so I wanted to get
this
out now before I go offline.
     Marek was getting smearing, even with the 2880 slower printing
setting.
I don't get smearing. Sam has gotten smearing, and suggested the
smearing
related to the amount of ink set down on the substrate, which is
probably
denser for Marek's pt/pd curve than it is for my gum curve. In fact,
then
Marek printed out a neg for gum and no smear (ohhh, now I am getting
foggy--I think with my gum curve I sent him that doesn't smear for me).
     There is a point with the PW stuff where it smears, and whether
this is
due to amount of ink, kind of ink, color ink, print setting, etc.,
that's
what we're trying to figure out. There are others aside from Marek that
can't seem to get it to work, too, and my fear was that the stuff had
changed somehow, but my new batch works just fine, too.
     The PW stuff is really thin, and my guess is the clay coating or
whatever it is, is not really thick, like with Pictorico. Hence, it may
not
have the capacity to hold as much ink. But I can't resist it, at 75
cents an
11x17.
     I think Marek and I checked our workflow (I use 1440, black ink
only, a
gum curve, and semi-gloss) and what allowed him to print a non smeared
neg
was one that had less density.
     But I could have remembered some of this wrong. Marek, check me
out
here.
     However, if you are right in that the ink dries/not dries, that
would
lead us in another direction. Which is why I thought if Marek sent me
his
"smear workflow" neg that I could print out, then I could compare apples
to
apples, given the hope that each Epson 2200 is the same. And if I sent
you
a piece of PW film, too...you could test it without spending $75 on a
box of
100.
     BTW, there is an Ink Jet Transparency Film at Office Max, 6039SOMX
for
Canon and Epson Printers, in a yellowish box, that works fine (for gum),
and
feels very similar to the PW brand--no bumpy, textured side, very clear,
very thin.
Chris

Chris,
Whether it is Gum Negatives or PT/PD Negatives, it shouldn't make much
difference, unless you use a different media choice-even at that, It
would
seem that
the ink is either going to dry or not dry on a particular substrate.
Mark
Received on Tue Oct 5 22:48:05 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 11/03/04-10:51:22 AM Z CST