Re: was Chris Andeson there? now digineg smear

From: [email protected]
Date: 10/05/04-10:51:17 PM Z
Message-id: <>


Thanks for taking the time to respond before you retired/left for the
weekend. I know you are in a different time zone, but is it weekend there in South

I may have made an incorrect assumption regarding the difference in your
negatives, ie your gum vs Mark's PT/PD. I'll see if I can think of possible
differences in your experiences with this film substrate:

1. I just realized that you are probably using a gum curve that clips the
densist part of the negative in order to get a lower density range, rather than
a curve that allows all 256 tones. That would probably account for the
difference in amount of ink laid down in the densist part of the negative. If
the substrate is not designed to "take a full load", then it will probably pool
and not dry properly—or in some cases, there is not enough coating to react
chemically with the higher ink level/density to cause proper drying.

2. The film substrate from a company like Office Max may not be consistent
between stores—I'm just guessing that it is *possible* they could have more
than one supplier, since they are just marketing something for overhead printing
and it may work fine on say a Canon printer.

3. You may not be using the same media settings—the settings for the
glossy, luster and semigloss papers lay down more ink than the settings for the
matte papers, with one exception, which is Water Color Paper, Radiant White— which
has a sizing giving it performance more like the glossy papers—thus it can
take more ink and the media choice for it provides just that.

4. You may have different experiences in performance if one is printing
with all inks vs black only. Black only is actually quite dense (which is why
you have to clip your tones with your curve for gum). I've been able to get
UV densities above log 4.0 with black ink only—not that it was helpful for
making any prints.

5. I did not hear whether Marek is using the original Ultrachrome inks for
the 2200—if he isn't, all bets are off, even for Pictorico. It becomes hit
or miss at that point. 3rd Party inks have the least chance of success—most
of them are designed for specific types of papers rather than general use.
Somewhere here I have some test sheets of Pictorico OHP with some Cone quadtone
pigment inks slowly sliding off the film.

My guess is that since both Sam and Marek had difficulty with smearing when
making negatives for PT/PD, that this is not a film to use for that. Drop it
and get something that works. It is a waste of time and money to try to make
a film work by using a hair dryer, oven, sprinkling it with foot powder or
using a fixative spray—it's the alt photo god's way of telling you something is

Hope this is helpful.

Mark Nelson
Purchase the book @
Credit Card & Paypal now accepted

In a message dated 10/5/04 10:58:23 PM, writes:

> 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, 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
Received on Tue Oct 5 22:51:47 2004

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