But do understand that the Crystal Clear film requires very
aggressive drying, and even when completely dry avoid using it in a
vacuum easel with more than about 10-15 psi pressure. A couple of
minutes of hot air with a hair dryer won't do the trick -- you need
to allow it several days to dry, or perhaps accelerate drying with a
microwave (or oven on low heat). I noticed after printing last
evening , with the vacuum at 15 psi, that some areas of the negative
showed slight lifting of the pigmented ink. Not enough to damage the
negative or the print, but still enough to show that a negative on
Crystal Clear is definitely more fragile than one on Pictorico. I
used the bleed valve to reduce the pressure to 5 psi and there was no
further problem. People using contact printing frames should not have
a problem (assuming the material is dry) since these devices produce
a lot less pressure.
BTW, I have found that the Epson Ink Jet transparency material works
great with the Epson 2200. The negatives appear to dry about as fast
as with Pictorico and the B+F is almost the same. In fact, the film
look physically very similar to Pictorico. I am not saying that it
is same as Pictorico but there is the same look and quack.
Unfortunately this material is only available in 8.5" X 11" size, and
it costs more than Crystal Clear (though less than Pictorico).
>OK, I can't take it any longer...
>...where do you purchase this film?
>I haven't had time to finish Mark Nelson's book yet and now I have to
>try this great new film, like I had extra time or something.
>From: Sandy King [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>Sent: Fri 10/29/2004 10:55 PM
>Subject: Crystal Clear Transparency
>I finally had some time to experiment with the Crystal Clear Film. If
>you recall my first attempt failed because the film had not dried
>sufficiently (after 24 hours) and the pigmented ink stuck to the
>sensitized paper. Well, I printed the negative again and allowed it
>to dry for several days. Today I made a palladium print from the
>Crystal Clear negative (film was 11X17 and image area approximately
>10X16) and it turned out great. The film had dried completely so that
>was not an issue, and the image was very sharp, and with virtually no
>grain. In every way as good (maybe better) than anything I could have
>done with Pictorico. And shorter exposure time as well!!
>I am very, very pleased because the use of this material will save me
>a bundle over Pictorico. The only caveat is that you must allow a
>long time for the negatives to dry, or force dry them in some way.
>Anyway, thanks a bunch for introducing me to the material. The next
>time we all get together your meal is on me.
Received on Sat Oct 30 09:16:28 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 11/03/04-10:51:23 AM Z CST