Re: AccuArt2 transparencies vs. Pictorico OHP

From: Jon Lybrook ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 10/19/05-11:52:54 AM Z
Message-id: <435687F6.6090807@terabear.com>

Here's a reply I got off-list from Keith Taylor. I'm reposting here
just to keep this thread complete. Thanks Keith! - JL

~*^~*^*~^*~^*~^*~^*~^*^~*^~*~^*~^*~^^*~~*^~^*~^*
Hi Jon,

Forgive me for not going through the list in reply to your question,
but I temporarily unsubscribed for a variety of technical reasons at my
end.

I have an Epson 4000 which I bought on the strength of the Pictorico
being available in rolls. I'd used the sheet sizes for a long time
prior to this with a 2200. Immediately I bought it, Pictorico dropped
the 17" rolls and so I too tried the AccuArt 2 as an alternative. I
felt fortunate as I have a supplier that's just a 20 minute drive away
from me in Minneapolis.

I found it to have a lot of static and was considerably thinner than
claimed. Not necessarily a nightmare, but troublesome after using
Pictorico so easily. By the time I'd used it up, Pictorico were back on
track and I bought another roll of their material and that was maybe
back in late August, early September. To me, it's exactly the same as
the sheets, the same as the first roll I had from them and the static
has gone. Much, much easier to use.

I hope this helps a little and if you have any further questions,
please feel free to contact me.

Keith.

Keith Taylor
www.keithtaylorphoto.com

Jon Lybrook wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> The Pictorico website only offers the U.S. standard of 8.5" x 11" and
> 13" x 19" in sheet film. So far those, at least, have stayed the same.
>
> I'm mostly concerned if the OHP roll stock has somehow been reformulated
> to accommodate being on a roll or whatever, since AccuArt2 was touted as
> being the same stuff, but quite certainly is not.
>
> Jon
>
> On 10/17/2005, "David & Jan Harris" <david.j.harris2@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Jon
>>
>>This sounds like the most recent batch of "Pictorico OHP" I bought in the
>>UK; this batch was A4 rather than 8.5x11". The material was thinner than
>>previous Pictorico I had bought, more susceptible to scratching, pizza
>>wheels, etc and seemed to hold less ink. I wonder if the AccuArt2 material
>>is being repackaged as Pictorico OHP here?
>>
>>I have since switched to Agfa Copyjet which is cheaper, less susceptible to
>>scratching and holds more ink.
>>
>>Dave
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Jon Lybrook" <jon@terabear.com>
>>To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
>>Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 7:45 AM
>>Subject: AccuArt2 transparencies vs. Pictorico OHP
>>
>>
>>
>>>Hi All,
>>>
>>>Remember AccuArt2 transparencies? This was the stuff allegedly made by
>>>Pictorico but sold under a different name until Pictorico got their
>>>marketing act together. Well, I bought a roll of the AccuArt2 knowing
>>>that it had a "slightly" thinner coating on it, according to the people
>>>who were distributing it about a year ago. I never really compared it
>>>with the standard Pictorico OHP stock until recently.
>>>
>>>I'd have to say it has about 1/3 less thickness than Pictorico OHP, and
>>>resulted in, I'm guessing, 15-20% less density, based on some nylon
>>>plates I had to reshoot. Rather dramatic difference for a "slightly"
>>>thinner product.
>>>
>>>Does anyone have any recent experience buying Pictorico OHP on the roll
>>>directly from Pictorico? Is it more like the sheet stock they sell? I
>>>hope so. I feel like AccuArt2 was misrepresented by their distributors
>>>as being Pictorico OHP, with only a slight difference.
>>>
>>>Jon
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Wed Oct 19 12:14:16 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 11/07/05-09:46:19 AM Z CST