Re: ink jet neg substrate

Christina, you're using Epson 2200 to print negatives
right? Anyone tried not-glossy-friendly-inks like
Piezotones or older MIS inksets on this substrate? I'm
very interested in this transparency; the price is
very very nice!

If it comes out that this is suitable for these
inksets, I guess I will have to use a service like
myus.com to order from them - because they don't ship
internationally.

Regards,
Loris.

--- "Christina Z. Anderson" <zphoto@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
> Mark,
> I am not too scientific on this but I have noticed
> absolutely no puddling on
> any of the substrates, as long as you print on the
> correct side. :) As far
> as drying time, I literally print out and
> immediately expose, so I don't
> wait 15 minutes if I can help it, for the neg to dry
> as sometimes I see
> suggested. No difference in b+f in practice because
> I expose all at 4
> minutes under UVBL. Every neg, every RGB
> separation, every YMB color
> pigment. I have been experimenting with doubling my
> pigment this week, and
> I am finding that I have to expose my final layer a
> tad longer if I want to
> spray develop. I am beginning to beg to differ that
> blue prints quicker
> than red. As the saying goes, "Not in my practice".
>
> If I were to say there was any difference in dot
> gain, I would say the Photo
> Warehouse may be like, what do you call it, 0 dot
> gain? But I don't notice
> an ounce of dot gain on any of it, but it is not
> under a microscope. In
> practice, no dif in sharpness between all. But this
> is gum, not platinum.
>
> If I ruin a neg I'll scratch it for you; otherwise,
> I avoid scratching my
> negs, just my eyes out lately, gum printing day and
> night. I have never
> noticed a scratch on any of them. But after I'm
> done, I put each into a
> sleeve in a notebook to protect.
>
> Nighty-night,
> Chris
>
>
> >>Did you notice any difference in dot gain,
> puddling, drying time between
> the
> substrates?
>
>
> Any difference in base + fog when printing?
>
> Resistance to scratching?
>
> Usually the films have an emulsion side to take the
> ink and wetting it will
> make it show easily, as you did.
>
> Thanks for the great rundown!
>
> Mark Nelson
>
> In a message dated 4/2/04 8:54:53 AM,
> zphoto@bellsouth.net writes:
>
>
> > Hi all,
> > Just wanted to share the following with those
> unknowledgeable ink jet
> > neg enthusiasts (not the big wigs, like hehehe
> Mark and Kerik, etc). I
> have
> > been printing gum negs since summer, both on a
> cheapy Epson printer and
> then
> > on an Epson 2200 (which for me is a dream come
> true). I have found this as
> > far as substrates go: anything I get at Office Max
> or Staples or Walmart
> > (gasp) that says ink jet on it and mentions Epson,
> works. I have tried 3M,
> > Staples brand, Apollo, and other names I no longer
> remember, but for gum
> > they are all just fine. The only problem, of
> course, is they are all
> 8.5x11.
> > Apparently the business market doesn't want large
> overhead projections...
> > I ordered Photo Warehouse ink jet film sheets that
> are cut 11x17, and
> > they work great, too. One caution: a lot of the
> Office Max/Staples brands
> > have a bumpy side on which you print, and this is
> easily discernible. The
> > bumps make no mind on your prints, of course, but
> you always can tell the
> > printable side.
> > Photo Warehouse is smooth on each side. I thought
> side didn't matter,
> > and I did not have any indication of a printable
> side in the box. One day
> > my printer was acting up, leaving streaks of messy
> ink all over, and I
> > thought the 2200 was finally rejecting me because
> of all the work I put it
> > thru.
> > Then I got smart, and licked a finger; there is a
> printable side, and
> > it is stickier to a wet finger. No more problems.
> But I guess most on this
> > list already know this or it has already been
> reported, so maybe not
> > helpful. For me, I just had to learn the hard way.
> > BTW, Photo Warehouse 11x17 is about 80 cents a
> sheet.
> > One last thing: whenever I would get these little
> microlines that run
> > parallel with the printer feed slot, micro lines
> so small you can barely
> see
> > them, but the gum process unfortunately prints
> them (so much for "can't
> > resolve fine detail"), that when I cleaned the
> print heads right before I
> > began a negative printing session, the lines
> disappeared. I also made sure
> > ink was not low in any of the cartridges.
> > Bye!
> > Chris
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Sat Apr 3 00:06:43 2004