Photo Warehouse Ultrafine Transparency

Discussion in 'Alternative Processes' started by Jeremy, May 24, 2004.

  1. Jeremy

    Jeremy Member

    Messages:
    2,767
    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2002
    Location:
    Denton, TX
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Has anyone tried using these to make digital negatives for pd/pt or other alt processes?

    If you buy the 100 pack of 11x17 you can cut it down for 8.5x11 and get your cost down to $0.38/8.5x11 or $0.76/11x17 as opposed to Pictorico at $1.20/8.5x11 or $2.40/11x17. That kind of savings will add up very quickly.

    I was going to order a 20 count package of 8.5x11, but the minimum order is $35 and before I commit that much to a test I thought I would check and see if anyone else has had any success.
     
  2. Leon

    Leon Member

    Messages:
    2,075
    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2003
    Location:
    Kent, Englan
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    not tried it, but i would be very interested to hear how you get on.
     
  3. Jeremy

    Jeremy Member

    Messages:
    2,767
    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2002
    Location:
    Denton, TX
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I just took a palladium workshop with Clay Harmon (will make another post about that this evening) which has me hooked.

    I'm thinking that even if this stuff wouldn't work for palladium it would do just fine for cyanotypes so I may just go ahead and order it later this week. I am hoping to build my UV box in the next 2 weeks or so.

    Photo Warehouse also sells a couple of other neat items such as window clings (make your own car window stickers!) and tshirt transfers (I wear these on special occasions like b-days as a gag) so that I can fill out my order with items I know I can use.
     
  4. roy

    roy Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,308
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    West Sussex
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
     
  5. Jeremy

    Jeremy Member

    Messages:
    2,767
    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2002
    Location:
    Denton, TX
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I received a package of 8x10 and 11x17 photo warehouse film a little while ago, but I am waiting on the pictorico that I bought from Brian to get here. I figure the best way to see how comparable they are is to print the same image one after the other onto each and see what they look like. I will report back here the outcome. Once my UV box is finished (maybe tonight if I have the time!) and my chemicals are in I will make prints from each negative to see if the substrate affects the UV transmission and by how much.
     
  6. Jeremy

    Jeremy Member

    Messages:
    2,767
    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2002
    Location:
    Denton, TX
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I printed 2 cyanotypes yesterday. One with a previously made pictorico negative for palladium printing and a linear step tablet (no currection curve) on the ultrafine. Both images were placed in the same contact frame and printed at the same time (2 8x11.5 in pictures in one 16x20" frame) A couple of observations:

    1. the palladium curved I had used previously on the pictorico really sucks for cyanotypes :smile:

    2. the pictorico is a thicker substrate than the ultrafine which leads me to believe that the ultrafine may print sharper as it is thinner (this makes sense to me, but I have no hard proof).

    3. I could see no quality difference between the two prints based on the films used. They both created an image and neither inhibited the process.

    4. They printed at about the same speed judging from the color under the clear film outside of the image.

    5. I needed to bring the images inside sooner, but this has nothing to do with either of the films. I wasn't sure what the color was supposed to stop so I left them out there about twice as long as needed and bleached my images out. I did get a very nice linear scale from the step tablet without a correction curve, though I did use a colorized negative (my own color formulation).

    6. I think I coated on the wrong side of the paper--stonehenge rising.

    I will be trying this again today with the step-tablet and leaving it outside less to try to get a deeper blue. I will report back when they're done. Also, if anyone would like some info about the process I used for my negs let me know. On the ultrafine a black negative, Burkholder's 0:55:55:0 colorized was grainy, and Keith Schreiber's 0:45:100:51 were all too grainy looking. I am using a Canon S9000 so choosing Schreiber's brown color and printing did not give me a green negative, but a brown one just like on the screen. Damn Canon for giving us good print drivers! :smile: So I took the image he had uploaded on his website of the scanned green negative, saved it, took a color sample from the outside edge, and used that for my color index. When printed I had the same green negs that I have on the pictorico from Clay Harmon's Epson 1280.

    I am using Brad Hinkel's method of building a personal correction curve.
    http://www.bradhinkel.com/Correction Curves for Digital Negatives.htm

    By the way, does anyone know of if double-coating cyanotypes helps?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 20, 2004
  7. Jorge

    Jorge Inactive

    Messages:
    4,532
    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Jeremy, why green? why not orange or red? they have more UV absorbtion and might help you control the exposure better. I saw one of Dan`s orange negatives and they are very subtle, you would need less ink and less density to get the same results as a "normal" ink jet negative.
     
  8. clay

    clay Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,124
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2002
    Location:
    Asheville, N
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Jorge:

    You would think that, but the green negs on the 1280 absorb more UV light than the orange negs. I have a UV densitometer, and I didn't believe it until I tested it myself. The green negs, IMHO, are FAR superior to the orange negs. I've done both, and now use the 'fake pyro' exclusively. Apparently the dyes have a lot more absorption than color alone would indicate.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 20, 2004
  9. Jorge

    Jorge Inactive

    Messages:
    4,532
    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Ah! must be something in the chemistry of the dyes or pigments.....learn something every day... :smile:
     
  10. Jim Moore

    Jim Moore Member

    Messages:
    957
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Location:
    Iowa
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    That's what I love about APUG. I'm always learning something new :wink:

    Jim
     
  11. Jeremy

    Jeremy Member

    Messages:
    2,767
    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2002
    Location:
    Denton, TX
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    With the orange/red from Dan's negatives you are actually using less of each of the colors so you are using less print nozzles and the image is grainier (I think the term may be "dot gain"). With the green pyro you are using all of the colors (my ink tanks agree with this fact) about evenly which means more nozzles and smoother transitions. The green works much better with the ink jet refills (mediastreet.com costs about ~$2/cartridge to refill them myself) I'm using than the red negs.
     
  12. Jeremy

    Jeremy Member

    Messages:
    2,767
    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2002
    Location:
    Denton, TX
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Re-made my steptablet. Problem wasn't that they were out too long, but not enough! The highlights had all washed away. Once I figured out the problem (took some web surfing) then things got back on track. I'm going to let the image dry for about 24 hours or so and then scan it in to make my correction curve.