Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: Pictorico OHP, anyone found alternatives?

  1. #11

    Pictorico OHP, anyone found alternatives?

    Quote Originally Posted by gneissgirl

    Did you wax the vellum paper negatives?
    No, I didnt bother. I'm not sure how well that would work either as this paper seems to be coated.

    Package reads "Strathmore Ink Jet Translucent Vellum"

  2. #12

    Pictorico OHP, anyone found alternatives?

    Thanks for the links to those test results. It does appear that there is a noticable loss in sharpness and detail with the Kirkland paper negative.

  3. #13

    Pictorico OHP, anyone found alternatives?

    I neglected to mention an important detail about these images. These are comparisons of 1x1 pixel, 2x2 pixel, 3x3 pixel, and 4x4 pixel grids. So, considering the scale, the paper actually performs very well next to the transparency.

    Just passing on info I found on another list-- I use Pictorico for digital negatives, it's the "industry standard". I agree it's great, as everyone says, but quite expensive!

  4. #14

    Pictorico OHP, anyone found alternatives?

    Gneissgirl,
    I'm surprised you haven't moved up to 8x10, it's not that expensive, if you do it on the cheap (build a camera, use lith or dupe film).

    erie

  5. #15

    Pictorico OHP, anyone found alternatives?

    Hello, I'm student studying Applied Arts. I found this page in Google. Thank you all for very valuable information!
    We had series of seminars on modern Alt printing techniques and overall impression is that InkJet negs are of very inferior quality compared to traditional contact prints. Some examples from workshops:

    http://www.victoriasphoto.com/Notes/Detail/

    Major galleries and museums started to use microscopic scanning to distinguish between digital & traditional Pt/Pl prints.

    For pinhole cameras It looks like Paper negative is way to go - one can make box camera to fit any media size.
    D.

  6. #16

    Pictorico OHP, anyone found alternatives?

    D-

    Thanks for posting the Victorias links.

    Murray

  7. #17
    Administrator Tom Persinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA USA
    Posts
    1,810

    Pictorico OHP, anyone found alternatives?

    Quote Originally Posted by David_Newman
    ....We had series of seminars on modern Alt printing techniques and overall impression is that InkJet negs are of very inferior quality compared to traditional contact prints. Some examples from workshops:

    http://www.victoriasphoto.com/Notes/Detail/

    D.
    This page has a lot of good information about the trad./digital negatives and one sample wet print on Ilford Smooth Gloss paper, but I didn't see a comparison of traditional/digital negs and alt-printing and how/if differences can be seen? Maybe i missed it? It seems to me that pt/pd or any of the other alt-processes don't have enough crisp detail -if only because of the paper substrate texture, even on HP- to show a marked difference (in the prints) between the 2 negs, but I might be wrong...

    Quote Originally Posted by David_Newman
    ....Major galleries and museums started to use microscopic scanning to distinguish between digital & traditional Pt/Pl prints.
    To what end i wonder... just for curatorial clarification (which makes sense)? because they value one over the other? any more information on who/why is doing this sort of analysis? I'm curious to know more...

    thanks! I look forward to hearing more....
    tom

    ps: to answer the original question, I use 3M transparency material from Office Max and it works great. You have to print very, VERY slowly (30min for 9x6") but they seem to work well, and are cheap enough.

  8. #18

    Pictorico OHP, anyone found alternatives?

    I have heard good things about Inkpress transparency material on the alt-process mailing list:
    http://www.inkpresspaper.com/profiles.asp?PaperID=1
    I understand it is quite a bit less expensive than Pictorico OHP, but I don't see the price right off the bat, and I have not tried it myself.

    I also noticed on the inkpress home page that they will be at the f295 conference, handing out free samples of their transperency (sic) material.

    There is some very fine work being done with digitally produced inkjet negatives, by artists who would clearly not tolerate "inferior" negatives. If I ever get to the point where I can make a perfect 8x10 film negative for each process I want to use (silver, cyanotype, VDB, Pt/Pd, etc) then I may consider doing it, but until then I will continue to scan my film, adjust the tonality with my own curves, resize for my desired print size, and happily print my digital negatives on transparency material (or, in the case of bromoil, on paper). I'm happy with my results, I think they look darn good, and I doubt any galleries or museums would care about that one way or the other.*
    * clarification: I mean to say that I doubt any galleries or museums would be at all interested in my prints! Regardless of how they were made ;D

  9. #19

    Pictorico OHP, anyone found alternatives?

    I do not know why there is such strong scrutiny. To some extend there is opinion that Pt/Pd inkjet prints devalued the character of the art.

    Sorry Iím just student trying to understand and learn things myself. Iíd guess thatís why Iím here.

    Back to topic Ė did anybody tried Pictrography OHP? We had few Fuji Pictrography printers at school but all of them got decommissioned.

  10. #20

    Pictorico OHP, anyone found alternatives?

    Quote Originally Posted by David_Newman
    I do not know why there is such strong scrutiny. To some extend there is opinion that Pt/Pd inkjet prints devalued the character of the art.
    Well, yeah, if I ran a gallery or were obtaining prints for a museum, and someone told me a print was a Pt/Pd print and it was really an inkjet print made to look like Pt/Pd (or an inkjet print of a scanned Pt/Pd print), I'd surely want to know if they were lying or not. And a low-power microscope could tell you that, or maybe even a loupe, if you knew what you were doing. A real Pt/Pd print is handmade and could be viewed in the same way as an etching or any other print. It may be one of a series, but each one is hand pulled. On the other hand, an inkjet (aka giclee') print can be reproduced exactly every time, and can't really be called handmade. Just stick another sheet in the printer, and there 'ya go. This is just my opinion, though, and I don't really know how museums and galleries view this issue. My guess is opinion varies considerably.

    So, I'm confused about what we're talking about here. Are they scrutinizing these prints to distinguish whether they are true Pt/Pd prints, and not inkjet prints?

    Or are they scrutinizing them to see if they were (acknowledged) Pt prints made with film negatives vs. inkjet negatives?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •