Pictorico alternatives?

[pschwart]

Has anyone used AccuArt3 or AccuFast http://www.chromaline.com/inkjet_media.php# for digital negatives? I have been successfully using Pictorico for some time. It's a superior product, but it's not perfect, so I am always looking for alternatives ... I am currently testing Canon Clear Transparency Film.

 

[MVNelson]

hello pschwart , I have not used accuart but I do use CanonCTF and would like to hear your opinion on in... I have a Canon iPF5000 printer so it was a "natural" fit I think ... I use the PDN system ... mostly pd/Na2


Miles

 

[carioca]

alternatives...

.... It's a superior product, but it's not perfect, so I am always looking for alternatives ... I am currently testing Canon Clear Transparency Film.

I've only worked with Pictorico so far, I have not tested any other material.
What is it that is 'not perfect' with the Pictorico OHP?

I have found this other material on the net:
www.kimototech.com/SilkScreenPrinting.html

Sidney

 

[Keith Taylor]

Has anyone used AccuArt3 or AccuFast http://www.chromaline.com/inkjet_media.php# for digital negatives? I have been successfully using Pictorico for some time. It's a superior product, but it's not perfect, so I am always looking for alternatives ... I am currently testing Canon Clear Transparency Film.

I used the AccuArt2 a few years back, just before they introduced AccuArt3 if I remember correctly, and it seemed virtually identical to Pictorico.

I'm curious to know what's not perfect with the Pictorico? I've been using it for years now and never had any kind of problem with it.

Keith.

 

[sanking]

I'm curious to know what's not perfect with the Pictorico? I've been using it for years now and never had any kind of problem with it.

Keith.

Not perfect from my perspective because of the very high UV blocking of the base.


Sandy King

 

[pschwart]

I used the AccuArt2 a few years back, just before they introduced AccuArt3 if I remember correctly, and it seemed virtually identical to Pictorico.

I'm curious to know what's not perfect with the Pictorico? I've been using it for years now and never had any kind of problem with it.

Keith.

Thanks for the comment re AccuArt, I may give it a try.
Pictorico makes fine negatives but:

- Base and coating block too much UV, and I am losing an additional 1/2 stop with the new OHP. My base exposure is about 5 minutes with Ultrafine, 6 minutes with Canon TCF, 7.5-8 minutes with the old OHP, and now 12 minutes with the new OHP. This has a significant impact on the number of tests and prints I can generate in the limited hours I have available.

- The additional density also tends to diffuse a bit. Prints from Canon TCF, for example, are visibly sharper. This can be a good thing (smoother images, dither less obvious), but it's worth noting.

- It's too expensive!

- It doesn't come in enough cut sizes. Rolls are a problem in my workspace.

- The packaging is silly. 20 sheet packs are good. How about 50 and 100 sheet boxes with slip sheets, and give us a price break when buying larger quantities.

 

[Keith Taylor]

Thanks for the comment re AccuArt, I may give it a try.
Pictorico makes fine negatives but:

- Base and coating block too much UV, and I am losing an additional 1/2 stop with the new OHP. My base exposure is about 5 minutes with Ultrafine, 6 minutes with Canon TCF, 7.5-8 minutes with the old OHP, and now 12 minutes with the new OHP. This has a significant impact on the number of tests and prints I can generate in the limited hours I have available.

- The additional density also tends to diffuse a bit. Prints from Canon TCF, for example, are visibly sharper. This can be a good thing (smoother images, dither less obvious), but it's worth noting.

- It's too expensive!

- It doesn't come in enough cut sizes. Rolls are a problem in my workspace.

- The packaging is silly. 20 sheet packs are good. How about 50 and 100 sheet boxes with slip sheets, and give us a price break when buying larger quantities.

OK, that all makes sense!

 

[Kerik]

I guess I've been out of the loop (too busy with collodion these days). There's a new OHP? I have a 17" roll that I bought about a year ago. The UV density of the material is about 0.11. I have some 13x19 cut sheets that are also a year or more old that are a bit thicker than the roll material and have a UV base density of 0.13. Anybody know what the UV density of the new stuff is??

 

[Tomf2468]

Yep, the Pictorico is now owned or distributed by Mitsubishi. The new version is slightly "milkier" looking. Prints (on my printer and light source) very similar to the old stuff. I've only been gum printing since I got the new stuff, but did run a small image on both old and new Pictorico. As far as I can tell with Gum (which is variable) you need between the same and 1/3 stop more exposure with the new Pictorico. My curves and color choices transfered directly from the old to the new.

Tom

 

[damonz]

for line-art, I've had good success with the cheapo PrintWorks brand transparencies. I've done silk screen stencils as well as cyano line-art.

Damon

 

[wclavey]

Perhaps slightly off topic...

I thought I'd throw my 2 cents in, even though I'm not using the more "exotic" processes you are for the final print... I have been pringting my digital negatives onto artist vellum, then contact printing them onto regular photographic paper.

Here are 2 scans... the first is the originally printed image, 5 in x 5 in on VC paper. The second is a scan of the orignal 6x6 negative, increased size to 8 in x 8 in, printed onto vellum, then contact printed onto the VC paper. This was a test; you can see the #4 contast filter number in the corner. The final I would do on #4 paper.

While it may not work on the techniques that require more "transparency", I like the look it gives to the final print... not quite as muted as a paper negative.

 

[codex0]

I occasionally use Azon 787n film for Cyanotyping. It is cheaper than pictorico as far as square-footage, and the base is much clearer. The problem with it is that the emulsion tends to swell, causing it to lose some fine detail. I do not recommend using it for printing anything that will be enlarged, but it seems to have similar absorption to Pictorico.