Re maintaining contact between negative and print. I'm told that they sometimes glue airplane parts together by putting them in a plastic bag and sucking the air out with vacuum cleaners. Haven't used it for anything that big but it works fine for gluing four foot square paintings on paper to a backing. The thing to remember is that you probably don't need a very good vacuum hence a vacuum pump isn't really necessary. >Steve, Chris, Andrew, Greg, others, >Thanks for the suggestions. This is feeding into the brain machine and >is very useful material. >There are no crackpot ideas here. The first crackpot idea was to do a >giant pinhole, of course. (Actually, the friends who are with me on >this say that I don't have to smoke grass with a brain like mine and >they are trying to find what it is in my brain that gets me to do these >things so that they can also activate it without having to smoke >grass...!) <gr...> >We're taking a couple weeks of break from this project now. I'll keep >everyone posted on the next step. >Thanks again for the suggestions, >Guy >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Steve Hodges" <shodges@wantree.com.au> >To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" ><photoforum@listserver.isc.rit.edu> >Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 6:59 AM >Subject: Re: Printing the Giant Pinhole Negative: A Technical Question > > >> Guy Glorieux wrote: >> > >> > Printing the giant pinhole paper negative is proving to be a much >> > greater challenge than we ever anticipated and new issues keep >surfacing >> > along the way. >> >> It wouldn't be so much fun if it were easy :-) >> >> > This weekend, we thought we had solved every problem along the way >and >> > we went ahead with doing the final print. But we've encountered one >> > more problem in the form of a weird chemical reaction when printing >the >> > wet paper negative onto wet unexposed RC paper after squeegeeing the >two >> > together, emulsion to emulsion. >> >> Had you one your testing with wet paper? >> >> > The paper had lost about 1 full stop in sensitivity >> >> Yeah, it will do that. >> >> > (compared with the >> > tests we had done just before using the dry paper negative over dry >> > unexposed paper strips) >> >> Ah. First mistake. Test using the same method as you intend to use >to >> print. >> >> > Any thoughts or suggestions are most welcome. >> >> I assume you're wetting the paper and negs to make the whole lot sit >> together without curled edges? >> >> Assuming you're printing the three negs onto 3 pieces of paper, I'd >> print one at a time and get a single *HUGE* sheet of something >> transparent (plastic?) to sit over the paper. >> >> Naturally the position relative to the light source would have to stay >> constant, but it would give you a chance to pay full attention to >> whatever dodging and burning you were doing on each neg. >> >> if you could get a sinle piece of plastic 12.5 by 8.5 feet that you >> could actually maneuver around you could do it in one piece (I >suppose) >> but it would be way too awkward I think. >> >> Another possibility would be to place elevate the paper a small amount >> off the floor (say an inch or so) and cover the whole area with >> plastic. tape the plastic to the floor (I hope it's concrete or >> something smooth and non porous) and seal it down. Then use a pump to >> reduce the pressure under the plastic. Air pressure will force the >> plastic hard onto the paper. You'd probably have to play around a bit >> to get rid of bubbles, but it may work. >> >> Maybe nothing but crackpot ideas... :-) >> >> Steve >> -- Alan P. Hayes Meaning and Form: Writing, Editing and Document Design Pittsfield, Massachusetts
