Wow, Tom, what a well-considered test and generous of you to make this. Your Kallitype process video a few years ago was so useful to me in getting started with that wonderful process.
I wanted to add my gratitude for this video, as well as many other videos you have produced and kindly posted. I am preparing for my final year at undergraduate school with the hope of moving on to graduate school to continue learning and experimenting with alternative processes, so finding the cheapest and highest quality product is monumentally important.
Thank you, Tom - very useful info (and appreciate the non-nonsense presentation). I've used both quite a bit and like them both. I frequently get pizza wheel marks from my Epson P600 when using Fixxons that I don't get when using Pictorico. But great to have this performance comparison.
Just to be clear, the Pictorico Hi-Gloss white film is good for gelatin silver printing with enlarging papers, and is what I use for the Ilford MG curves I include in my digital negative profiling app. Hi-Gloss film doesn’t work with silver chloride contact printing papers.
Thanks for the clarification. I wasn’t able to find much info on it, but since they call it “white” film, a thought it has a white diffusion backing which would require a longer exposure time.
Great video! Every type of transparency film (just like every type of paper) is different. The "standard curve" for one brand and type of film will not translate to being the best curve for a different brand of transparency film, even when using identical paper. Just like choosing a specific paper - when a different paper is used, the process variables are no longer the same and the "standard curve" must be adjusted or modified. Likewise when choosing a different transparency film - one of the process variables has changed and a different "standard curve" must be developed for that set of variables which includes the different film. Of course the end result will be different if only one variable is changed! As you noted, a small tweak might be needed. Well done, thanks for sharing.
That wasn’t apparent from the start, and was the exact thing I wanted to test. I was interested to find that the difference among the films became smaller when I went from scanning the film to making a print.
Thank you for providing this video and the resultant clarity surrounding this issue. I have heard that some printers prefer Pictorico OHP for processes that have a longer exposure scale and would consequently require a denser negative (i.e. more ink) for optimal results. Others, such as cyanotype, seem to do better with a thinner negative. I'd be curious to see if there was any visible difference comparing these films within different processes. I, too, have been using Fixxons for a couple of years and have been quite happy with the results. I even found that with Fixxons, I was able to make cyanotype negatives using my old laser printer by making two copies of the negative and registering them. Very inexpensive, indeed.
I'd like to switch to Fixxons, especially since the TPU-100 has been discontinued. Have you experienced any issues feeding the Fixxons through the computer? Especially with smaller sizes (8.5x11) it tends to curl at the edges and the print head hits those edges as it prints, sometimes causing a major problem. Not so much with larger sizes fed through as fine art paper on my Epson P800.
great review, I stumbled across AWP Waterproof Inkjet Film from all american print supply. Would this type of transparency be useful for printing processes?
