On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 18:23:16 -0000, cybermace5 <
cybermace5@...>
wrote:
> I guess it remains to be
> seen if this pathway offers any improvement over photo paper. Though
> typically, photo paper is very thick and close-grained, making it
> difficult for the water to throughly soak into the printed side. If
> mucilage or guar gum or something can be impregnated into a thinner,
> more porous paper, perhaps it will soak through much faster and not
> leave any clay residue. I get the impression that this is what the
> mucilage guy is experiencing.
You got to the point here. It should be tried but it remains to be seen if
it is any better.
(and you must add the work required for coating on one side of the
equation)
Only without trying we'll never know.
I agree with the thickness beeing an issue. The paper i use now is 100g,
and avery/zweckform
makes 90g paper with the same coating too, but the shop didn't stock that.
(if you are unfamiliar with metric paper weights 80g is standard copier
paper.)
What weight is staples paper in g/m^2?
I used the 150g of the same series before, the 100g was a huge
improvement, not only cost-wise.
The thinner paper gets more toner in the printer, reducing pinholes. (that
is why you shouldn't
use a carrier sheet if you have density trouble.)
Also the lighter paper is a faster soak/rub.
The only drawback is the 100g paper is coated both sides, while the 150g
was single-sided. the uncoated
back was soaked much faster. the 90g paper would be single sided again, if
i can find it. but then you needn't
mind using the right side, which equalizes the advantages.
As i have said a hundred times before, probably, the pressing issues for
me are distortion and heat-shrinking,
and resolution. If we reduce the effort of soaking it will be nice, but
not affect my results.
I hope someone follows up on the mucilage thing. I can't go to a shop and
ask for "slime" without odd looks
and coming back empty handed... or much worse not empty handed ;-)
ST