Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Home printing suggestions
Home printing suggestions
Ok, so I found an Omega B-22 with safelight, timer, lenses, neg carriers and
a couple of 11x14 trays for $75.
I'll be doing both fiber and RC so need some ultra-economic ideas (both
cost-wise and space-wise) for washing, squeeging and drying.
Homegrown solutions for washing?
Convert a leaky aquarium, set up a tray washer, buy a used vertical washer,
or ?
...for squeeging?
Necessary? Or just get as much water off as possible while holding the
print? Or get some stainless steel sheet or plexiglass to lay the print on
for squeeging?
...for drying?
Can 8x10 fiber prints be hung? Or do they need to be laid flat? I've seen
suggestions on my past posts for grabbing various plastic trays from a place
like Target.
Thanks for all your suggestions on home developing and printing these last
few weeks. Some of this is probably pretty tedious to the veterans here.
Greg
--
Fun bicycle ride in the middle of nowhere:
http :// lodesertprotosites.org/pokerrun/pokerrun.html
Dethink to survive - Mclusky
Ok, so I found an Omega B-22 with safelight, timer, lenses, neg carriers and
a couple of 11x14 trays for $75.
I'll be doing both fiber and RC so need some ultra-economic ideas (both
cost-wise and space-wise) for washing, squeeging and drying.
Homegrown solutions for washing?
Convert a leaky aquarium, set up a tray washer, buy a used vertical washer,
or ?
...for squeeging?
Necessary? Or just get as much water off as possible while holding the
print? Or get some stainless steel sheet or plexiglass to lay the print on
for squeeging?
...for drying?
Can 8x10 fiber prints be hung? Or do they need to be laid flat? I've seen
suggestions on my past posts for grabbing various plastic trays from a place
like Target.
Thanks for all your suggestions on home developing and printing these last
few weeks. Some of this is probably pretty tedious to the veterans here.
Greg
--
Fun bicycle ride in the middle of nowhere:
http :// lodesertprotosites.org/pokerrun/pokerrun.html
Dethink to survive - Mclusky
Re: Home printing suggestions
"G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme,com > wrote in message
news:13pfi6a47sc36ff@corp.supernews,com ...
> Ok, so I found an Omega B-22 with safelight, timer, lenses, neg carriers
> and a couple of 11x14 trays for $75.
>
> I'll be doing both fiber and RC so need some ultra-economic ideas (both
> cost-wise and space-wise) for washing, squeeging and drying.
>
> Homegrown solutions for washing?
> Convert a leaky aquarium, set up a tray washer, buy a used vertical
> washer, or ?
>
> ...for squeeging?
> Necessary? Or just get as much water off as possible while holding the
> print? Or get some stainless steel sheet or plexiglass to lay the print
> on for squeeging?
>
> ...for drying?
> Can 8x10 fiber prints be hung? Or do they need to be laid flat? I've
> seen suggestions on my past posts for grabbing various plastic trays from
> a place like Target.
>
> Thanks for all your suggestions on home developing and printing these last
> few weeks. Some of this is probably pretty tedious to the veterans here.
Drying fiber prints-
1. Nothing works better than a blotter roll. Tough to locate these days.
2. Second best is blotter books - check Freestyle, B&H, Adorama, Porters.
Caution with blotters is to make sure your prints are truly washed and free
of excess water. And in the case of the books, weigh the book down...some
books/magazines do the trick. And be advised that over time they will -
despite your best efforts - become bedraggled and stained.
3. Plain ordinary window screens. Place the washed prints (with excess
moisture removed) face down and air dry. They will curl somewhat (plenty if
single weight, but I don't think you can readily get single weight fiber
paper these days) such that your next challenge is to straighten them out.
Different people have different approaches.
"G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme,com > wrote in message
news:13pfi6a47sc36ff@corp.supernews,com ...
> Ok, so I found an Omega B-22 with safelight, timer, lenses, neg carriers
> and a couple of 11x14 trays for $75.
>
> I'll be doing both fiber and RC so need some ultra-economic ideas (both
> cost-wise and space-wise) for washing, squeeging and drying.
>
> Homegrown solutions for washing?
> Convert a leaky aquarium, set up a tray washer, buy a used vertical
> washer, or ?
>
> ...for squeeging?
> Necessary? Or just get as much water off as possible while holding the
> print? Or get some stainless steel sheet or plexiglass to lay the print
> on for squeeging?
>
> ...for drying?
> Can 8x10 fiber prints be hung? Or do they need to be laid flat? I've
> seen suggestions on my past posts for grabbing various plastic trays from
> a place like Target.
>
> Thanks for all your suggestions on home developing and printing these last
> few weeks. Some of this is probably pretty tedious to the veterans here.
Drying fiber prints-
1. Nothing works better than a blotter roll. Tough to locate these days.
2. Second best is blotter books - check Freestyle, B&H, Adorama, Porters.
Caution with blotters is to make sure your prints are truly washed and free
of excess water. And in the case of the books, weigh the book down...some
books/magazines do the trick. And be advised that over time they will -
despite your best efforts - become bedraggled and stained.
3. Plain ordinary window screens. Place the washed prints (with excess
moisture removed) face down and air dry. They will curl somewhat (plenty if
single weight, but I don't think you can readily get single weight fiber
paper these days) such that your next challenge is to straighten them out.
Different people have different approaches.
Re: Home printing suggestions
In article <NUQlj.1015$hI1.79@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc,com >,
Lawrence Akutagawa <lakuNOSPAM@sbcglobal,net > wrote:
>
>Drying fiber prints-
>
>1. Nothing works better than a blotter roll. Tough to locate these days.
I strongly disagree -- see below.
>2. Second best is blotter books - check Freestyle, B&H, Adorama, Porters.
>
>Caution with blotters is to make sure your prints are truly washed and free
>of excess water. And in the case of the books, weigh the book down...some
>books/magazines do the trick. And be advised that over time they will -
>despite your best efforts - become bedraggled and stained.
So if "over time [blotters] will...become bedraggled and stained", that
means that over time _something_ is transferring from the prints to the
blotters. In other words, the blotters are becoming contaminated. Even
if it's just with tiny amounts of gelatin from the emulsion, and the stains
are fungus that likes to eat the gelatin, this is not an environment you
want to put a new clean print in.
Blotter books are cheap. Use each page *once* and *once only*. They
are not an acceptable means of drying for prints intended to have archival
permanence otherwise.
--
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls,com
"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to
be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky
In article <NUQlj.1015$hI1.79@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc,com >,
Lawrence Akutagawa <lakuNOSPAM@sbcglobal,net > wrote:
>
>Drying fiber prints-
>
>1. Nothing works better than a blotter roll. Tough to locate these days.
I strongly disagree -- see below.
>2. Second best is blotter books - check Freestyle, B&H, Adorama, Porters.
>
>Caution with blotters is to make sure your prints are truly washed and free
>of excess water. And in the case of the books, weigh the book down...some
>books/magazines do the trick. And be advised that over time they will -
>despite your best efforts - become bedraggled and stained.
So if "over time [blotters] will...become bedraggled and stained", that
means that over time _something_ is transferring from the prints to the
blotters. In other words, the blotters are becoming contaminated. Even
if it's just with tiny amounts of gelatin from the emulsion, and the stains
are fungus that likes to eat the gelatin, this is not an environment you
want to put a new clean print in.
Blotter books are cheap. Use each page *once* and *once only*. They
are not an acceptable means of drying for prints intended to have archival
permanence otherwise.
--
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls,com
"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to
be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky
Re: Home printing suggestions
"Thor Lancelot Simon" <tls@panix,com > wrote in message
news:fnah0c$a5i$1@reader2.panix,com ...
> In article <NUQlj.1015$hI1.79@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc,com >,
> Lawrence Akutagawa <lakuNOSPAM@sbcglobal,net > wrote:
>>
>>Drying fiber prints-
>>
>>1. Nothing works better than a blotter roll. Tough to locate these days.
>
> I strongly disagree -- see below.
Dunno what the disagreement is, this statement of disagreement being so non
specific....
a. Easy to find blotter rolls these days? If that's what you are saying,
then please cite where I can buy one new.
b. Blotter roll doesn't work well? Please - references/citations/links to
studies. I have prints dried back in the mid/late 60's into the 70's on
blotter rolls used multiple times, which prints are still in excellent
condition.
>>2. Second best is blotter books - check Freestyle, B&H, Adorama, Porters.
>>
>>Caution with blotters is to make sure your prints are truly washed and
>>free
>>of excess water. And in the case of the books, weigh the book down...some
>>books/magazines do the trick. And be advised that over time they will -
>>despite your best efforts - become bedraggled and stained.
>
> So if "over time [blotters] will...become bedraggled and stained", that
> means that over time _something_ is transferring from the prints to the
> blotters. In other words, the blotters are becoming contaminated. Even
> if it's just with tiny amounts of gelatin from the emulsion, and the
> stains
> are fungus that likes to eat the gelatin, this is not an environment you
> want to put a new clean print in.
>
> Blotter books are cheap. Use each page *once* and *once only*. They
> are not an acceptable means of drying for prints intended to have archival
> permanence otherwise.
Of course. Take your underwear. It too over time with use will become
bedraggled - and given your own personal proclivities, perhaps even stained.
Yet dollars to donuts you don't use each piece of underwear "once" and "once
only". Don't like the underwear analogy? Then take your white socks.
Don't like the socks? Then take that brand new car of yours...over time it
will become less reliable, dented, perhaps even involved in an accident or
two. Most folks don't use their brand new car "once" and "once only". But
surely enough, most folks have the sense enough to get a new car after
enough use from their current one. Ditto underwear. Ditto white socks.
And ditto photo blotters.
"Thor Lancelot Simon" <tls@panix,com > wrote in message
news:fnah0c$a5i$1@reader2.panix,com ...
> In article <NUQlj.1015$hI1.79@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc,com >,
> Lawrence Akutagawa <lakuNOSPAM@sbcglobal,net > wrote:
>>
>>Drying fiber prints-
>>
>>1. Nothing works better than a blotter roll. Tough to locate these days.
>
> I strongly disagree -- see below.
Dunno what the disagreement is, this statement of disagreement being so non
specific....
a. Easy to find blotter rolls these days? If that's what you are saying,
then please cite where I can buy one new.
b. Blotter roll doesn't work well? Please - references/citations/links to
studies. I have prints dried back in the mid/late 60's into the 70's on
blotter rolls used multiple times, which prints are still in excellent
condition.
>>2. Second best is blotter books - check Freestyle, B&H, Adorama, Porters.
>>
>>Caution with blotters is to make sure your prints are truly washed and
>>free
>>of excess water. And in the case of the books, weigh the book down...some
>>books/magazines do the trick. And be advised that over time they will -
>>despite your best efforts - become bedraggled and stained.
>
> So if "over time [blotters] will...become bedraggled and stained", that
> means that over time _something_ is transferring from the prints to the
> blotters. In other words, the blotters are becoming contaminated. Even
> if it's just with tiny amounts of gelatin from the emulsion, and the
> stains
> are fungus that likes to eat the gelatin, this is not an environment you
> want to put a new clean print in.
>
> Blotter books are cheap. Use each page *once* and *once only*. They
> are not an acceptable means of drying for prints intended to have archival
> permanence otherwise.
Of course. Take your underwear. It too over time with use will become
bedraggled - and given your own personal proclivities, perhaps even stained.
Yet dollars to donuts you don't use each piece of underwear "once" and "once
only". Don't like the underwear analogy? Then take your white socks.
Don't like the socks? Then take that brand new car of yours...over time it
will become less reliable, dented, perhaps even involved in an accident or
two. Most folks don't use their brand new car "once" and "once only". But
surely enough, most folks have the sense enough to get a new car after
enough use from their current one. Ditto underwear. Ditto white socks.
And ditto photo blotters.
Re: Home printing suggestions
On 1/24/2008 10:18 AM Lawrence Akutagawa spake thus:
> "Thor Lancelot Simon" <tls@panix,com > wrote in message
> news:fnah0c$a5i$1@reader2.panix,com ...
>
>> Blotter books are cheap. Use each page *once* and *once only*. They
>> are not an acceptable means of drying for prints intended to have archival
>> permanence otherwise.
>
> Of course. Take your underwear. It too over time with use will become
> bedraggled - and given your own personal proclivities, perhaps even stained.
> Yet dollars to donuts you don't use each piece of underwear "once" and "once
> only". Don't like the underwear analogy? Then take your white socks.
> Don't like the socks? Then take that brand new car of yours...over time it
> will become less reliable, dented, perhaps even involved in an accident or
> two. Most folks don't use their brand new car "once" and "once only". But
> surely enough, most folks have the sense enough to get a new car after
> enough use from their current one. Ditto underwear. Ditto white socks.
> And ditto photo blotters.
Except that, and excuse me if I missed something here, one cannot wash
photo blotters the way one washes soiled underwear, socks, etc. I think
that's the point being made here. And if blotters are still available,
and presumably relatively cheap (compared to other photo supplies), why
take the risk of contaminating your lovely new prints that you've been
so careful with up to that point?
On 1/24/2008 10:18 AM Lawrence Akutagawa spake thus:
> "Thor Lancelot Simon" <tls@panix,com > wrote in message
> news:fnah0c$a5i$1@reader2.panix,com ...
>
>> Blotter books are cheap. Use each page *once* and *once only*. They
>> are not an acceptable means of drying for prints intended to have archival
>> permanence otherwise.
>
> Of course. Take your underwear. It too over time with use will become
> bedraggled - and given your own personal proclivities, perhaps even stained.
> Yet dollars to donuts you don't use each piece of underwear "once" and "once
> only". Don't like the underwear analogy? Then take your white socks.
> Don't like the socks? Then take that brand new car of yours...over time it
> will become less reliable, dented, perhaps even involved in an accident or
> two. Most folks don't use their brand new car "once" and "once only". But
> surely enough, most folks have the sense enough to get a new car after
> enough use from their current one. Ditto underwear. Ditto white socks.
> And ditto photo blotters.
Except that, and excuse me if I missed something here, one cannot wash
photo blotters the way one washes soiled underwear, socks, etc. I think
that's the point being made here. And if blotters are still available,
and presumably relatively cheap (compared to other photo supplies), why
take the risk of contaminating your lovely new prints that you've been
so careful with up to that point?
Re: Home printing suggestions
David Nebenzahl wrote:
> On 1/24/2008 10:18 AM Lawrence Akutagawa spake thus:
>
>> "Thor Lancelot Simon" <tls@panix,com > wrote in message
>> news:fnah0c$a5i$1@reader2.panix,com ...
>>
>>> Blotter books are cheap. Use each page *once* and *once only*. They
>>> are not an acceptable means of drying for prints intended to have
>>> archival
>>> permanence otherwise.
>>
>> Of course. Take your underwear. It too over time with use will
>> become bedraggled - and given your own personal proclivities, perhaps
>> even stained. Yet dollars to donuts you don't use each piece of
>> underwear "once" and "once only". Don't like the underwear analogy?
>> Then take your white socks. Don't like the socks? Then take that
>> brand new car of yours...over time it will become less reliable,
>> dented, perhaps even involved in an accident or two. Most folks don't
>> use their brand new car "once" and "once only". But surely enough,
>> most folks have the sense enough to get a new car after enough use
>> from their current one. Ditto underwear. Ditto white socks. And
>> ditto photo blotters.
>
> Except that, and excuse me if I missed something here, one cannot wash
> photo blotters the way one washes soiled underwear, socks, etc. I think
> that's the point being made here. And if blotters are still available,
> and presumably relatively cheap (compared to other photo supplies), why
> take the risk of contaminating your lovely new prints that you've been
> so careful with up to that point?
Thanks, guys, I'm definitely going to go the blotter book route.
Greg
David Nebenzahl wrote:
> On 1/24/2008 10:18 AM Lawrence Akutagawa spake thus:
>
>> "Thor Lancelot Simon" <tls@panix,com > wrote in message
>> news:fnah0c$a5i$1@reader2.panix,com ...
>>
>>> Blotter books are cheap. Use each page *once* and *once only*. They
>>> are not an acceptable means of drying for prints intended to have
>>> archival
>>> permanence otherwise.
>>
>> Of course. Take your underwear. It too over time with use will
>> become bedraggled - and given your own personal proclivities, perhaps
>> even stained. Yet dollars to donuts you don't use each piece of
>> underwear "once" and "once only". Don't like the underwear analogy?
>> Then take your white socks. Don't like the socks? Then take that
>> brand new car of yours...over time it will become less reliable,
>> dented, perhaps even involved in an accident or two. Most folks don't
>> use their brand new car "once" and "once only". But surely enough,
>> most folks have the sense enough to get a new car after enough use
>> from their current one. Ditto underwear. Ditto white socks. And
>> ditto photo blotters.
>
> Except that, and excuse me if I missed something here, one cannot wash
> photo blotters the way one washes soiled underwear, socks, etc. I think
> that's the point being made here. And if blotters are still available,
> and presumably relatively cheap (compared to other photo supplies), why
> take the risk of contaminating your lovely new prints that you've been
> so careful with up to that point?
Thanks, guys, I'm definitely going to go the blotter book route.
Greg
Re: Home printing suggestions
"David Nebenzahl" <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
news:4798e3ef$0$1195$822641b3@news.adtechcomputers,com ...
> On 1/24/2008 10:18 AM Lawrence Akutagawa spake thus:
>
>> "Thor Lancelot Simon" <tls@panix,com > wrote in message
>> news:fnah0c$a5i$1@reader2.panix,com ...
>>
>>> Blotter books are cheap. Use each page *once* and *once only*. They
>>> are not an acceptable means of drying for prints intended to have
>>> archival
>>> permanence otherwise.
>>
>> Of course. Take your underwear. It too over time with use will become
>> bedraggled - and given your own personal proclivities, perhaps even
>> stained. Yet dollars to donuts you don't use each piece of underwear
>> "once" and "once only". Don't like the underwear analogy? Then take
>> your white socks. Don't like the socks? Then take that brand new car of
>> yours...over time it will become less reliable, dented, perhaps even
>> involved in an accident or two. Most folks don't use their brand new car
>> "once" and "once only". But surely enough, most folks have the sense
>> enough to get a new car after enough use from their current one. Ditto
>> underwear. Ditto white socks. And ditto photo blotters.
>
> Except that, and excuse me if I missed something here, one cannot wash
> photo blotters the way one washes soiled underwear, socks, etc. I think
> that's the point being made here. And if blotters are still available, and
> presumably relatively cheap (compared to other photo supplies), why take
> the risk of contaminating your lovely new prints that you've been so
> careful with up to that point?
Of course, that's where the analogy breaks down...as with most/all
analogies. But the point is use "once" and "once only"...not with washing.
Should you be so wont as to use your underwear "once" and "once only", then
far be it for me to dissuade you to do otherwise. Similarly if you are dead
set on using photo blotters "once" and "once only" - then go right ahead.
In fact, if enough folks use the blotters "once" and "once only"...who
knows - there may enough demand such that the blotter roll returns!
Here, by the way, is what Adorama says about its 11x14 blotter books - "50
year ARCHIVAL quality, museum use approved. Each book holds 21 prints."
Presumably not with use "once" and "once only", but the curious can seek
clarification from Adorama.
http :// www .adorama,com /DKBB1114.html
"David Nebenzahl" <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
news:4798e3ef$0$1195$822641b3@news.adtechcomputers,com ...
> On 1/24/2008 10:18 AM Lawrence Akutagawa spake thus:
>
>> "Thor Lancelot Simon" <tls@panix,com > wrote in message
>> news:fnah0c$a5i$1@reader2.panix,com ...
>>
>>> Blotter books are cheap. Use each page *once* and *once only*. They
>>> are not an acceptable means of drying for prints intended to have
>>> archival
>>> permanence otherwise.
>>
>> Of course. Take your underwear. It too over time with use will become
>> bedraggled - and given your own personal proclivities, perhaps even
>> stained. Yet dollars to donuts you don't use each piece of underwear
>> "once" and "once only". Don't like the underwear analogy? Then take
>> your white socks. Don't like the socks? Then take that brand new car of
>> yours...over time it will become less reliable, dented, perhaps even
>> involved in an accident or two. Most folks don't use their brand new car
>> "once" and "once only". But surely enough, most folks have the sense
>> enough to get a new car after enough use from their current one. Ditto
>> underwear. Ditto white socks. And ditto photo blotters.
>
> Except that, and excuse me if I missed something here, one cannot wash
> photo blotters the way one washes soiled underwear, socks, etc. I think
> that's the point being made here. And if blotters are still available, and
> presumably relatively cheap (compared to other photo supplies), why take
> the risk of contaminating your lovely new prints that you've been so
> careful with up to that point?
Of course, that's where the analogy breaks down...as with most/all
analogies. But the point is use "once" and "once only"...not with washing.
Should you be so wont as to use your underwear "once" and "once only", then
far be it for me to dissuade you to do otherwise. Similarly if you are dead
set on using photo blotters "once" and "once only" - then go right ahead.
In fact, if enough folks use the blotters "once" and "once only"...who
knows - there may enough demand such that the blotter roll returns!
Here, by the way, is what Adorama says about its 11x14 blotter books - "50
year ARCHIVAL quality, museum use approved. Each book holds 21 prints."
Presumably not with use "once" and "once only", but the curious can seek
clarification from Adorama.
http :// www .adorama,com /DKBB1114.html
Re: Home printing suggestions
On 1/24/2008 11:55 AM Lawrence Akutagawa spake thus:
> Here, by the way, is what Adorama says about its 11x14 blotter books - "50
> year ARCHIVAL quality, museum use approved. Each book holds 21 prints."
> Presumably not with use "once" and "once only", but the curious can seek
> clarification from Adorama.
>
> http :// www .adorama,com /DKBB1114.html
Yes, but at the risk of beating an already deceased horse, as you well
know, the blotter sheets are no longer archival quality once they're
contaminated with fixer, etc. How many times they can be used is, of
course, up to you, but if you really are after "archival quality", use
once only would be the way to go.
That "archival quality" bit reminds me of another absurdity I wonder
about from time to time: my shaving brush (yes, I'm that old-fashioned)
which has "STERILIZED" proudly stamped upon it. Well, it *was*
sterilized once upon a time, but that was a looooong time ago.
On 1/24/2008 11:55 AM Lawrence Akutagawa spake thus:
> Here, by the way, is what Adorama says about its 11x14 blotter books - "50
> year ARCHIVAL quality, museum use approved. Each book holds 21 prints."
> Presumably not with use "once" and "once only", but the curious can seek
> clarification from Adorama.
>
> http :// www .adorama,com /DKBB1114.html
Yes, but at the risk of beating an already deceased horse, as you well
know, the blotter sheets are no longer archival quality once they're
contaminated with fixer, etc. How many times they can be used is, of
course, up to you, but if you really are after "archival quality", use
once only would be the way to go.
That "archival quality" bit reminds me of another absurdity I wonder
about from time to time: my shaving brush (yes, I'm that old-fashioned)
which has "STERILIZED" proudly stamped upon it. Well, it *was*
sterilized once upon a time, but that was a looooong time ago.
Re: Home printing suggestions
David Nebenzahl wrote:
> That "archival quality" bit reminds me of another absurdity I wonder
> about from time to time: my shaving brush (yes, I'm that old-fashioned)
> which has "STERILIZED" proudly stamped upon it. Well, it *was*
> sterilized once upon a time, but that was a looooong time ago.
Not always. It could have been impregnated with something to kill
bacteria. Silver for one, would still continue to work.
Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson,com N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Visit my 'blog at http :// geoffstechno.livejournal,com /
David Nebenzahl wrote:
> That "archival quality" bit reminds me of another absurdity I wonder
> about from time to time: my shaving brush (yes, I'm that old-fashioned)
> which has "STERILIZED" proudly stamped upon it. Well, it *was*
> sterilized once upon a time, but that was a looooong time ago.
Not always. It could have been impregnated with something to kill
bacteria. Silver for one, would still continue to work.
Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson,com N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Visit my 'blog at http :// geoffstechno.livejournal,com /
Re: Home printing suggestions
In article <4798f9a2$0$1264$822641b3@news.adtechcomputers,com >, David
Nebenzahl
nobody@but.us.chickens says...
>
> That "archival quality" bit reminds me of another absurdity I wonder
> about from time to time: my shaving brush (yes, I'm that old-fashioned)
> which has "STERILIZED" proudly stamped upon it. Well, it *was*
> sterilized once upon a time, but that was a looooong time ago.
>
Not so absurd - there's some sort of nasty disease you can get from
badger bristle. It used to be common practice for the owner to boil his
new shaving brush, which could cause problems with the handle material
or the glue, but then the manufacturers started sterilising the bristles
first so boiling was no longer necessary.
In article <4798f9a2$0$1264$822641b3@news.adtechcomputers,com >, David
Nebenzahl
nobody@but.us.chickens says...
>
> That "archival quality" bit reminds me of another absurdity I wonder
> about from time to time: my shaving brush (yes, I'm that old-fashioned)
> which has "STERILIZED" proudly stamped upon it. Well, it *was*
> sterilized once upon a time, but that was a looooong time ago.
>
Not so absurd - there's some sort of nasty disease you can get from
badger bristle. It used to be common practice for the owner to boil his
new shaving brush, which could cause problems with the handle material
or the glue, but then the manufacturers started sterilising the bristles
first so boiling was no longer necessary.
Re: Home printing suggestions
In article <MPG.22037c42c33fd9e898b4ef@news.individual,net >,
Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld,com > wrote:
>In article <4798f9a2$0$1264$822641b3@news.adtechcomputers,com >, David
>Nebenzahl
>nobody@but.us.chickens says...
>>
>> That "archival quality" bit reminds me of another absurdity I wonder
>> about from time to time: my shaving brush (yes, I'm that old-fashioned)
>> which has "STERILIZED" proudly stamped upon it. Well, it *was*
>> sterilized once upon a time, but that was a looooong time ago.
>>
>Not so absurd - there's some sort of nasty disease you can get from
>badger bristle. It used to be common practice for the owner to boil his
>new shaving brush, which could cause problems with the handle material
>or the glue, but then the manufacturers started sterilising the bristles
>first so boiling was no longer necessary.
Anthrax! See:
http :// query.nytimes,com /gst/abstract.html?res=9E0CEED9133DE533A2575BC1A96E9C946896D6CF
Perhaps more of a problem in 1919 than today.
--
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls,com
"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to
be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky
In article <MPG.22037c42c33fd9e898b4ef@news.individual,net >,
Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld,com > wrote:
>In article <4798f9a2$0$1264$822641b3@news.adtechcomputers,com >, David
>Nebenzahl
>nobody@but.us.chickens says...
>>
>> That "archival quality" bit reminds me of another absurdity I wonder
>> about from time to time: my shaving brush (yes, I'm that old-fashioned)
>> which has "STERILIZED" proudly stamped upon it. Well, it *was*
>> sterilized once upon a time, but that was a looooong time ago.
>>
>Not so absurd - there's some sort of nasty disease you can get from
>badger bristle. It used to be common practice for the owner to boil his
>new shaving brush, which could cause problems with the handle material
>or the glue, but then the manufacturers started sterilising the bristles
>first so boiling was no longer necessary.
Anthrax! See:
http :// query.nytimes,com /gst/abstract.html?res=9E0CEED9133DE533A2575BC1A96E9C946896D6CF
Perhaps more of a problem in 1919 than today.
--
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls,com
"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to
be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky
Re: Home printing suggestions
"Thor Lancelot Simon" <tls@panix,com > wrote
> Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld,com > wrote:
> > David Nebenzahl nobody@but.us.chickens says...
> > > "archival quality" bit reminds me of my shaving brush
> > > which has "STERILIZED" proudly stamped upon it. Well, it *was*
> > > sterilized once upon a time,
> > Not so absurd - there's some sort of nasty disease you can get from
> > badger bristle.
> Anthrax! See:
> http :// query.nytimes,com /gst/abstract.html?res=9E0CEED9133DE533A2575BC1A96E9C946896D6CF
Another life-long mystery solved ...
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http :// www .darkroomautomation,com /index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com
"Thor Lancelot Simon" <tls@panix,com > wrote
> Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld,com > wrote:
> > David Nebenzahl nobody@but.us.chickens says...
> > > "archival quality" bit reminds me of my shaving brush
> > > which has "STERILIZED" proudly stamped upon it. Well, it *was*
> > > sterilized once upon a time,
> > Not so absurd - there's some sort of nasty disease you can get from
> > badger bristle.
> Anthrax! See:
> http :// query.nytimes,com /gst/abstract.html?res=9E0CEED9133DE533A2575BC1A96E9C946896D6CF
Another life-long mystery solved ...
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http :// www .darkroomautomation,com /index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com
Re: Home printing suggestions
In article <fnc4k5$ooq$1@reader2.panix,com >,
tls@panix,com (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:
>
> Anthrax! See:
>
> http :// query.nytimes,com /gst/abstract.html?res=9E0CEED9133DE533A2575BC1A96E9C9
> 46896D6CF
>
> Perhaps more of a problem in 1919 than today.
Now it just comes in the mail :(
--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.
In article <fnc4k5$ooq$1@reader2.panix,com >,
tls@panix,com (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:
>
> Anthrax! See:
>
> http :// query.nytimes,com /gst/abstract.html?res=9E0CEED9133DE533A2575BC1A96E9C9
> 46896D6CF
>
> Perhaps more of a problem in 1919 than today.
Now it just comes in the mail :(
--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.
Re: Home printing suggestions
In article <MPG.22037c42c33fd9e898b4ef@news.individual,net >,
Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld,com > wrote:
> In article <4798f9a2$0$1264$822641b3@news.adtechcomputers,com >, David
> Nebenzahl
> nobody@but.us.chickens says...
> >
> > That "archival quality" bit reminds me of another absurdity I wonder
> > about from time to time: my shaving brush (yes, I'm that old-fashioned)
> > which has "STERILIZED" proudly stamped upon it. Well, it *was*
> > sterilized once upon a time, but that was a looooong time ago.
> >
> Not so absurd - there's some sort of nasty disease you can get from
> badger bristle. It used to be common practice for the owner to boil his
> new shaving brush, which could cause problems with the handle material
> or the glue, but then the manufacturers started sterilising the bristles
> first so boiling was no longer necessary.
Syphilis?, Anthrax, or just general facial rot :)
--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.
In article <MPG.22037c42c33fd9e898b4ef@news.individual,net >,
Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld,com > wrote:
> In article <4798f9a2$0$1264$822641b3@news.adtechcomputers,com >, David
> Nebenzahl
> nobody@but.us.chickens says...
> >
> > That "archival quality" bit reminds me of another absurdity I wonder
> > about from time to time: my shaving brush (yes, I'm that old-fashioned)
> > which has "STERILIZED" proudly stamped upon it. Well, it *was*
> > sterilized once upon a time, but that was a looooong time ago.
> >
> Not so absurd - there's some sort of nasty disease you can get from
> badger bristle. It used to be common practice for the owner to boil his
> new shaving brush, which could cause problems with the handle material
> or the glue, but then the manufacturers started sterilising the bristles
> first so boiling was no longer necessary.
Syphilis?, Anthrax, or just general facial rot :)
--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.
Re: Home printing suggestions
In article <MPG.22037c42c33fd9e898b4ef@news.individual,net >,
Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld,com > wrote:
> Not so absurd - there's some sort of nasty disease
That will teach ya, you should not be molesting badgers, or badgering
them either.
--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.
In article <MPG.22037c42c33fd9e898b4ef@news.individual,net >,
Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld,com > wrote:
> Not so absurd - there's some sort of nasty disease
That will teach ya, you should not be molesting badgers, or badgering
them either.
--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.
Next: Registration Punch - Can you ID this one Pease
Previous: Rolex,Omega,Chanel,Gucci,LV watch,handbags,jean,boot,jewerly,nokia,iphone,cost...
