U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: wiping KM73 polymer plates

Re: wiping KM73 polymer plates

Christina Z. Anderson wrote:
Jon,
I should have been more descriptive in what I mean by looking like a BW print: the solarplate will look tonally so much like a BW print that someone might think, why bother printmaking when you can print it in BW just as well? That's what I mean. This is the critique I got about my solarplate prints--almost a "so what"? But that is what intrigued me about the process, that and I personally feel that the printmaking process adds a texture and relief that isn't present in a BW print. But you are right that they are different.
Hi Chris -- thanks for the clarification. I've gotten the same 'so what -- why bother?' response from laymen. Good point about the relief. Nancy also mentions the ability to work in graphical elements such as scraping, and composing multiple plates into to a print -- so it's not just a different way to make a photograph -- it's a different way to make an image (albeit unlike most photographs -- intaglio prints are 100% archival and chemically quite neutral -- just oil-based inks on rag cotton paper).
Some traditional intaglio printmakers are often quick to dismiss the importance of achieving more photographic qualities - citing the typical, high-contrast, xerox copy look is "good enough" to get their point across, and that if you want something that looks like a photograph will recommend you "do photography" instead.. I suppose if intaglio printmakers really wanted that look in the (recent) past, they would simply chine colle a photograph into their print with wheat paste! Viola! Done.

The answer to 'why' for me is that printmaking from an intaglio plate affords many wonderful, hands-on techniques one can't really achieve any other way -- from layering chine colle paper to add color and texture, or to emphasize sections of the piece by selectively wiping different areas, or adding colored inks to different regions of the plate, to laying down multiple veils of inks to add to or subtract from a composition, to using several plates on a single print, etc.... Thinking of Printmaking in this sense -- as I think Nancy was alluding to -- a photograph can be just an element in a larger piece -- it expands the realm of composition beyond the viewfinder, which is quite exciting and challenging. Also, in this realm of Printmaking, no one really seems to expect it to look like a photograph, nor do many of the established printmakers want the headaches of having to live up to that kind of standard "all of a sudden". They work with what they know. The photographic image is only one of their tools - not an end in and of itself.


So you explained something, below. I used to only use cheesecloth because the plates seemed to scratch. This year I went ahead with the double exposure aquatint screen. I have been using tarlatan and didn't know why it wasn't scratching anymore. So it's the aquatint exposure?? I have also begun post exposing 10mn UVBL at least and it seems very hard to me. Boegh says a plate will do 1000 pulls, whereas someone else (Dan Welden probably) says 25-150.
Yeah -- aquatint is the way to go to achieve photographic results. I've played with other methods -- none of which I'd care to repeat unless I was going for a specific effect to get more texture into the piece by experimenting with controlling open bite -- now there's an interesting thing to try...in my retirement maybe. ;-)

Coarser aquatint screens will probably minimize the scratch factor -- that's my sense. Even then, thinner, low contrast images (perhaps due to improper exposure) do have a tendency to scratch more easily.

I'm not so worried about quantities anymore for my own work (and most of my clients don't want more than 20 prints anyway), but I have heard the same numbers as you cite. I have yet to see an edition of 100 off the same plate to compare print #5 with print #95, but I'm betting there's a discernible difference.


The one thing that does bug me a bit is the appearance of slight aquatint screen in the highlights sometimes. I expose the screen 1mn15sec and the image 8mn45sec which is way different than say 1/3/2/3 or 1/2 times other books recommend. I was just searching for when open bite no longer occurred on my aquatint test plate and that was the time.
If it's what I think you're describing - yes - that coarse peppering in the highlights is one of the reasons I moved to a finer stochastic screen, custom made at 1800 dpi from CopyGraphics, Santa Fe. My prints look less graphical now and more like a B&W photograph.

As far as exposure times - most printmakers I know have a 1:1 ratio (or very close to it) for their screen/image. This can vary depending on how you make your image transparency, however. For example, if it's too dense, you may find you are having to increase the exposure time of the image to compensate for that....which is fine if you're getting good results, of course.


I also find it interesting you say, below, that there is a dif between this and true gravure. I would love to see an image printed both ways side by side. In this collaborative portfolio I am in, one of the others is using Z'Acryl sheets on copper and then etching it with ferric so it'll be fun to compare our work. But I find that, for instance (not having done gravure) that the look of a mezzotint--a kind of soft velvet--is so distinct that I can imagine the interaction of the metal microscopic bits must print differently than plastic in any printmaking process.
I agree, and I've not seen a side by side comparison of identical images, poly/copper. Certain copper I have seen up close by the master printmakers who specialize in copper are astonishing. In a way, better than any process I've ever seen in terms of the perceived depth and presence one can achieve. But, apparently the headaches (not to mention toxicities) involved in getting good results with that process are just as, if not more problematic than polymer -- from what I've heard. For me, polymer is the path I've chosen for the time being and I'm very satisfied with it. If I really wanted to work with the Cadillac of intaglio photo processes though, I'd do copper.

Thanks for the discussions all....I hope they continue.

Jon