Re: haunted GUM (update)
hi katharine,
thanks for taking time to have a look at this mess.
i didn't expect the tonal inversion either. at first i printed with the
pot-di with the same times as the am-di, because i totally forgot that i
changed it (mixed up some time ago, same bottle, same color...). then
the non-clearing layers occurred. since then i'm printing test strips
trying to bring some sense into this.
i do have a step wedge, but it's made by kodak and even bigger than the
chart throb scales. also i only have one. i tried to get a stouffer
recently, but i there was only one store in germany left that sells a
step wedge and it's not made by stouffer. later i contacted stouffer
directly, but they don't accept paypal and i don't have a credit
card....so this was delayed until the future.
you're right about the 1:30, this was the time i was placing my exposure
times around. there is no use in trying to establish a new exposure base
time until i can get rid of the stain and the non-clearing unexposed
areas. you saw how my 2:30 and 4:00min exposures look like.
ad 1)
same emulsion, same brush. only difference is that the newspaper pics
were taken with a digicam and not scanned like the others.
i wasn't aiming for an opaque layer, i just wanted to see how deep i can
get the shadows in one layer until i get flaking.
ad 2)
the "expectedly" was only because of the recent behavior . because of
the non-developing layers i saw earlier. it's not a one time thing, it's
repeatable.
i think the key to the riddle is finding out why unexposed emulsion
won't develop at all. or why it won't dissolve, it can be brushed off
quite well.
regards,
phritz
Katharine Thayer schrieb:
phritz, there's no reason why changing to potassium dichromate from
ammonium dichromate should cause tonal inversion, as long as you're
adjusting the exposure to accommodate the difference in sensitivity.
It's the dichromate ion that participates in the reaction that hardens
the gum, and that doesn't change; it's just that if you've switched
from saturated ammonium dichromate to saturated potassium dichromate,
you've roughly halved the number of dichromate ions per ml dichromate
(you could get the same effect, roughly, by staying with ammonium
dichromate and diluting to half the concentration) which means you've
reduced the light sensitivity of the emulsion, therefore, you need
more exposure. Did you do some test strips to determine the new
exposure when you changed dichromates? Eyeballing the charts from the
ammonium dichromate tests, it looks like your best exposure there is
about 1:30, so your best exposure for the potassium, depending on the
concentrations you're using in both cases, should be around 3:00 or so
according to my test charts which show a straight linear relationship
between dichromate concentration and speed (one-half the dichromate
>2x exposure, one-third the dichromate >3x exposure, one-fifth the
dichromate> 5x the exposure).
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're doing here, but it looks like
you're printing ChartThrob charts to determine exposure. Okay, but
wouldn't it use a lot less paper just to use a step wedge?
Some random comments in random order:
(1) What a gorgeous burnt siena; it makes my mouth water. But why
does it look so gorgeous and transparent on the newspaper and so dull
and chalky on the test strips, at the same pigment concentration?
If the pigment is as deliciously transparent as it looks on the
newspaper, you're never going to get an opaque coating layer with it
(this is referring to a comment you made yesterday about not being
able to get an opaque layer with the burnt siena) and to my mind,
that's a good thing. Also, an opaque coating layer isn't necessarily
something you want to strive for either; many gum teachers recommend a
layer that you can still read the text through if you brush it onto
newspaper.
(2) "expectedly, the two with heavier pigment load did hardly develop
at all, even after two hours" --that one has me baffled. There's no
"expectedly" to it; there's no reason for a print that's printed with
more pigment to take longer to develop, unless it's been grossly
overexposed in overcompensation for the heavier pigment load, which I
don't see any evidence of, as the exposures are the same for the heavy
pigment loads as for the light pigment loads.
I have more thoughts but I'll send this for now and follow up later.
Thanks for sending all those; it sure helps having something to look at.
Katharine
On Oct 7, 2009, at 6:22 AM, phritz phantom wrote:
hi all,
(quick recap:)
i recently switched from ammonium dichromate to potassium dichromate,
which i totally forgot. i think the pot-di is the most likely reason
for the trouble i'm having right now. i did print gum with the pot-di
before the mess, but this was on wood and canvas only, and i
force-developed each layer with a brush. this is why i haven't
noticed the new behavior earlier.
1st test strip (with explanation):
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c367/phritz/burntsiena1gr.jpg
this is with appr. 1gr of burnt siena (+ 5ml gum 16% + 5ml pot-di
saturated). you can clearly see the tonal inversion with the shorter
exposure times. on top there is a strip that was covered with
cardboard (covering the whole thing widthwise), that received zero
exposure. it is noticeably darker than the area that received 1min of
exposure.
similar result with lamp black (0.1gr)
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c367/phritz/lampblack01gr.jpg
expectedly the two ones with heavier pigment load did hardly develop
at all, even after 2 hours. again tonal inversion and nothing coming
off in the zero exposure areas.
2gr burnt siena:
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c367/phritz/burntsiena2gr.jpg
1gr iron oxide black:
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c367/phritz/ironoxideblack2gr.jpg
here's a pic showing the thickness of the emulsions:
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c367/phritz/coatings.jpg
and i dug up and old test strip from about 2 months ago, with the
same negative, same paper, same size, same mix of gum, same
pigment... only with am-di. this mix was 1gr of lamp black +10ml gum/
10ml am-di. exposure times start at 20sec and each grey scale gets
+20 sec, so it's from 20 sec to 3:00 min.
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c367/phritz/oldemulsion.jpg
i will try different papers and gum and pot-di in various strengths
next. hopefully there is a way out of this mess.
if anyone can offer some hints or ever experienced something similar
, it would be very much appreciated.
thanks,
phritz
ps.
judy, i will check out the archives and PF later today.
phritz phantom schrieb:
paul,
unfortunately i printed the negative, the one shown in the second
pic. that caught me completely off-guard and i took me a day to
realize what happened. it took a quick look first and it looked
normal with a lot of stain, then later i suddenly realized it.
there is definitely something fishy.... i printed all the test
strips this evening and i constantly get the tonal inversion.
although not as extreme as the first time. AND another thing i
consistent: no exposure - no pigment coming off at all.
another thing just dawned on me: those are the first gum prints i
made with the new batch of potassium dichromate. i've only used
ammonium before. i totally forgot that i mixed up a fresh solution
about two weeks ago. i think this is the first time i'm using it.
most likely it's the dichromate that is somehow responsible for this
mess. i'm using saturated solutions, so the exposure time should go
up naturally. it still doesn't explain the severe tonal inversion
and stuff.
is pot-di more prone to fogging (from room light)? maybe this is
some kind of solarisation, i'm having here.
i've never been especially careful about room light, but i never had
problems before. i coat with the lights on, then dry in the dark,
but i occasionally turn on the lights for a minute or two, when i
need to use the bathroom (this is where the drying takes place).
maybe the pot-di is on the phritz (!!) alltogether?
also i will try a different paper and a new mix of gum. maybe the
gum solution is foul.
the test strips are drying now, i will scan and post them online
tomorrow.
phritz
Paul Viapiano schrieb:
phritz...
The inversion you're seeing is weird, a positive of that chart will
always print with black text on white.
But you're printing the positive, right...you never inverted it to
print?
NOw, there's inversion that K speaks of on her site but that is not
TOTAL inversion, just a reversal of the high tones usually because
of gum/pigment ratio. I've experienced this once on a test strip. I
added gum and it was fine.
But a TOTAL reversal as you are claiming...well, I've never heard
of that at all.
Are you absolutely positive (no pun intended) that you exposed the
correct digital charts?
p
----- Original Message ----- From: "phritz phantom"
<phritz-phantom@web.de>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: haunted GUM (related to judy's favourite pet peeve:
the pigment ratio test)
dear katharine,
yes, this is my main source of confusion. i was experimenting with
higher pigment loads. i made three layers of yellows and reds (for
the highlights) and then wanted to add the shadows. i mixed up a
stong emulsion (the 2.5gr blue black one) and thought that the
worst thing to happen is that the layer just washes off and i can
do it again. i tried the heavy load to check the limits of the
process, to see how far i can go with the pigment concentration.
the layer not dissolving at all, that i was not prepared for.
i did this twice (i saved the excess emulsion from the first
coating). at first a 2:30 exposure and a 2-3h development, the
last hour in hot water (appr. 40°c/ 100°f), then i had enough and
brushed it all off. dried overnight and painted on the same
emulsion the next day. this time with only 1min exposure. same
result. no flaking, the emulsion did not move at all. also when
forcing the development with a brush, i did not see the usual
high-contrast image (the highlights coming off before the shadows
which got lots of light), it just came off all at once.
then i coated the test sheet with the 1.2gr of iron oxide. and saw
the pigment in the unexposed area behave the same way as the
emulsions before. this makes me assume that there is some kind of
connection. i just don't know which one.
....
i just wanted to type that the test sheets "printed with a lot of
stain, but in a way like i expected them to", then i started
wondering why the "stain" is happening in the areas that should be
pitch-black, because they are in the clear areas of the
transparency. now, i went and had another look at those and saw
that they are completely INVERSED. i printed negatives from a
negative (i did NOT forget to inverse the scale in photoshop).
here are the scans:
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c367/phritz/threestrips.jpg
the one on the left and the one in the middle got 1min exposure
(all three scales the same) from my sunlamp. the one on the right
got 10min of desk lamp.
here's the proof for the inversion:
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c367/phritz/P1010035.jpg
i think i'm losing my marbles here... we'll see how the test
strips from today will print.
phritz
Katharine Thayer schrieb:
phritz, you've got the right idea about different pigments
requiring different amounts to achieve a color-saturated layer;
pigments vary widely in pigment strength, as you're learning.
Most earth pigments, like your burnt siena, are quite weak as
pigments go, so it's not surprising that you don't get an opaque
coating with a fair amount of burnt siena (also, some burnt
sienas are quite transparent).
The main comment I want to make in a hurry is that underexposure
is not likely your problem. If your strip were "severely
underexposed" the gum coating would dissolve into the water
within a few minutes, leaving you a piece of white paper to dry
and try again. Since you have it even where there's no exposure,
that suggests stain rather than overexposure as the source of the
problem. Also, where you've wiped off the bulk of the pigment
layer on the area that received no exposure, there's still
significant stain left (that grainy deposit, that's pigment
stain.) Too much pigment, it looks almost certainly.
But there are a couple of things that don't make sense to me, so
maybe a clarification: I'm reading that this is one part of a
sheet you coated and tore into three pieces, and the other two
pieces printed fine? Could we see those? It doesn't make sense
that with two parts of the same coating on the same paper it
printed fine and with one part there was serious stain, so maybe
I'm not understanding your description/example/question.
But definitely not underexposed, if you've got heavy tone like
that that won't go away in 20 minutes of development.
There's an example with lamp black on my pigment stain page that
looks a lot like yours, down towards the bottom of the page,
compared to how it prints with half the amount of pigment. (third
visual down on the page).
http://www.pacifier.com/~kthayer/html/stain.html
Hope any of that is helpful
Katharine
On Oct 5, 2009, at 4:28 PM, phritz phantom wrote:
hi all,
my gum is acting strange again. the only reason i can think of
is an increased pigment load.
my standard pigment is lamp black, which is a very strong
pigment. 0.5gr are enough for a very thick and opaque layer
(before exposure). since i was used to this strong pigment, i
was generally using too little pigment for all the other colors,
resulting in very thin layers. so, i made a comparison sheet
with dabs of all the different pigments (all are powder
pigments) in various strengths. i was quite surprised to see
that for example 2gr (+5ml gum + 5ml saturated pot-di) of my
burnt terra di siena produces a coating that is neither thick,
nor opaque.
at first everything went fine, then suddenly a very thick blue
black coating (1,5gr iron oxide black + 1gr phthalo blue +5ml
gum + 5ml pot-di) didn't come off at all during development. ok,
i thought the reason was that i increased the exposure time as
well to compensate for the bigger amount of pigment. later: the
same with a short exposure of 1 minute. the next day: again,
with a layer with 2gr of burnt siena.
it was time to search for errors. i coated a sheet with 1,2gr of
iron oxide black (not my favourite pigment), again with 5ml gum
+ 5ml pot-di, ripped it in three parts and made a comparison of
the two different sheets of glass i use as printing frames and
put the third one for 10min under the desk lamp that i often
use during registration and such. the first two printed fine and
pretty much the same. but with the third one, i noticed
something strange. not only that there seems to be some uv
present in the light of the desk lamp, but also: i left part of
the sheet covered and it received zero exposure. and this part
stayed completely black, not a whiff of pigment came off in the
appr. 20min of development.
here's a scan of the test strip:
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c367/phritz/teststrip.jpg
the part on top with the white stripe received ZERO exposure. i
scratched off a little bit to show that the pigment is wet and
soaked. it can be removed, it just doesn't want to come off on
its own (nor did i have any success with brushing or sprinkling
of water, only nothing or everything comes off)
i'm sure this is somehow related to my problems. i'm just
getting too confused here. it probably means that my images were
severely underexposed. i did extensive testing for negative
colors lately and determined with a step wedge (unfortunately
not a stouffer one) that my minimum print time is 50seconds. i
printed the thick layers with up to 2:30min. still nothing.
(sorry for my total inability to write succinctly in english...
my apologies)
can anyone put some sense in this? i'm completely lost. any
tips, except trying even longer exposures?
thanks,
phritz
|
