[alt-photo] Re: Metalotype

[Bob Barnes]

Whoa....maybe it's only a matter of time!
Thanks Cor!


On Mar 11, 2010, at 9:06 AM, <C.Breukel at lumc.nl> wrote:

> Got this mail form Mike Ware some time ago (I am on a mailing list of
> mike, guess some people already heard about it). Anyway: food for
> thought I guess....
>
> Cor
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>
> Metalotype:  Metal-jet Printing
>
>
> The current practice of Hybrid Digital-Alternative Printing involves
> making large negatives digitally with an inkjet printer, in order to
> contact-print them photographically onto hand-coated 'alternative'
> sensitized papers of the 'single-layer' category, such as cyanotype,
> argyrotype, palladiotype, platinotype and chrysotype.
>
>
> With the advance of digital printing technology, this wasteful and
> complex procedure could soon become redundant: to obtain an identical
> result, it would only be necessary to fill an inkjet printer cartridge
> with a solution of Chemical A, and print the 'potential image' onto a
> sheet of fine paper. This would then be 'developed' in a solution of
> Chemical B, which reacts with Chemical A to produce the desired image
> substance in situ, probably in nanoparticle form; the print is then
> washed and dried. Depending on the choice of Chemicals A and B, the
> result could be a plain paper print in: Prussian blue, silver,
> palladium, platinum or gold, with the image substance embedded in the
> surface fibres of the paper, just the same as hand-coated siderotypes
> printed photochemically - and laboriously - from negatives.
>
>
> Such prints should be indistinguishable in their chemical and physical
> structure from those made by the  traditional methods.
> I suggest the names Metal-jet Printing or Metalotype for this  
> procedure.
> It would have the following advantages:
>
>
> 1) It would eliminate all the alternative photographic  
> paraphernalia: no
> UV light sources, printing frames or vacuum easels,  coating  
> implements,
> safe lighting, photosensitive chemicals, etc. This might encourage  
> more
> digital photographers to try 'alternative' image substances and fine
> papers.
>
>
> 2) It would eliminate the large internegative - which is costly in
> ceramic-coated film and pigment printer inks.
>
>
> 3) The wet processing procedure would be simple, reusable,  
> economic, and
> eco-friendly.
>
>
> 4) For a print of an 'average scene', it would consume less than one
> tenth of the amount of precious metal required at present, because  
> none
> is washed away in the processing. Saving over 90% of the cost of
> platinum, palladium, silver, or gold would be a significant benefit
> which could widen the appeal and use of these precious metals as print
> media.
>
>
> The possibilities do not end there, however: because there is no need
> for the imaging system to be photochemical, a wide range of simple
> chemical reactions - by metathesis or by reduction-oxidation -  
> could be
> employed to make digital photographic prints on plain paper in all  
> sorts
> of stable pigments never previously usable; for instance, the  
> insoluble
> sulphides, selenides, chromates, and iodides  of various heavy metals
> such as lead, bismuth, mercury, cadmium or silver. Besides the  
> familiar
> Prussian blue, other coloured ferrocyanides and ferricyanides are
> possible. In addition to the traditional platinum, palladium and gold,
> the other 'noble' metals could be reduced, as images in rhenium,
> ruthenium, rhodium, osmium and iridium (should anyone wish to do so).
> Three-colour printing should also be possible. Other metals and more
> exotic pigments will suggest themselves to the inventive chemist as
> potential image substances, but the chemistry required is mostly
> elementary - CM 101.
>
>
> The difficulties could be expected to arise with achieving an
> appropriate rheology of the "ink" solution of Chemical A for the
> piezoelectric printheads, by adjusting its surface tension and  
> viscosity
> parameters for the best distribution in the cellulose paper fibres.
> Doubtless these are deep commercial secrets, already well- 
> understood by
> the manufacturers of printer inks. A benefit would come from the "ink"
> being a true solution, not a particulate suspension, so there would be
> no problems of clogged printheads; there may however be issues of
> corrosion and toxicity with some chemicals.
>
>
> Is there anyone out there with the technical know-how to convert an
> inkjet printer to this use? I'm just amazed that it seems not to have
> been done already. A chemically-dedicated inkjet printer could simply
> eliminate the negative and the photochemistry. This is the logical end
> result of 'hybrid practices' using digital technology. Unless one  
> chose
> to embrace pure analogue photographic practice, it would be time to  
> bid
> farewell to all siderotypes!
> (Meanwhile, I continue to make them...)
> Mike Ware, March 2010
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dr Mike Ware
> 20 Bath Road
> Buxton
> Derbyshire
> SK17 6HH
> UK
>
>
> +44 (0)1298 78604
> mike at mikeware.co.uk
> http://www.mikeware.co.uk
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo