From: Rod Fleming (rodfleming@sol.co.uk)
Date: 05/14/00-11:57:20 AM Z
Hi Tony,
Being into chrysotype puts you in the experimental class.
I think that the thickness of the gelatin layer is the issue; if it is very
thin or has sunk into the paper, it may be that the
paper base will show through whatever...........Can you make the gelatin
layer thicker? Or get it to sit higher- change of size perhaps? It seems to
me that the gelatin would have to have some measurable thickness over the
base for it to glaze properly. Maybe changing to a less textured paper would
help?
You have to remember that the papers that glazing works on are commercially
produced, with thick emulsion layers and very smooth substrates coated with
kaolin. I suspect you're going to have to get as close as you can to that
model, but how possible that is with your process I have not a clue.
I can't see any reason why one gelatin based process should be less amenable
to glazing than another, which is why I am offering these thoughts. I think
you should be able to do what you want but you might have to do a bit of
experiment. However it is also possible that in getting a paper that will
glaze you will lose some of the effects you desire.
Rod
---- Original Message -----
From: "Darlington Media Group" <postmaster@mediaworkshop.demon.co.uk>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2000 01:36
Subject: Ferrotyping Alt. Prints. (original question)
> Dear All,
>
> It has been fascinating reading the discussion regarding altenative
methods
> of glazing, plus some excellent reminiscences and also whether or not
> ferrotyping or glazing is a topic for this forum. However, my original
> question which began this thread, was ferrotyping altenative prints, not
> silver gealtin prints.
>
> Let me clarify. I would like to impart a glossy finish to some of my
> Chrysotype prints in order to amplify the beautiful colours which are
> apparent in the wash water but dull a little when dry. An age old problem
> of seduction! I know that it is the preference of many, that a platinum or
> even a gold print should have a matte surface and usually I would be in
> total agreement with this edict. There may be an argument that by
'glazing'
> a noble metal print, I would be adulterated by such treatment and may end
> up being indistingushable from a digital print on a glossy paper.
> Nevertheless, I am the author and artist and reserve my right to desecrate
> my work in any way I feel fit so to do. <g> No one berates an artist for
> using oil or acrylic paints instead of watercolours.
>
> I do not wish to use waxes or varnishes as they may interfere with the
> longevity of the print. The method I would like to adopt is 'cold
glazing',
> using a sheet of glass as a glazing sheet. The advantage of this method as
> I see it, is that it is totally reversible. If the technique is
> unsuccessful or if for aesthetic reasons the glazed print does not meet
> with my expectations, then I simply return it to the wash water.
>
> Yesterday evening, I took a reject 'Chrysotype' (I seem to get a lot of
> these) and coated with 3% gelatin solution, drying the print thoroughly
> between coats. I then 'hardened' the gelatin using a 2% solution of
> formaldehyde (I din't have any glyoxal). I washed the print for 30 minutes
> and squeegeed the wet print, face down, to a sheet of clean glass. I
> covered the edges of the print with damp tissue and left the print
> overnight to dry.
>
> Trouble is, it didn't work! The print had separated from the glass but the
> surface was as before, matte! Where did I go wrong? Is it possible to
glaze
> an altenative print in this way? Any comments that are relevant would be
> greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks ........ Tony McLean.
>
> Why not take a look at the latest issue of Camera & Darkroom magazine?
> http://www.camera-and-darkroom.co.uk
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 06/13/00-03:10:19 PM Z CST