Re: polaroid transfers without holder???

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: andrej hocevar (ah@siol.net)
Date: 12/20/01-05:01:11 PM Z


Thanks to you all for your replies (especially yours, Christina).
It's quite obvious now that my problems were caused by incorrect
development -- meaning that I shall get a holder. :)
I'll tell you when it's here!

On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 08:07:22AM -0700, Christina Z. Anderson wrote:
> Andrej,
> A couple of things, if I am understanding your email correctly: if you
> overexpose polaroid film it gets, just like slide film, blown out, but
> results in mushy white or yellow with no image. If you underexpose, it is
> all dark with no image.
> If you press too hard or unevenly you get streaky stuff that looks
> browny yellow, running the length of the image.
> I think if you get the film holder you will not run into this problem.
> It sounds as if you are inconsistently developing the image, maybe by not
> having even pressure throughout. When you use the holder you really need to
> pull the film out quickly and evenly in order to produce a perfect image
> with no marks.
> I admit I never use 669, only type 59 with the holder, because I prefer
> the bigger image. And I have never regretted buying the larger holder (was
> about $150) because I use it always in pinhole work, view camera work, and
> in the Daylab to do transfers.
> Another thing: I had a number of students do transfers this semester
> and they found that to brayer the image onto the water color paper for a
> long time (not just 5 or 6 passes, but to actually brayer about 2 minutes)
> and then to leave the negative in contact with the paper for longer (not
> just 2 minutes but up to 15 minutes, under glass, damp paper as usual, on
> top of a heating pad) they did not have lift off at all, and they produced
> beautifully even transfers. This goes against what Theresa Airey and
> Kathleen (?) Carr say in their books. One student did a beautiful project
> of an underwater nude pregnant belly dancer with scarves and it was
> beautiful. Nice turquoise blue water and fine detail.
> Chris
>
> > Hello,
> > even though I've been told that you cannot make Polaroid transfers
> > without the appropriate holder I decided to give it a try. The
> > result -- and I'm actually not complaining :) -- were 20 lost pieces
> > of 669 film. No problem, but before considering buying a holder I'd
> > like to clear some things.
> > This isn't really about transfers, it's just dry theory, so, please,
> > try to help me. I used a 600 series Polaroid camera's rollers to
> > spread the emulsion over the surface of the 669 film, exposed with an
> > enlarger. The results weren't OK; true, there are many factors,
> > starting with the exposure time etc. But what I got was an image, as
> > if trying to look OK at the beginning -- ie. the area near the
> > developing pocket -- and more and more yellow towards the other end,
> > vaguely reflecting parts of the motif.
> > Now what does that mean; was the pressure to high, did the developer
> > gel squeeze out too much?
> >
> > In short -- has anyone experience with that or is a holder
> > absolutely necessary?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > andrej


Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 01/02/02-04:47:33 PM Z CST