From: Christina Z. Anderson (tracez@mcn.net)
Date: 02/02/01-11:45:50 AM Z
Test results of waxed paper negatives:
I tested 1) beeswax pastilles from Daniel Smith on fiber 2) paraffin on
fiber 3) paraffin mixed with linseed on fiber 4) no waxing of fiber 5)
toilet seal on fiber 6) no waxing on RC 7) working from a dull positive to
start 8) working from a dark but contrastier negative to start 9)exposing
original RC contacted onto RC, with enlarger lens wide open with 150mm lens,
condenser enlarger, for 7 seconds 10) same for 14 seconds.
Results: 1) as far as wax goes, easiest, least smelly was paraffin.
Just iron the print until it gets warm and rub the stick of paraffin right
on. It melts readily. Iron again between blotter paper, or, as I did, old
typing paper. Works fine. This gives a good, clean, dry paper negative.
There was no apparent functional difference in printing between this and
the other waxers, but toilet seal is a sticky mess, and does not really dry,
leaving a greasy surface to the negative. Linseed oil in paraffin does dry
completely, but I cannot see any reason to add linseed oil to paraffin.
Paraffin is so cheap, too, and available wherever canning supplies are sold.
I would not bother peeling the RC print, either, as exposure times were
plenty reasonable with an untouched, unwaxed RC print, and the peeled RC was
a bit pebbly and unflat. Watch cracking your fiber paper, though, as it did
on two of mine.
2) Paper texture: RC has very little discernible texture. It softens
the print but you cannot see a definable grain formation as you can in fiber
(Ilford and Forte). Fiber definitely has grain, which you can readily see
when waxed. Consequently, there is not a huge difference in print quality
between the original RC and the 3rd removed RC contact print. This tells me
that using RC as a paper negative for alternative processes would be
excellent. Really, I got a full scale print out of this. Contrast does
increase in the process, so a dark and dull print to begin with is in order,
probably one stop darker and 2 filters duller (I know this is not very
scientific).
3) Resultant negative: It seems the more exposed negative works the
best. Contrast is higher with the less dense negative. But there is not a
huge difference here, and both the 7 and 14 second negative produced good
prints. The negative from the dark, contrasty print was too contrasty by
far.
4) Need for waxing: I took a fiber 11x14 and waxed 1/3 with paraffin,
1/3 with paraffin mixed with linseed, 1/3 with no wax, and printed it.
Waxing definitely cut the exposure time by 1 1/2 to 2 stops (thus, triple or
quad the exposure time). The only thing I did not test which I should have
is waxed vs. unwaxed RC, to see if this were the same for RC or if the
plastic base somehow changed that result. I did print one print with a wet
negative and this did NOT work; there were splotches of water everywhere.
5) Lazertran is available in NY 1-800-245-7547 or 516-352-0730, $2 a
sheet; color copy onto it was $2 per copy also (it is 11x17). It is super
thin and took ink very well, so if a color copy or a BW xerox could tonally
print well enough for a negative, then you could easily mount this on thin
glass and have a glass negative. It is pretty thin. It is used as an etch
resist, also, so there must be possibilities for this. I only printed
positives on it for layering over other visuals.
I think this answers most questions asked.
Chris
>
>
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Christina Z. Anderson wrote:
> > Today I tried Daniel Smith beeswax pastilles, white little teeny
> > thingies, that melt rapidly with an iron onto the fiber neg. The neg
waxed
> > up quickly and well. This is being said, of course, before printing.
Will
> > let you know printing results as soon as they happen. I mixed up the
> > linseed and paraffin (the amount that didn't burn) and will try that
> > tomorrow as another waxer.
>
> If I wax again, will try either or both of those -- sound like less
> trouble than melting paraffin. But does the linseed oil dry? Sounds like
> it might stay tacky.
>
> > RC paper takes pencil fine on the back without a spray. In fact, it
softens
> > the pencil marks a bit. Will see if, with the class, there are any
paper
> > texture marks with RC or not and report back.
>
> I believe there are some RC papers that do take pencil, but some that
> don't. The one I had was a don't.
>
> > I used a product called Lazertran (has anyone heard
> > of it? New here in the states I think in the last year; started in GB)
> > which is really swift; it is a very thin transfer clear paper that you
can
> > put through a copier machine. Then, you put it in water, and the
backing
> > paper within a minute (after laying out flat) slides right off. The
front,
> > the clear "decal" looking stuff, has an adhesive on the back. It is
super
> > thin. On metal, glass and plastic, it adheres with nothing but itself.
On
> > paper or canvas, use acrylic medium. On other surfaces (oil paint, for
> > instance) use turpentine as a base and a topcoat to meld the substrate
into
> > the receiving surface. So, anyway, it says you can bake it on the
metal,
> > which I did--while I was testing out 4 or 5 other processes. It got a
> > little crispy. Actually it got a little black! And bubbly. On
aluminum.
> > But heck, it has *real* fun possibilities. I love it! Moral of this
story,
> > too; when using heat, don't turn your back.
>
> I saw lazertran at a CAA conference, but wasn't available yet. Where did
> you get? Is it expensive? Can you make negatives with it?
>
> > Will try toilet seal tomorrow. It looks like beeswax but smells of
> > petroleum. It is also more sticky and malleable than beeswax. Methinks
it
> > is a combo of wax and like...vaseline, maybe?
>
> But toilet seal never dries....
>
> (Isn't there a tune for that?)
>
> best,
>
> Judy
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/06/01-04:55:37 PM Z CST