From: Christina Z. Anderson (tracez@mcn.net)
Date: 01/31/01-11:49:52 PM Z
Judy, et al:
Long post, so beware.
Oh my gosh: first of all, when you decide to heat up linseed oil and
paraffin on the stove, DON'T go read your alt process emails in the
meantime!!!!! 20 minutes later, cleaning up the mess and smoke (and don't
pour water in the pan when it is smoking--I bet Sil is having a heyday
reading this....I all of a sudden forgot all my "if a fire starts on the
stove" information), my notes are that paraffin and linseed oil melt VERY
rapidly and easily together.
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. I did do the coating of acrylic medium onto a
color copy from Kinko's and my opinion is....don't bother. It is very
difficult to rub off the paper backing without also rubbing off the color
part of the image. I did remove part of the image, but still used it,
attaching it to watercolor paper with acrylic gloss medium and will work
with it as a....pseudo something painting. The acrylic top coat, coated
about 8 times, was certainly very durable. I also peeled the RC paper and
that was a snap. I put the print in warm water, soaked it for 10 min,
pulled off the paper backing and that was plenty thin, but I decided to test
how far down I could also rub off the paper. I sanded with 400 grit a whole
lot more of the paper off. It does curl quite a bit.
> For what it's worth, if you use lith film instead of photo paper, it's so
> thin doesn't matter which side is "right reading." That is, you can print
> emulsion up without any noticeable lost of sharp.
The only reason I am not using lith for this assignment is it is an
assignment to wing it without a film negative...so it really isn't an
enlarged neg assignment but a "get away from f/64" kind of assignment.
Well, this is only half true; they start off with a neg in the enlarger to
make their print!
> But I believe if you use RC
> paper no fibre to speak of... or that's what they say. I haven't used it.
> But then the RC doesn't take pencil on the back very well -- unless you
> mat spray it, maybe?
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 HAVE done that peeling and rubbing, trust me it's easier to expose onto
> lith film.
Peeling was the easiest part of everything ELSE I screwed up. For instance,
stupid me didn't realize that all sandpapers are not made to be wet. Crocus
cloth cannot be wet; it totally loses its grit. The other process and
mistake I did was this: 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 have it from Gene Robkin, good old country farmer, maestro of all
> trades, that toilet seal is NOT beeswax, tho he allows that toilet seal
> might make sublime negatives. (Then again, he says it might not.) (As
> reported P-F #5.)
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?
> > 6) Use one of these formulae for your transparentizer: 1 oz. castor oil
> > mixed with 6 oz. alcohol. Or, 4 oz. paraffin mixed with 1 oz. linseed
> > oil: melt at 176? and soak print; let dry between blotting paper. Or,
use
> > 5 parts mineral oil to 1 part alcohol. Or, rub in white vaseline on
the
> > wrong side of the print, using a clean rag and allow to stand.
> Those sound promising -- probably smear less & do away with the hot
> iron... Is it safe to heat linseed oil & paraffin on flame? Maybe
> microwave?
I guess I answered this above!!!! Only safe if you are standing there
watching it, as it melts rapidly. Heat up the paraffin first and just add
the linseed, and it completely disperses. It does harden, tho, so maybe
just paraffin is fine. We'll see. I just love the smell of linseed, but
not burnt--the fumes are pretty caustic and my husband is ready to divorce
me.
> In my tests, inkjet neg WITHOUT waxing took 4 -5 times as long to expose
> as waxed. Some papers may be less dense, but I think you'd still want to
> wax.
This is very good to know--thanx.
> > slide to Kinko's and have them reverse the image to a negative and have
it
> > printed out for you, to save having to make a positive and then a
negative.
> > Or, you can print the ink jet negative on acetate, for a clearer base.
> Have you and yours had any luck with that last? I had some frosted
> acetate and it made a *surprisingly* clean ramp. No blobs, no texture. But
> it didn't give enough density for most media -- only to 0.7 log density
> tops. Some folks use TWO acetates bound together, however.
Have not personally printed one this way; have had it done and it seems
there are a lot of blips of no ink in the darks, so it would probably at
best print an artsy image. Will report on this later. I have printed half
tone enlarged negs from a company I can't remember the name of, and they
printed very detailed but dotty.
> Mortensen technique:
> > 1. Set up the enlarger with a negative focused and
> ready to print. Mark
> > exactly where the negative will project.
> > 2. In the darkroom and under safelight, take a piece of fresh unexposed
> > enlarging paper and soak it in a tray of developer for 3 minutes.
> > 3. Lay the wet enlarging paper face up on a sheet of glass or similar
> > material and squeegee the excess developer off. Use a paper towel to
blot
> > up any spots or runs. Work quickly to prevent staining.
> > 4. Place the glass and paper under the enlarger, registering it
accurately
> > with your marks.
> > 5. Turn on the enlarger.
> > 6. Nothing will happen for about 20 seconds; soon after, you will see
the
> > shadow areas of the print darken, then the midtones, and then the
> > highlights. The print will go from negative to gray to positive as you
> > watch it.
> > 7. When you think it is done, place in stop, fix, wash and dry. This
is
> > the diapositive. It will have soft shadows and look weird.
>
> Christina, I hate to embarrass myself in front of the whole class -- but I
> don't get that. I mean with all due respect to M. Mortensen, what's the
> point of making wet mess full of pitfalls for a pos, when you could just
> make a simple pos the regular way?
This is a good question; but I think his goal was the paper negative, and to
print the first positive on developed paper must give a semi sabattier which
would I think be the equivalent of a flat dull darker print needed to
contact a good negative. Once the good negative is done, then you can print
multiple positives from it without going through any fuss except the wet
paper emulsion to emulsion. I would suppose the wetness is desired to get
the papers to adhere together really well, perhaps to flatten fiber paper,
and to transparentize it? Who knows. I will test this in comparison with
the other processes outlined before and report back. Of course, all the
processes have that added benefit of being able to put pencilly marks and
pictorialist stuff to the paper..
>
> > 8. Work the back of the print, if needs be, with a charcoal pencil to
> > adjust the print. Fix charcoal marks with a fixative spray.
> > 10. Place this diapositive and a fresh sheet of unexposed enlarging
paper
> > in a tray of water for three minutes.
> > 11. Place the two sheets of wet paper, the unexposed sheet and the
> > diapositive, emulsion to emulsion, and squeegee them to the glass. Make
> > sure the diapositive is on top.
> > 12. Expose through the back of the diapositive under the enlarger light
> > (the negative has been removed from the enlarger).
> > 13.Put in stop, fix, and dry.
> > 14. Use charcoal pencil again to dodge highlights, if needs be, on this
now
> > negative.
> > 15. Follow steps 10-13 to make prints (or just contact print your dried
> > negative onto dry photo paper).
Will spare you all the details of my mounting on aluminum. Actually, with
Kent Rush's advice, it went great! But that is another thread....
Chris
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 02/05/01-11:45:24 AM Z CST