From: Christina Z. Anderson (zphoto@montana.net)
Date: 10/07/01-09:48:44 PM Z
Judy wrote <snipping>:
> of which call for "cupric sulphate" with nitric acid, some for cupric
> chloride with acetic or citric acid. However, one calls for cupric
> sulphate with acetic acid. This I labeled EB-3, and noted that it's from
> "Relief Patent." (Several formulas accrued from looking up the original
> patents, which you could do then in the open stacks of the NY Public
> Library photo annex on west west west 43rd St. ) <etc.>
Thanks for the sources; I will continue my search on all this,
including perhaps searching under etch bleach instead of mordancage or
bleach/etch.
> "Example #1"
>
> copper sulfate 33 grams
> potassiium bromide 10 grams
> acetic acid (28% solution) 13 cc
> Hyprogen peroxide 25% solution 105 cc
> water to 1 litre
>
> "Example #2"
>
> copper sulfate 50 grams
> potassium bromide 15 grams
> acetic acid (28%) 15 cc
> potassium alum 15 grams
> water to one litre
>
AHAH! The missing ingredient: the first, above these two formulae, has
nitric acid with the cupric sulfate. The second and third have pot bromide,
etc. along with it. Good, I have all the ingredients of the Example 1 and
will mix and test. For the former and the second I will have to buy nitric
acid and potassium alum so that'll wait.
>
> I suspect however, some factor in the paper. Were your students using
> RC??? (I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that anyone would undertake a labor-intensive
> photo art process on RC paper, but the world so rarely asks my advice, let
> alone permission.)
They were using all brands, both fiber and RC. RC tends to produce really
clean, clear whites whereas staining does occur in the fiber most often.
Both papers work like a charm in the copper chloride/hydrogen
peroxide/acetic acid formula. As in, immediately bleaching out and emulsion
veiling off.
>
> My other formulas include some from Glafkides, and another patent, the
> "Monroe patent," also the "Neblette Handbook, p. 124." I don't think
> they're all that different, and I in fact found the several I tried rather
> forgiving -- that is, they could be re-used later, worked with drug store
> peroxide (didn't require bomb grade) etc. etc. But then I was using a
> paper of the period, Brovira #6, so who knows ?
>
> Finally, Chris, & Jon, it was my understanding that when you work on an
> already fixed print you use the loosened photograph, transferring it to
> another paper or letting it flutter in situ (which is what the only ones
> I've seen -- the Opalniks -- look like). So that *wouldn't* be a reversal,
> which I seem to recall you (Chris) said today all are ??????
> Judy
>
Now, Jon may refute me on all this seeing as he is the expert here, but
no, you never transfer the image, like as in a Polaroid Emulsion Lift, to
another support. The fluttering, or veiling, of the lifted emulsion is
attached to the highlight/midtone areas tenuously, able to be rubbed off if
wanted, but able to be left alone until drying at which time you can
artfully arrange the veils to dry and flatten back onto the photo paper
base. Once dry, they are stuck down again. It doesn't float off in a piece
but in lots of little gross tissue pieces. If you look at Opalenik's on the
web, you'll see this, especially in her nude woman where the highlighted
body is positive with the black background veiling around it. A polaroid
emulsion lift is actually quite all in one piece when it lifts off its film
support, and although a bit fragile, can be stretched and positioned easily.
Ive done 50 of them on top of a painting I had done, and they lifted and
transferred well (although a bit snotty). This process is a different
story, because the emulsion is disintegrating.
I also said, in all of my posts, that you can achieve a reversal OR a
positive with this process. If you completely rub off the emulsion and
redevelop, you get a reversal, because the highlights are the etched parts
that will grab onto the developer and go dark on you. If you don't
completely rub off the emulsion, it redevelops the positive image. That is
what I meant by "to rub or not to rub, that is the question". The images I
sent to you, Judy, a while back, were the same image of the basement steps;
one completely rubbed off, one not rubbed; the former a negative, the latter
a positive with veiling.
Thanks for coming up with the file. I can't wait to get back into the
darkroom and test again. Alas, that may be in 2 weeks...
Chris
BTW, in teaching my lesson on "distressing negatives" with bleach and such,
one of the students decided to take the proverbial bull by the horns and he
brought in muriatic acid to put on his neg. He put the muriatic acid,
unbeknownst to me, in an aluminum pie pan in the sink, and it totally ate
through the aluminum bottom in a very short time! Needless to say, I gave
the good old "ask me before you fool around" lecture and went to bed with
nightmares. Apparently his friend works somewhere at a swimming pool and
gave him some of the chemical to try out (?) Kinda scary that they use
hydrochloric acid in swimming pools, but isn't that also what is in our
tummies?
Chris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 11/02/01-08:55:27 AM Z CST