Re: Paper for Oil Printing

[Witho Worms en Jorien van Santen <verzet13@xs4all.nl>]

So Dick,

Don't go around the matter, what is your advice for me !

Witho


----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Sullivan" <richsul@earthlink.net>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: Paper for Oil Printing


> A month or two ago I had coated some gelatin 290 Bloom on Stonehenge 240
gm
> paper on my coating machine.
>
> On a lark I decided to sensitize it in 5% ammonium dichromate this was
just
> a best guess idea as I was going on memory. I exposed the neg and washed
> the paper for about 5 minutes. I then found an old bromoil brush and some
> Senfelders black litho ink and started pounding away.
>
> That produced the first print of the trees in the snow. Note that these
> were test negs and not anything exceptional as I was experimenting with
> carbon tissue.
>
> This took about an hour of pounding to produce.
>
> The second one was overexposed and it took another hour to ink up. This
was
> my first attempt at either an oil or bromoil but I've watched Gene
Laughter
> ink prints at APIS.
>
> Both prints are on a page at:
>
> http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/carbon/OildPrints/oil_print.htm
>
>
> No glycerine no fancy schmancy stuff, just gelled paper,  dichromated,
> exposed, washed and inked.
>
> The Stoenhenge comes in 50 inch rolls so I cut it down to a 25 inch and
can
> run 15 feet lengths now. I've considered making an oil paper for the
market
> but thought there might not be much of a market for it. I have the two
> prints in our reception room and people are quite taken by them.
>
>  From observation oil prints are more vibrant than bromoil. Gosh they ink
> up nice compared to what I've seen with bromoil.
>
> Bromoil does have the advantage of not needing an enlarged negative but
> from the little experience I've had my recommendation is if you have a
> large neg go with the oil print.
>
> --Dick Sullivan
>
>
>