From: Katharine Thayer (kthayer@pacifier.com)
Date: 02/07/03-07:26:10 AM Z
Hi Chris,
My response about paper negatives was in response to your statement that
paper negatives have UV inhibitors and are unsuitable for alternative
processes, to which I responded that I've used all kinds of papers for
negatives for gum printing without a problem. If you're talking
specifically about RC papers only, which it looks now like you are, I
must qualify my response. I've never used RC papers; unpeeled, the
plastic base blocked the light completely, and my few attempts to peel
it were totally unsuccessful, in spite of all the good advice I got
about how to do it. So I've never used an RC paper as a negative, and my
remarks do not apply to RC papers. The papers I've used have been mostly
single=weight fiber-based papers, double-weight that once, and many
kinds of digital papers.
Katharine Thayer
Christina Z. Anderson wrote:
>
> I never knew this, too, and I had put a chapter in my workbook on paper
> negs and also recommended them for alt processes, and last semester either I
> read, or someone told me, or it was on this list or the pure silver list
> that "RC papers have a UV blocker so they don't work well for alt process UV
> sensitive processes like platino, cyano, and VDB" is the way I wrote the
> statement in the margin of my workbook (for the next revision). So I am
> tracking it down for you. However, apparently you do not find this to be
> the case, which is GOOD news for me because then I can continue to say what
> I've said! But maybe it is partially true of RC papers and it requires
> peeling, yet not true of fiber....I'm waiting for a call from Kodak and
> their opinion.
> Speaking of which, as I am researching about 10 alt processes to get
> all my notes in one place and one format--Pagemaker--I have a stack of 15-20
> books at my kitchen table. With each process I read all the books, and take
> notes. I am absolutely amazed at the inconsistencies and wrong information
> published. I know we have talked about this before on this list, in
> specific, related to Scopick's pigment test (let's not rehash that again),
> but really! For instance, one formula for argyrotype had the elements mixed
> in 1 ltr of water, when all other books had the same amounts of ingredients
> mixed in 100ml water. I think that is a pretty big mistake (?) unless there
> is the ability for argyrotype to work under all kinds of dilutions.
> More importantly, to answer the original poster's query about paper
> negs by reversal, here is the following I found in Worobiec's Beyond
> Monochrome:
> 1. Put neg upside down in carrier.
> 2. Expose it 3 stops darker than it should normally print.
> 3. Develop as normal; you'll get a black print.
> 4. Wash.
> 5. Put the print in a tray of sodium sulfide at normal strength for sepia
> toning (1:7-1:9) for 2 minutes. It'll be yukky green/brown.
> 6. Wash
> 6. Put in tray of 10% pot ferri bleach for 3-4 min. A reversed image will
> now appear as the bleach removes the original overexposed image leaving a
> sepia brown negative. White lights can be turned on about halfway thru this
> process.
> 7. Wash, fix, wash, and dry.
> 8. Use to print, emulsion to emulsion.
> Contrast controls are in initial exposure length or filter used.
> I have not tried this, but if someone would, report back.
> Chris
>
> > Christina Z. Anderson wrote:
> > > Martin,
> > > Some have said that UV inhibitors exist in paper, and thus paper
> negs
> > > are unsuitable for alt UV processes.
>
> > This is news to me, Chris, and I don't recall reading that anywhere.
> > Could you give me a source? I've used all kinds of paper negatives,
> > oiled, waxed, and not, for gum prints. How the exposure time varies
> > relative to film varies according to what film and what paper, but in my
> > experience paper doesn't in general give a substantially increased
> > exposure time over film, and what increase there is would be
> > attributable to the thickness of the paper and the fibers in it, I would
> > think. If that is all they're talking about, why don't they just say
> > that, instead of invoking a term like "UV inhibitor."
> >
> > The one thing that doesn't work is unpeeled RC paper; that DOES have a
> > UV inhibitor in the form of a big slab of plastic. I even used
> > double-weight fiber paper once for a negative (took a ton of oil for the
> > 16x20 paper and still wasn't really soaked through) but the exposure was
> > only 5 minutes as opposed to my usual exposures around 3 minutes.
> > Katharine Thayer
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 03/04/03-09:19:08 AM Z CST