RE: Back-exposing on plastic (was: Re: Gum transfer

Dave,

I am not sure what people are trying, so here are the carbon transfer examples.

Single transfer carbon -- The exposure is from the top of the carbon
tissue. The exposed tissue is then mated in cold water with a final
support, squeegeed together, left together under pressure for 20-30
minutes, and then developed in hot water. This is clearly not going
to work with gum.

Double transfer carbon -- The exposure is again made from the top of
the carbon tissue, but after exposure the tissue is mated in water
with a final plastic support in cold water, the sandwich is left
together under pressure, and then the image is developed on the
plastic in warm water. After it dries, it is then transferred to a
paper support as I detailed in a previous message. This transfer
procedure may work for gum, since the carbon image on plastic and the
gum image exposed from the bottom are similar to the extent that the
hardened shadow densities are on the bottom.

Sandy

>Hi Katharine,
>
>I am not sure if I am reading your procedure correctly, but are you trying
>to develop the gum print on mylar first and then transfer it? That is not
>how it is supposed to work. For transfer work, you expose (from the front,
>not from the back), and then you can wet it, transfer, and then develop
>(similar to carbon transfer, and that is how Marek worked too as he
>described).
>
>Perhaps that explains why you didn't get the transfer to work in the past?
>
>Actually gum transfer also shows that hardening is from top.
>
>I also have other emails that I will respond to on gum hardening, but I will
>do that later in the week.
>
>
>Dave S
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Katharine Thayer [mailto:kthayer@pacifier.com]
>Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 3:47 PM
>To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
>Subject: Back-exposing on plastic (was: Re: Gum transfer
>
>Okay. Well, so far I'm not getting it to work, so there must be
>something different either in my materials or my method. I'm now
>getting a good solid gum layer that is probably overexposed because it takes
>forever to develop, but I'm getting really uneven results. I have one print
>on mylar that is coming out quite high-contrast (losing highlights) just
>like a heavily-pigmented coating would be if it were front-exposed. And
>another, that was coming out very well, very delicately continuous-tone,
>but then, after 35-40 minutes of exposure, started developing pinprick holes
>all through the gum layer, so the image is all full of these little holes.
>And contrary to your report, I'm finding that streaks and unevenness of
>coating do show up in the print. (My coating is very heavy, lamp black
>heavily pigmented and coated thickly so as to be completely opaque.)
>
>I suspect that my problem is that I'm exposing too long and hardening the
>layer all through (I don't get black gum coming off the top as you described
>the other day, and it takes a long long time before gum starts dissolving
>out of the less-exposed areas of the image). Maybe for this method it's
>better not to harden clear to the top of the layer. How long do you develop
>your back-exposed prints?
>Katharine
>
>
>On Apr 17, 2006, at 12:24 PM, Marek Matusz wrote:
>
>> Katharine,
>> I don't know much about the transparency material. Just a brand that I
>> picked up in a local office supply store a while back.
>> Marketed by HP. Come to think of it the transparency has a gelatine
>> layer on one side for injet printing, so perhaps it was pr-coated,
>> subbed or somehow prepared to accept gelatine layer. I soaked it in
>> chlorox to soften the gelatine and the brushed it off. Both sides seem
>> to be working the same.
>> Thanks for posting the image
>> Marek
>>
>>
>>
>>> From: Katharine Thayer <kthayer@pacifier.com>
>>> Reply-To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
>>> To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
>>> Subject: Re: Gum transfer
>>> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 10:53:14 -0700
>>>
>>> Marek, you betcha I'll add your image to my site. I'm right now
>>> trying to replicate your results with the thick heavily pigmented
> >> coating, with some interesting, not 100% successful, results, but the
>>> one that's soaking now looks promising. I've had a very difficult
>>> time getting the very thick gum layer to stick through
>>> development on untreated mylar, trying to replicate your
>>> conditions, and have had to retreat to the scuffed mylar. I wonder
>>> if your transparencies are made of some other more gum- accepting
>>> material.
>>>
>>> Katharine
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 17, 2006, at 10:44 AM, Marek Matusz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> There were a lot of interesting posts this weekend and I am going
>>>> thorugh them now. I have done a few more gum transfer experiments.
>>>> Here are some observations and issues.
>>>>
>>>> When exposing a gum layer through the substrate (glass, polyester,
>>>> etc). This is "expose through the bottom mode" heavy pigment
>>>> concentration is OK, coating imperfections are not that critical as
>>>> the air bulles rise to the top, streaks in coating are also on the
>>>> top. A thin image layer that adheres well to the substrate after
>>>> development shows relatively few imperfections and looks
>>>> suprizingly good. I have not done much more on that as I am waiting
>>>> for a sunny weekend where I can experiment with some gum on glass.
>>>>
>>>> Gum Transfer.
>>>> Here is how I approached it. I though it would be very difficult
>>>> to transfer actual developed and hardened gum image by means of
>>>> softening it and transferring to the paper. Instead a process
>>>> similar to a single carbon transfer was appealing to me. Here is
>>>> what happened.
>>>>
>>>> I coated a few sheets of plyester with same emulsion (gum, lamp
>>>> black, ammonium dichromate) that I used in my previous experiments
>>>> (expose through the back). This time I exposed in a traditional way
>>>> from the top. I will call it the gum tissue.
>>>> This should form a hardened image on top of the gum layer with
>>>> unexposed and soluble gum on the bottom. We know what happens when
>>>> you put this image in water. Everything just slides off.
>>>> OK, I then placed the gum tissue on top of gelatine sized paper,
>>>> made a sanwich let it sit for a while and placed in warm water to
>>>> start dissoliving unexposed gum so that the tissue and the support
>>>> could be separated. Then just wait until the water dissolves the
>>>> rest of the unexposed gum revealing the image.
>>>>
>>>> Some of the difficulties. Even a very short water immersion (cold
>>>> or warm) of the exposed tissue to remove dichromate softens and
>>>> starts dissolving the gum, no usable image can be transferred.
>>>>
>>>> The tissue image needs to have decent mechanical strength for the
>>>> transfer. It needs to be thicker, which suggest less pigment,
>>>> thicker coating.
>>>>
>>>> All the air bubbles and imperfection are on top, where the image is
>>>> formed. There are all visible in the final image. Rollesrs and
>>>> other means of smooting out the coat do not work with thick layers.
>>>>
>>>> My impression is that because the dichromate is present in the
>>>> transfer process for about 30 minuts, before tissue is pulled away,
>>>> I am getting a dark reaction, or something, as I am not getting
>>>> very clean highlights. My exposure might be too long, or dichromate
>>>> concentration too high as well.
>>>>
>>>> My negatives are for Pd printing, not for carbon. Just a minor
>>>> issue.
>>>>
>>>> As Sandy noted I could print in carbon, but it is such a finicky
>>>> process that requires a very precise time and temparature control..
>>>> I am still hoping that an easy way of transfer could
>>>> be found with gum, or perhaps gelatine/gum mix as I am thinking
>>>> now.
>>>>
>>>> I have one picture from this trials and perhaps Katharine would be
>>>> so kind to add it to her site.
>>>>
>>>> Marek, Houston
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
Received on Mon Apr 17 15:32:27 2006