Re: oil print success

Hi Henk:

Thanks for the advice. More info on my materials and process.

A CGP negative.

CGP is an orthographic graphic arts film made by kodak.

More info on the film here:

http://www.kpgraphics.com/service_support/downloads/support/online/camera_2000/ti/TI1995.pdf

(you may have to copy and paste this URL into one continuous line)

I use my own developer to produce continuous tone negatives with this
film. Lets me make big negatives in pihole cameras (and lens cameras too)

My UV printer uses standard flourescent 4 ft Bl tubes spaced 3/4 inch
apart. The tubes are about 4 inches above my vaccuum frame.

My vaccumm frame is home-made plywood with a clear mylar cover

My gum exposures are usually 3 minutes

The ink - I didn't want to purchase any ink until I knew I could do the
process. I went to the print making department here at the Univesity of
Saskatchewan and asked if I could have a small sample of black litho ink.
They gave me some. I didn't think to check what they gave me. Its in an
unlabelled container.

On Tue, 30 May 2006, henk thijs wrote:

> H i Gord,
>
> >
> > For the matrix I used 5% gelatin, (plain Knox gelatin from the grocery
> > store) One 7g pack disolved in 140 mls water. Coated 3 coats with
> > poly-nylon brush on stonehenge. Let each coat dry before next.
> >
> > To sensitize soaked sheet two minutes in 5% K biChromate.
> >
> > Made three test exposures through a pinhole CGP negative, 3 6 and 12
> > minutes, and let them dry for a few hours
> >
>
> CGP negative, please help an ignorant printer from the continent.
> Anyway, I think this figures are not relevant as such, because the
> different parameters are unknown like 'what kind of bulb', 'distance
> between object and lightsource' etc. What I always try is to have an
> 'exposure-time-reference' to for example a gumprint (or cyanotype) with
> the same negative.
> In my case an exposure time of about 50 percent more compared to a
> gumprint is a reference.
> But as such I have the same experience : too long is as bad as too
> short. So I was very astonished seeing the times mentioned in the "Oil
> Pigment Prints by Ernest J. Theisen" , up to 30 minutes for
> paper-waxed-negatives. But again, there was no reference (but I made
> some preparations to try again with such long exposures; keep you
> informed :-)
>
>
> > I "superdried" the papers. Held them over a hot plate for a couple of
> > minutes and then blew a hair dryer on them for a few minutes each
> >
> > Soaked them for 15 minutes, in 20 degree C water. Actually I soaked
> > them
> > for a minimum of 15 minutes, while I tried inking each test I left the
> > others soaking.
> >
> > Blotted each dry with paper towel - is paper towel a poor choice for
> > drying?
> >
>
> First drying -both sides of the matrix- with 'something used for drying
> windows; absorbing easily water' (do not know the name, but ask your
> wife.....)
> After that the front with an old handkerchief; after that I wait some
> minutes to be sure the surface is not too wet.
>
>
> > Inked with a sample of black litho ink obtained from the U's print
> > department.
> >
>
> Again: U's department??? It is of some importance to use some 'litho' -
> ink , known as to be suitable for oil-printing, just to exclude a
> possible problem of bad-inking.
>
> > Worked the ink on a glazed tile till it was soft, transfered a small
> > patch
> > of ink from worked ink to the center of the tile with an old cosmetics
> > brush
> >
>
> If you would stick your finger in a pile of that ink, and the finger
> comes out really messy, the ink is too soft :-)
>
> > Inked from this patch with a foam roller, cosmetic brush and small
> > stencil brush..
> >
> > The 3 minute exposure gave the best results. The 6 and 12 minute
> > exposures were very flat.
> >
> > How does the soaking time after exposure and superdrying effect the
> > inking? I left the 3 minute test soaking the longest - perhaps 1/2 an
> > hour in total. I am wondering if the difference is related to both the
> > exposure and soaking time, or one more than the other.
> >
>
> I never had the impression that a longer soaking makes things better or
> worse.
>
> > Any good techniques for getting ink off the print :) A few spots were
> > inked way too heavily.
> >
> Big areas: spray water over it and use a clean foam roller going
> quickly over the print.
> Tiny spots with a bit ammonia on an applicator.
>
> > I had much better success making my own matrix this time than I did
> > trying
> > to use a fixed out printing paper. I tried oil printing some time last
> > year using fixed out fibre based paper - likely an ilford, or agfa
> > paper -
> > don't recall what paper I used. I wasn't able to get any image at all.
> >
> > Any inking secrets out there :)
> >
>
> No, I had the same experience.
>
> > Do you need to resoak the print when inking? If so how often? How
> > long?
> >
>
>
> Yes, if the paper starts to curl on the edges , just soak again.
> If you want to increase the contrast and do a kind of second soaking,
> boil some water and allow the steam to 'cover the image'; go over it
> with a clean foam roller and be happy :-)
>
> Succes,
> Henk
>
> ------------------------------------
> www.thijs-foto.com
> ------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------
Gordon J. Holtslander Dept. of Biology
holtsg@duke.usask.ca 112 Science Place
http://duke.usask.ca/~holtsg University of Saskatchewan
Tel (306) 966-4433 Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Fax (306) 966-4461 Canada S7N 5E2
---------------------------------------------------------
Received on 05/30/06-12:10:39 PM Z