Carbon Transfer Questions

[Vaughn]

Vaughn, I've got a dozen rolls of 120 I need to develop. Some are of my boys when they were in college and some of the others? I really need to develop them.

Takes some getting used to using the x-ray film as a tissue support but you can use it over and over

I had 10 rolls to develop -- I went into work early a few mornings last week and developed 4 at a time.

The x-ray film as tissue support -- would it be approbiate for first-time printers (workshops), or would it be better to stick with the much more flexible .004" litho film I normally use?

 

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Vaughn, I use the x-ray film in my workshops. That way they get used to a stiffer support material and I give them the options of using other substrates. Seems like my students who have remained serious about carbon still use it.

 

[PVia]

Is the xray film stiffer than Yupo? That's what I've used for my first foray here...

 

[Jim Graves]

Vaughn ... I've also switched to x-ray film substrate for the tissue support ... I don't like it as well in development ... it is harder to pull and takes longer to melt the tissue ... but it is cheap and reusable and curls less.

I also use a blank piece of the x-ray substrate between the vacuum frame and the tissue to prevent a pattern transfer from the frame.

 

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Jim brings up a good point about the curl. There is none with the x-ray film. I find it melts in about 2 1/2 to 3 minutes and peels nice and smooth. This is if exposure is correct! I do love the fact that one can use it over and over.

Paul, I'm not sure how it compares to Yupo. I've never used Yupo.

 

[ghostcount]

I took Jim's workshop and I still use the X ray films he gave me - last for a quite a long time. I agree that it takes longer to melt since it's thicker, but I seem to solve this by making the water a little hotter (closer to 120 F).

 

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Getting closer on the sky issue I am having.

 

[Vlad Soare]

Nice print, Jim.

I have a new problem.
I wasn't very happy with the color of my pigment, so I got some lampblack, because I wanted to get neutral tones and real blacks. It's not some carbon-based watercolor or anything like that, but pure lampblack powder. I didn't change anything else in the workflow, I mean I'm using the same brand of gelatin, the same amounts of water, gelatin and sugar, I use the same method of pouring the glop and do it at the same temperature. All that has changed is the pigment.
The glop separates from the support as it dries. I've tried with two different kinds of plastic foils, one of which I had already used before with good results. The same happens with both. As the glop dries, its edges start lifting little by little, and when it's completely dry it's separated from the support. In the end I get one nice and clean piece of plastic, plus one standalone piece of dry gelatin.

What am I doing wrong? :confused:

 

[ghostcount]

Jim would prolly recomend living by the beach.

I too experience this, some of my tissues (x-ray film so it's stiffer) would separate and some won't - all from the same batch of glop. I don't believe it's the pigment, most likely its the humidity. When we had the rain I mixed the glop with less sugar, after the rain my unused tissues separated.

 

[holmburgers]

I've had the same problem with pigmentless-gelatin on Photoformulary's melinex support. I think that water under the gelatin can lead to it.

 

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Vlad, I'm thinking that it is a humidity issue also. Randy, nice call! Check what your humidity is and I'd say to up your sugar content a bit. I've used Kremer Pigments Lamp Black powder but in small amounts. 1-2 grams mixed in with the liquid ink. Did you put the powdered pigment into an aqueous solution before you put it in the glop? If not this may be the problem. I'd back off and add small amounts of powdered pigments at a time. Something on my to do list! Good luck.

 

[Vaughn]

Once I forgot to add the sugar -- as the tissue dried (pinned to cardboard), the gelatin popped off the tissue support and was on the floor, leaving the tissue support still pinned to the cardboard. So the suggestion to add more sugar is a good one, plus the one about making sure the tissue support is dry before pouring on the glop.

In other news, I printed a few carbons using the x-ray film as the tissue support. Worked fine, but I prefer the thinner litho film (.004" vs .007" thick) for ease of removal in the developing bath.

With my N1000 NuArc, 99 units is about a minute and 15 seconds exposure. This means I have to hit the button up to 20 times for a decent print -- if the neg is not too dense. So for some negatives, I will be going back to my 450W and 750W self-ballasted merc lamps as they are a heck of a lot easier and cooler to run. But the NuArc is nice with its vacuum frame for larger negatives. I'll have to look into a way of adjusting the timer on the NuArc.

Vaughn

 

[PVia]

Vaughn,

So your exposures run 25 minutes, generally?

 

[Vaughn]

Vaughn,

So your exposures run 25 minutes, generally?

About 20 minutes minimum but usually closer to one hour (2 hours when I was working with just a single 175W merc vapor lamp). These times are with 450W and 750W self-ballasted merc vapor lamps (w/ built-in reflector)

My record with the single 175W was a six hour exposure -- beautiful print. I toasted the negative a little when I tried for 10 hour exposure.

I tried a 20 minute exposure in the NuArc (by-passing the "timer"), but the heat build-up was too great, even with the built-in fan. Since it is an enclosed unit, I would have to remove the door, by-pass the safety switch (keeps the light from being on when the door is open), and blow cold air into the unit. Might be worth doing -- but it is also nice not having UV shooting all over the place.

Vaughn

Editing to add that the times for t he 750W lamp in so negs up to 8x10. Larger negs take a little longer as I have to raise the lamp up higher for even coverage.

 

[Vlad Soare]

I think I may have forgotten to add the sugar. I'm not sure, but it is possible.
I made two batches of glop. The first time I had definitely put the sugar in, I'm sure of that, but then I made the mistake of trying to add the lampblack directly to the gelatin while it was on the magnetic stirrer. Big mistake. It clumped and ruined everything.
I distinctly remember thinking "I have to go to the kitchen again and get more sugar", but I can't for the life of me remember whether I actually did it.

Anyway, I managed to save it. I put the support and the piece of gelatin in a tray, poured the dichromate solution over them, then agitated the tray with one hand while holding the gelatin in place with the other. It worked.
The print is still wet. I'll scan it later.

 

[Vlad Soare]

This is how the print looks.
This time I tried with a negative of slightly higher contrast, which prints well on grade 2 paper. Unfortunately, I only have negatives suited either to silver halide papers, or to vandyke. I have nothing in between.
It's still too muddy, but at least it's cleaner looking than my previous attempts, and it's the right color.
I forgot to mask the edges, but I was lucky not to get edge frilling. Or maybe it wasn't luck, but lack of sufficient exposure, which kept the edges from over-hardening.

 

[Vlad Soare]

You were right. It was the sugar.
I've heated the remaining glop and added a tablespoon of sugar, then made two new tissues. They're almost dry now, and still perfectly stuck to the support. Problem solved.

OK, so now I know what happens if I use too little sugar (or none at all). What would happen if I used too much?

 

[holmburgers]

OK, so now I know what happens if I use too little sugar (or none at all). What would happen if I used too much?

It'd be delicious...

 

[ghostcount]

I did that, put too much sugar. The tissue was super pliable even when dry. When I transfered the image to the final support (fixed out RC), it floated away. In my experience, the image would not stick to the support.

I'm glad you figure it out.

 

[Vaughn]

...OK, so now I know what happens if I use too little sugar (or none at all). What would happen if I used too much?

Too much sugar will not allow the tissue to dry sufficiently after sensitizing -- thus one would run the risk of damage to one's negative (especially if the light source heats up the negative and tissue) or even cause the protective material between the neg and the tissue if one uses some, to stick to the negative.

I have been using 8% sugar (60gr/750ml) for a long time, but I am considering reducing it to around 6%. My tissue is nice and pliable -- makes for easy handling, but if I can get the same results with 45gr/750ml (6%) it would be worth reducing the possibility of sticky negatives.

Vaughn

PS -- drying times for the tissue after pouring should decrease with less sugar, also.

PS#2 -- Glycerin acts like super-sugar...perhaps a little differently, but to the same end.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Vlad, is that HP5 film? I could only get that film to work if I developed it in a high contrast developer such as D-19 (diluted 1+3).

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Getting closer on the sky issue I am having.

Jim, how are you sensitizing your tissue? I have found that "double coating" the tissue has helped significantly... and it also cuts back on exposure times. For 9x12 tissue, I sensitize with 20ml. I give two, 10ml coats.

Is anyone having problems getting into Sandy's yahoo carbon site? A page opens with,
"There is no group called CarbronTransfer. Please make sure you typed the web address correctly. If you have done so, the group may no longer exist.

 

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Andrew, I'm using 12ml. total solution for my 10x12 tissues. I double coat my tissues as I always have. I just had a workshop student leave and we worked on his negative. It was a beautiful negative of his daughter in her ballerina tutu. He shot her in his basement ( Joe's from Philly) so there is texture and light even skin tone and a soft white tutu. We printed four sheets using 12%, 8%, 6% and 3% dichromate. I put my extra fan on the glass to cool things down and worked with exposures that ran up to 10 1/2 minutes. I have cut back on exposure times also. Always learning! No problem and the images are beautiful. I think we should all try this experiment if you would to see the controls one has with carbon.

 

[Curt]

Sandy's site is up and running just fine.

 

[Vlad Soare]

Vlad, is that HP5 film? I could only get that film to work if I developed it in a high contrast developer such as D-19 (diluted 1+3).

Yes, it's HP5+ developed in ABC. It's not the film's fault, because I find I can get any contrast I want with this combination. It's just that I've developed this negative specifically for silver. At the moment I have no negatives developed for carbon. I either have "normal" ones, or very contrasty ones which I made for vandyke (which I suppose are too contrasty for carbon, aren't they? ). Next time I go out to take pictures I'm going to make duplicates of every shot and will develop them specifically for carbon.