Cliché verre "photographic" process?

[jsmoove]

I've been looking at the Cliché verre process, which uses a candle to create soot on glass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliché_verre

Out of sheer curiosity, is there a way to pre-sensitize carbon soot on glass to create an image?
Instead of hand etching.

I was also wondering if it would be possible to kiln fire the soot on the glass to make it permanent.
I have been told that the carbon soot would be released into carbon dioxide under heat, so I'm not sure if that is possible...but there is the idea of certain portions becoming colorless before others.
I could also create a metal stencil, for instance a perforated wire grid laid on the glass, and that would create a negative, though very low resolution
Just ideas I've had. Was wondering if anyone has experimented with soot on glass.

 

[aldus_manutius]

At the heart of cliché verre is act of drawing on a transparent material, really, nothing more profound than that. At the time the process became popularized, that meant using glass... the glass was simply coated with soot, which would then be scraped or scratched away to form a reverse image because that was easily available to make a "resist" on the highly available glass. If you weren't happy with the drawing, you could simply wipe the plate and recoat.

In other words, there is nothing intrinsically special about using soot on glass to make the print. I've been using laser printer overhead transparency materials, markers, and masking tape to do cliché verre with kallitypes and argyrotypes for the past two years now. The 4x5 print below is an example of an argyrotype created through cliché verre: the "negative" was created using a laser printer to print an opaque film. The drawings were then done using a needle (comparable to doing a dry point etching, hence some of the confusion with the process and traditional acid-based etching or intaglio printing) and enhanced or re-worked with a marker (the vertical, angular lines on the right-hand side were done with a Faber-Castell Pitt Artist Fineliner).

If you're considering making the drawing more permanent for further usage, I'd suggest re-consdering the use of glass and soot. Or if your goal is an image on glass, then traditional carbon transfer or any number o other "subbed" photographic process would work fine. But the point of the soot-coated glass plate used in cliché verre was to create a negative matrix to use for printing a photographic-based image, not the work on the glass itself.

Gold-toned cliché verre argyrotype, +/- 4" x 5", June 2020.

 

[jsmoove]

Thanks for the reply!
Yes, the goal I had in mind was an image on the glass itself, a photo ceramic process in particular.
Could one use soot on glass as a base for a direct carbon print? Add the sensitizer on top?
I also don't know what would happen if I heated up the soot on glass at a high temperature, I'm assuming nothing good....but I'm still curious.

 

[radiant]

This is very interesting.

Could the soot be made permanent with some thin sprayed lacquer?

 

[gone]

I think it could, and it would be simple to try it and see. I wonder why you couldn't just paint or ink any transparent surface and scratch trough that? Paint would probably flake off when using the needle to draw with, but a very thin coat might not.

If you put a sheet of glass in a pottery kiln it will melt at those temps. We put coloured marbles on our plates when they go into the kilns and they sometimes give beautiful effects. Other times, it just looks like melted marbles. What goes in a kiln and what comes out is always a surprise.

If the libraries are open where the op is, they should ck out any and all books on alternative photographic and printing processes. There are some ingenious ways to make images.

 

[jsmoove]

@momus
Thats a good point about the glass melting into gloop. Wouldn't want to go that high in temperature. Would the soot just "evaporate" or would it melt to the glass at a certain temperature? (I'm no chemist)
Im definitely more interested in the photoceramic process angle here, I've read the threads here and it seems like most photoceramic processes have toxic fumes when an image is kiln fired, or at least at high heat.
Cyanotype releases toxic fumes when fired. Not sure if dichromates do or not, Rockaloid pyrofoto contains ammonium dichromate.
https://www.rockaloid.com/_pdf/msds/Pyrofoto.pdf as does speedball diazo.
I heard DAS sensitizer is green and does not release toxic fumes.
Does carbon soot release anything other than carbon dioxide?
I dont have access to a kiln, but I've been reading about microwave kilns. Obviously a regular oven would be even easier if low temperatures were possible to melt stuff.
Unfortunately no photoceramic books at my library....would love any links to any pdf's though!
So basically im after:
-something fused/melted/bonded on glass
-something that isnt going to kill me with its fumes
-something that I can possibly use in a home oven or microwave kiln
-something that is high resolution, that I can make a contact print from a negative

@vedostuu
A lacquer is a good idea, I've been suggested a varnish as well (for cyanotype).
I still don't know if its possible to make a photographic image in the soot though, the carbon print process confuses me. I was thinking of a direct carbon method, to sensitize the soot. Don't know if that works or not.
I thought a heat process would be the best bet to make it permanent, but im not sure that is possible either, hah!
Well, still fun to talk about.

 

[eddie]

I do mine with a negative developed to full density or a completely clear negative. I'll scratch the surface of the dense negative, or draw on the clear one. Here's an example of each (I hand paint the prints):

 

[ChristopherCoy]

Never heard of such a thing, interesting. Looks like it's the predecessor process to digital negatives.

 

[jsmoove]

@eddie Thanks for sharing, these are really cool

 

[jsmoove]

 

[Vaughn]

Throwing this out...

Portraits of the dead baked on enamel then put onto the gravestones...use to be a big thing. An ash-less gelatin is used and a carbon print is transferred to ceramics, then fired. The gelatin burns away, leaving the carbon (image) behind permanent bonded to the ceramics.

But another way to approach it...coat the glass with the glop (carbon printing term for the pigmented gelatin), sensitize and expose from the back side of the glass thru the negative. The thinner the glass and gelatin (glop) coating, and more of a true point light source, the sharper your image will be. Diffused light (BL tubes, for example) can result in mushy images. Develop in hot water and you will be left with a direct image made of carbon and gelatin on the glass.

OR...cover one side of the glass with lampblack from a candle, make your marks on it. Coat the opposite side with the glop, sensitize it and place the candle soot-side up on some black board and expose in the sun. Develop and wash off the soot.

 

[jsmoove]

@Vaughn Now we are talking!
The gravestone thing was mentioned was back in 2011 too: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/photo-ceramic-processes.83009/
I can also add that there was a Kodak process called Cermifax:
http://dormirsurunepeniche.com/photoemaillage__ou_photoce.htm
N methyl benzothiazolylidenedithioacetate de methyle (its in french) No idea what this is, sounds far too complex. Anyways....
I'm new to learning about the carbon process...is there a way to literally just sensitize the soot on the glass without gelatin?
And im confused about the sensitizers themselves, I've read online that most of them release toxic fumes when fired, is this true? Which do not?
I don't have a kiln, but I was thinking something along the lines of a microwave kiln, or even the regular ol' oven?
What will happen to the soot if it's put in the oven on the glass?
-There is also a process in ceramics called "carbon trapping" in a glaze

 

[nmp]

Soot is just elemental carbon with a bunch of other bigger carbonaceous molecules. So like throwing coal in the grill, it will burn to carbon dioxide or monoxide and you will get a nice clean glass plate.

 

[Vaughn]

It is the action of UV light selectively hardening a dichromated gelatin layer (or gum arabic for gum printing) that creates the image. Exposed gelatin is 'tanned' or has its melting point raised...and unexposed gelatin melts and washes away. The image is thus made up of varying thickness of hardened pigmented gelatin.

The sensitizer in this case are chromates, which definitely should not be inhaled. There are alternatives which could work that would be less toxic. (a ferric ammonium oxalate, or similar variety, method, and one other, starts with a 'D' -- both have advantages and advantages.

But in the processing of the image, normally all dichromate is washed out...there should be none on the ceramic piece during firing. The glazes themselves are probably far more toxic. So it depends on where you want to take the soot on the glass as far as making a finished piece. Have fun!

 

[jsmoove]

@Vaughn Thankyou for the explanation.
Starts with a D....diazidostilbene I assume?
Is ferric oxalate on its own part of the cyanotype process? I remember hearing that before, was it cyanotype rex?
I know the potassium ferricyanide part of cyanotype is the toxic part. What about the ammonimum citrate? Bad news if fired?
I suppose water-slide decals are the least toxic option out there, but the resolution doesn't seem to be that good photographically.
I thought there might be a way of bonding the soot to the glass, but alas... @nmp I thought as much, thanks for the confirmation. I was thinking there might be some use in this change, somehow only exposing certain soot while other parts disappear, but I don't know how that would work really.

Overall, it sounds like its fairly complex to do a photoceramic process from home, unless you have a kiln, proper ventilation, lots of time and patience.
An interesting article about soot:
http://grantham.sheffield.ac.uk/how-candle-soot-became-a-scientific-wonder/
Maybe there is a way to make a candle that creates an emulsion upon burning. Errr..

 

[Vaughn]

It is something close to Ferric ammonimum citrate, but a slightly different beast. It can act as a sensitizer for carbon printing, but the tissue must be kept away from contact with oxygen after pouring. One way to use it would be to coat your glop on glass (sensitizer in the gelatin already). Seal the gelatin with another layer of clear gelatin (no pigment/no sensitizer) to seal off the oxygen and then expose from the back. Develop as normal (in hot water). The unexposed gelatin and the clear gelatin layer will melt away.

The easiest way is just to do the burning, seal it with a spray, and use it to make contacts (or enlargements, I suppose) in whatever process you want.

 

[jsmoove]

& Is firing ferric ammonium citrate a bad idea?
For the Cyanotype-rex process, is the idea that you expose the ammonium citrate first, then develop with the Ferricyanide?
Yeah, I think im looking for some sort of singular photoceramic emulsion "glop", something that can be coated, exposed, then fired...but isn't going to ruin my lungs or eyeballs....
The pyrofoto seems like a good idea, but I'm assuming its used for professional ceramicists with adequate ventilation since it contains ammonium dichromate which I've read does indeed give off the nasties

 

[Vaughn]

Again -- the whole idea of photo processes that use sensitizers is to wash all the sensitizers out after exposure. There should be no chromates left to burn.

 

[jsmoove]

Oh right, what am I thinking....
So then, is cyanotype technically safe to fire?

 

[nmp]

There are all kinds of processes that folks use to fire up on a ceramic surface.

http://www.alternativephotography.com/ceramics-and-photography-a-beginning/

It helps if you spell out what your exact end goal is. And what kind of equipment you have at your disposal. Otherwise it is just a hypothetical exercise and likely go nowhere.

 

[jsmoove]

@nmp Ideally I'm looking for something quick and easy, that I can bake in my home oven. Like cookies.
Preferably a singular liquid emulsion that I can coat on glass, make a contact print using a negative, then bake to make it permanent with the glass.
As high resolution contact print as possible.

 

[nmp]

@nmp Ideally I'm looking for something quick and easy, that I can bake in my home oven. Like cookies.
Preferably a singular liquid emulsion that I can coat on glass, make a contact print using a negative, then bake to make it permanent with the glass.
As high resolution contact print as possible.

Why do you need to bake it.? There are number of ways you can make an image on glass - all of these alt processes - cyanotypes, carbon, salt, albumen etc. can be adapted for glass by using a medium like gelatin. They don't need to be baked to make permanent. If you must bake, you can silk screen epoxy based inks that can be cross-linked by heating in an oven. Or you can use positive photoresist dry film that can be attached to glass and imaged which can be baked hard with UV and heat. Circuit board people use something like that. Also check polymer photogravure literature for some ideas.

 

[Vaughn]

Oh right, what am I thinking....
So then, is cyanotype technically safe to fire?

What is left is a non-toxic iron compound...prussian blue. When reduced (gains electrons), it can lose its color...so one would need to see if firing reduces the prussian blue to clear. That would be self-defeating. But prussian blue is an old pigment...used for centuries and used a lot today (blueing for laundry soaps, for example, and some medical uses in cases of heavy-metal/radioactive poisoning). Safe as rain.

You might reconsider alternatives to firing. An emulsion of gelatin is hardy. Gelatin is the toughest organic material around -- not great on material that sees a lot of expansion due to temp changes (metal) and material that will see a lot of flexing.

Fun stuff!

 

[jsmoove]

@nmp Essentially I'm looking to leave the thing outdoors for an extended period of time, so it would be susceptible to the elements.
The gravestone photoceramics seem to have lasted a long time outdoors, so im looking for basically the same thing.
One main issue that I haven't mentioned (for me specifically) is that im looking to do this on a 3d surface, so not flat. Hence me thinking about soot, because it could coat an object easily.
I will check out epoxy based inks and polymer photogravure, I dont know anything about these

 

[Vaughn]

Ah...yeah, the photo ceramics would be hard to beat in terms of lasting outdoors.

nmp has some nice ideas...