Dye-Imbibition (dye-transfer) & Carbon printing

[holmburgers]

I am pretty sure that 'Modern Carbon Printing' only deals with monochrome, as per a Sandy King (sanking) post from way back. I searched and found that out. I'll definitely try to get a hold of the other. Unfortunately my local biblioteque only has the "Modern..." one. However, I should double check myself as I could be mistaken.

Thanks!

 

[R Shaffer]

Andrea Zalme's website has a good overview of how she does color carbon. You need to go to Articles and then 'A Technique for Manufacturing Pre-Registered Carbon Tissue Suitable for Multi-Tone and Color Printing'. I don't think you must have all the equipment she uses, but it sure does look like a nice set-up.

http://www.andreazalme.com/Pages/Home/Home.htm

 

[Photo Engineer]

Don't forget color Bromoil!

PE

 

[Hexavalent]

Don't forget color Bromoil!

PE

That's beyond masochism!

 

[michaelbsc]

Don't forget color Bromoil!

PE

Don't forget it!?

That's my long term target. Photographic watercolor with selective enhancement/removal. Just what I'm after.

 

[holmburgers]

Damn, color bromoil. I assume you've all heard of Bill Mortensen's metal-chrome process!??

http://www.thescreamonline.com/photo/photo06-01/mortensen/pigmentnotes.html

R Shaffer, thanks for the link.. I've been there but never stumbled upon that specifically. Good instruction; though I find it rather amusing that she starts out by saying "I'm on an extremely limited budget" but she has all sorts of ridiculous apparatus that I would never buy. Some people.....

 

[holmburgers]

Stupid question perhaps, but worth posing I think;

So by all accounts, enlarging to dichromated gelatin is impractical, but is it 100% impossible? What if you created a negative that you were not worried about subjecting to high amounts of UV, could you project with enough UV light to make it work? Maybe it would take many hours, but who knows. I know that glass absorbs a lot of UV, so a simpler lens would be better, maybe even a plastic lens. IDK, just curious.

 

[Hexavalent]

Stupid question perhaps, but worth posing I think;

So by all accounts, enlarging to dichromated gelatin is impractical, but is it 100% impossible? What if you created a negative that you were not worried about subjecting to high amounts of UV, could you project with enough UV light to make it work? Maybe it would take many hours, but who knows. I know that glass absorbs a lot of UV, so a simpler lens would be better, maybe even a plastic lens. IDK, just curious.

The Fresson process utilizes enlarged negatives with an extremely intense light source. It does take a long exposure (sometimes hours). Quality UV optics are not made from 'ordinary' optical glass - fused silica /quartz IIRC, rather pricy stuff.

 

[holmburgers]

Now that's an idea, fuzed quartz lenses! I actually looked into fuzed quartz glass for a contact frame... quickly realized that it's not an option. That stuff is amazing, it can handle up to 1000° celsius.

This thread addresses the same idea... (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[holmburgers]

Paper for Carbon Prints

This question could just as easily (and does) relate to monochrome carbon, but I'm curious about paper choices for the final transfer.

Nadeau says that a carbon print is only as archival as it's support, and goes on to say that RC papers cannot be considered truly archival. Why is this? What happens to RC papers in the long run?

Naturally, I will go with a high quality watercolor paper, but I'm just curious.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

Chris ,

For xray satellite telescope , Nasa uses pinhole. You can use pinhole as enlarger lens for uv.

Umut

 

[holmburgers]

Chris ,

For xray satellite telescope , Nasa uses pinhole. You can use pinhole as enlarger lens for uv.

Umut

Ahh, a perfect solution in theory!

Would the pinhole increase my exposure times beyond that of glass lens though?? And that's to say nothing of resolution.

But, in a game of chess, that answer is a CHECK!

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

Chris ,

Let me see the King.

You can read USAF Anderson , pinhole sieve lenses. They are higher resolution , lower f factor ,
you use circular placed multiple pinholes. You can create a big one from your printer to the transparent film.

There is no end at walkie talkie , you can print oval pinholes to the transparent film and even more increase the quality.

Even you can create your real pinhole sieve lens with contact print on gum and opening holes.

Umut

 

[Hexavalent]

There's a good reason why 'pinholes' are used for x-ray: "glass" doesn't work - there are few alternatices.

 

[holmburgers]

Realistically, I don't think a pinhole is going to be an option. I like the idea though.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

I think You are preparing your check for 20 000 dollar ELCAN. I would be happy to see you in welcoming to Leica family.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Early RC papers would crack under prolonged exposure to UV light. This is no longer the case.

PE

 

[holmburgers]

Ahh, sounds good. The book is from the early 80's so perhaps this has been remedied?

 

[Photo Engineer]

The RC problem was pretty much remedied in the late 60s. Ektacolor 20 and Ektacolor 70 paper were two of the first Kodak products to use the new 504C support with antioxidants and UV protectors. There have been continual improvements since then.

PE

 

[holmburgers]

Well then can you figure why Nadeau would say that RC papers aren't archival?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well then can you figure why Nadeau would say that RC papers aren't archival?

I'm afraid you would have to ask him. He is correct when you consider some of the very early samples of RC paper from the 50s, but it may depend on when he wrote that text and what tests he ran or saw. He may have quoted earlier sources which, in that context, but not at that time frame would have been right and wrong both at the same time.

PE

 

[holmburgers]

Thank you PE. I might actually ask him... I just joined his Yahoo! group.

 

[Hexavalent]

Well then can you figure why Nadeau would say that RC papers aren't archival?

Where does he say that?
Most of Luis' books contain tons of references, endnotes etc.,

I do recall some of the Ilford RC papers of the late 70's having a nasty habit of delaminating with longer wash times.

Dead Link Removed gives some insight on the subject of image stability in RC paper - it is a few years ago.

 

[holmburgers]

Thanks for that link Ian,

He says it in 'Modern Carbon Printing' I believe, and he might say exactly the same thing in 'Gum Dichromate and Other Direct Carbon Processes'. I can find the quote if necessary, but it's in one of the early chapters discussing needed materials, paper selection, or something of that sort.

 

[R Shaffer]

This question could just as easily (and does) relate to monochrome carbon, but I'm curious about paper choices for the final transfer.

Nadeau says that a carbon print is only as archival as it's support, and goes on to say that RC papers cannot be considered truly archival. Why is this? What happens to RC papers in the long run?

Naturally, I will go with a high quality watercolor paper, but I'm just curious.

Watercolor paper takes quite a bit of preparation and even then can be challenging to get the transfer to take. Fixed out fibre paper is what we used in the workshop.