High relief printing in white on black

[Greg Dickson]

Hi all.
I'm really interested in the chiba system in as much as it seems to allow thicker relief prints.
Ultimately I would like to print white on black using chalk (English whiting) instead of carbon/ink. I would also like to have as much relief as is physically possible. I'd love to get 2mm or more in the final dry print.
Nothing in the chiba paper implies this is possible but hey we can but dream.

Any ideas?

 

[fgorga]

I have no experience with the Chiba system, so I can't answer your question directly.

Have you tried asking Heather D’Augustine (https://www.heatherdaugustine.com/)? She is, as far as I can tell "the expert" in this area.

 

[nmp]

Hi all.
I'm really interested in the chiba system in as much as it seems to allow thicker relief prints.
Ultimately I would like to print white on black using chalk (English whiting) instead of carbon/ink. I would also like to have as much relief as is physically possible. I'd love to get 2mm or more in the final dry print.
Nothing in the chiba paper implies this is possible but hey we can but dream.

Any ideas?

Wouldn't carbon transfer (in your case chalk transfer) be better for relief? Chiba is more or less like gum in terms of relief-ability, I would think. Of course, Heather D’Augustine would tell you authoritatively.

:Niranjan.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I'd tend to agree -- video I've seen of carbon prints (never seen one in person) seem to suggest a millimeter or so is possible, so two correctly registered layers could/should give that 2mm you're after.

 

[Vaughn]

I make carbon prints with relief. To get the relief you seem to want would require multiple layers.

The image also determines the amount of relief, with the most noticable relief happening when one has many sharp white/black boundaries. A low contrast images and images with movement tend not to show much relief. I have never used a white pigment, others have. I believe one works with a positive rather than a negative and would transfer to a black paper (exposed/developed photopaper, perhaps)...rather intriging, actually.

 

[Greg Dickson]

Thanks Frank Gorga that link is invaluable.
The chiba system is simply a system to replace dicromate with Ammonium Ferric Citrate as the sensitiser and according to the original paper works fine with gelatin.
Thanks Vaughn "multiple weaker layers" I suspected as much and yes that is my plan to create large reusable glass positives.
I will contact Heather.

 

[revdoc]

Greg, Sandy King has written quite a bit about ferric carbon (similar to Chiba) in the carbon transfer group on groups.io. You should take a look.

With regards relief, it can be a beautiful effect. I recently made a traditional carbon print with thick tissue, and the result is dramatic. I wish you good luck with your research.

 

[Greg Dickson]

Greg, Sandy King has written quite a bit about ferric carbon (similar to Chiba) in the carbon transfer group on groups.io. You should take a look.

With regards relief, it can be a beautiful effect. I recently made a traditional carbon print with thick tissue, and the result is dramatic. I wish you good luck with your research.

Thanks
How thick is the final dry print. Ie how deeply did the dicromate penetrate the gelatin.
I am yet to make one print but I would like to work through one system and get that right I am trying to find the system that will allow the thickest gelatin with the least colour addition to the white gelatin.


Yeah I have Sandy King's book I will re-read that section.And Thanks for the tip. I didn't know about groups.io
Just joined up.​

 

[revdoc]

The dichromate gets all the way through the gelatin. (It's easy to tell; an overexposed carbon tissue hardens all the way through.) As for thickness, it's a bit less than the unexposed tissue, which was 2mm thick wet, and maybe .15mm dry. So maybe .12 or .11mm.

What matters for maximum thickness is how high it's poured. The carbon group has at least one thread about very tick tissue, and it sounds challenging, but doable.

Another process to look up is the Woodburytype. It was based entirely on high relief gelatin.

 

[Greg Dickson]

The dichromate gets all the way through the gelatin. (It's easy to tell; an overexposed carbon tissue hardens all the way through.) As for thickness, it's a bit less than the unexposed tissue, which was 2mm thick wet, and maybe .15mm dry. So maybe .12 or .11mm.

What matters for maximum thickness is how high it's poured. The carbon group has at least one thread about very tick tissue, and it sounds challenging, but doable.

Another process to look up is the Woodburytype. It was based entirely on high relief gelatin.

Ok thanks for that info.
i will look up both thanks heaps.

 

[Vaughn]

I will affirm that the sensitizer does penetrate all the way through thick layers of gelatin.

I pour at a rate of 1.2 ml of 'glop' per square inch and use lampblack watercolor paint as my main pigment source. I use a minimum of pigment in order to achieve the greatest possible relief (all other factors being the same). While tissue thickness is a major consideration in achieving a raised relief, it is not the determining factor (unless it is not thick enough). Relief will be determined by the depth into the gelatin to which one can harden the tissue. If your white pigment is too opaque to UV light at the concentration you have in your glop, then you may not be able to expose far enough into the gelatin to get significant relief.

This holds true for all pigments. When I was learning the process on my own, I slowly reduced the pigment load and found I was getting more relief. I also had to change the characteristics of my negatives and sensitizing concentration to match the new tissue. I found myself aiming at a method that gave me the longest exposure times to allow the UV to penetrate deep into the gelatin through the clear areas of the negative (my Zone 0s), yet have the density range to reproduce all the finer highlight values with the sensitizer concentration I was using. These will be the sort of factors you will be juggling to make your own image. Gelatin concentration is another factor, with more relief possible with higher concentrations.

I have thought often about the type of project you are embarking on..both the audience, and using white pigment. While black pigment would be more straight forward (and perhaps an easier way to learn the process), white pigment is an interesting artistic choice, but I wonder at it's significance to your audience (which is probably wider than the seeing-impaired). If you have not, I also suggest researching into the optimium height of the relief. 2mm might be an excessive goal.

Thicker tissues require longer drying times when poured and when sensitized. Handling a freshly poured 14"x17" tissue of 290ml of wet set glop, there is quite a bit of heft to it. With a fan for the first 12 hours, I like to have the tissue dry for 48 hrs before use.

Good luck!

 

[Greg Dickson]

I will affirm that the sensitizer does penetrate all the way through thick layers of gelatin.

I pour at a rate of 1.2 ml of 'glop' per square inch and use lampblack watercolor paint as my main pigment source. I use a minimum of pigment in order to achieve the greatest possible relief (all other factors being the same). While tissue thickness is a major consideration in achieving a raised relief, it is not the determining factor (unless it is not thick enough). Relief will be determined by the depth into the gelatin to which one can harden the tissue. If your white pigment is too opaque to UV light at the concentration you have in your glop, then you may not be able to expose far enough into the gelatin to get significant relief.
This holds true for all pigments. When I was learning the process on my own, I slowly reduced the pigment load and found I was getting more relief. I also had to change the characteristics of my negatives and sensitizing concentration to match the new tissue. I found myself aiming at a method that gave me the longest exposure times to allow the UV to penetrate deep into the gelatin through the clear areas of the negative (my Zone 0s), yet have the density range to reproduce all the finer highlight values with the sensitizer concentration I was using. These will be the sort of factors you will be juggling to make your own image. Gelatin concentration is another factor, with more relief possible with higher concentrations.

Yes the whiting chalk is very dense so I will start with it very dilute.

I have thought often about the type of project you are embarking on..both the audience, and using white pigment. While black pigment would be more straight forward (and perhaps an easier way to learn the process), white pigment is an interesting artistic choice, but I wonder at it's significance to your audience (which is probably wider than the seeing-impaired). If you have not, I also suggest researching into the optimium height of the relief. 2mm might be an excessive goal.

Haha yes well that is not my only intended audience.
I am interested in the white because if the finished image is lit from the same direction as the original. The high relief will mean that the shadows will actually be in shadow. My hope is that this will add a new dimension to the image. Obviously this will only work on certain images.
However the types of images that are best suited for one goal will be good for the other.

Thicker tissues require longer drying times when poured and when sensitized. Handling a freshly poured 14"x17" tissue of 290ml of wet set glop, there is quite a bit of heft to it. With a fan for the first 12 hours, I like to have the tissue dry for 48 hrs before use.
Good luck!

Thanks Vaughn
All your information is really helpful.

 

[Vaughn]

The possibilities are exciting. A facial portrait made almost life size. A blind person could go back and forth between the carbon print and the person's face and give feedback on the tactile accuracy.

 

[Greg Dickson]

The possibilities are exciting. A facial portrait made almost life size. A blind person could go back and forth between the carbon print and the person's face and give feedback on the tactile accuracy.

Yeah it is cool. It is going to be cool to finally do it and see what people say.
Also the same shot with different lighting and what the other person "sees".

Using White on black would add to the effect if the subject was lit just off directly in front.

 

[Vaughn]

...
Using White on black would add to the effect if the subject was lit just off directly in front.

I do not understand what you mean be this...how will it be significantly different that a carbon print made with black ink -- except for the highlights will be raised instead of the blacks? Which is interesting enough!

People who have been blind since birth will treat these image far differently than the sighted. The sighted do tend to think as black shadows areas as 'holes'...our language reinforces this. We say how wonderfully deep those blacks are in a print. brillient highlights and deep blacks. The blind will ' see' these completely differently...they will not reference things as to the qualities of brightness and darkness.

It will be far easier to build up relief if you use no pigment at all. The blind certainly do not need it.

Edit: PS -- even without pigment there will be a slight image due to the darkening of the exposed gelatin. There is the option below, but not quite as neat as an analog approach...and the possibility of very fine detail to challenge the tactile sense. A 3D printer for this use would be boardering on scultpture.

No connection -- just a google find: https://see3d.org/

 

[nmp]

I think 3D printing could be a viable option if relief is the end-goal here.

 

[Greg Dickson]

I do not understand what you mean be this...how will it be significantly different that a carbon print made with black ink -- except for the highlights will be raised instead of the blacks? Which is interesting enough!


People who have been blind since birth will treat these image far differently than the sighted. The sighted do tend to think as black shadows areas as 'holes'...our language reinforces this. We say how wonderfully deep those blacks are in a print. brillient highlights and deep blacks. The blind will ' see' these completely differently...they will not reference things as to the qualities of brightness and darkness.

Yes that is my point. Thus the focus is on the highlights not the shadows.

Which for an image with colour will mean that the shadows created by the hightlights will cast their own shadows.
So both sighted and unsighted people are morelikely to get a more similar "view"

It will be far easier to build up relief if you use no pigment at all. The blind certainly do not need it.

Edit: PS -- even without pigment there will be a slight image due to the darkening of the exposed gelatin. There is the option below, but not quite as neat as an analog approach...and the possibility of very fine detail to challenge the tactile sense. A 3D printer for this use would be boardering on scultpture.

No connection -- just a google find: https://see3d.org/

My friend suggested that but I already have a plan to maintain the connection to the original image directly.
ie use the sun from the same day to expose the gelatine as with the photo.
Also use convert samples of the organic material in the image into carbon to create the black in the background.
These are just part of a whole workflow plan I have in mind.
Maintain connection and accessibility to the original scene.
Digital completely destroys that link.

DAS will probably be better for this as I can take the pre-sensitised tissue with me.

Thanks for the discussion Vaughn it is helpful to here the opinions of someone as experienced as you.

 

[Greg Dickson]

Thanks heaps everyone for your help and encouragement.
I think I have a clearer idea and a plan to follow now.

 

[grain elevator]

I think you should test the concept with help from a blind person before you go further. Maybe with a 3D print or something else easy to obtain. I'm skeptical that smoother transitions in tone that relate to gentle slopes in the profile will be noticeable. It might only work for high contrast, relatively sharp edged subject matter.

 

[Greg Dickson]

I think you should test the concept with help from a blind person before you go further. Maybe with a 3D print or something else easy to obtain. I'm skeptical that smoother transitions in tone that relate to gentle slopes in the profile will be noticeable. It might only work for high contrast, relatively sharp edged subject matter.

As I often say to a friend who suggests an easier path. You are probably completely correct but where's the fun in that.

People don't climb Mount Everest cause it's easy but even if they die on the way each one sees so many things on the way.
I started this idea 2 years ago and I am only just getting to the point where I might produce a reasonable image in the next two.
I realised early that this would require precision and modern electronics now allow me very fine grained control.
Something that was never available before. So I learned that. My fully automatic but also totally controllable negative developer will be finished soon.
It will keep records of ever film I develop so my mistakes can be repeated later when they are actually the thing I am after.

I wasn't going to but to get started on the carbon transfer process my printer will finally arrive soon and I will do digital negs for a while. Well actually intra-positives really.
All the logic will basically be backwards for creating these so even doing that I will learn heaps.
@Vaughn's ideas about density are gold (what he wrote here and what is written in Sandy King's book. (I presume it's the same Vaughn).
@revdoc clarified it with his comments
and he said it's doable
So thanks but...
It's doable
Multiple layers is how colour photos are made so even if it takes three or four something will come out.
@Vaughn said he already has done thick work so he could just show his work to a blind person and tell me.
But where's the fun in that.
Sorry for the rant

 

[Vaughn]

Yes, I am the same Vaughn. I do not have any experience with DAS. It has its own set of factors to work with and the work flow is a little different that dichromate sensitizers. Sounds like a great project. Images I have seen using white pigment are pretty cool...I have not seen one yet in person.

People have made carbon prints from the coal of the place they were photographing. A fellow asked a few years ago about using the burnt wood from the trees burnt in a fire along a river that he was documenting. Great stuff.

 

[Greg Dickson]

@Vaughn thanks I will check the threads here and at groups.io
It is funny how things go. Yesterday I opened Sandy's book and the first thing I saw was your redwood.
It made me think, if the white on black with strong relief does what I think it might look fantastic with your focus on light as the subject.
here's a fun link about making fusain it's in canadian french but it is really easy.
Fusain is French for drawing charcoal but they do make it out of that tree in France.
Fusain drawing has always been popular in france and was actually what led me to carbon transfer in the process.
I was working on combining drawing with liquid emulsion and wanted to go further.
If COVID hadn't come along I would have spent a couple of months in France researching it last year.
I love the idea that a negative is something that the subject has direct involvement in.
Ie for you the subject is light and that light from that moment directly changed that negative and you just made that change permanent.
That is so cool.
It is one of the major things missing in digital.

As you pointed out density is going to be an issue also possibly halation off the white particles could be too. That all remains to be seen.

Lots of fun to be had here.

 

[Vaughn]

Going from a dry pigment source, to a finely ground pigment, to a well dispersed mix w/ gum arabic or similar, and finally well dispersed in one's glop is quite an involved process for those so inclined. I am quite happy with watercolor paint in tubes so that I only have to deal with that last step...and so many variables avoided!

I work with thick tissues using the minimum of pigment to create a black at a semi-reasonable exposure time (and to help with relief). At this low level, slight changes in pigment concentration create large changes in the qualities of the tissue (and thus the print). I need to be pretty tight on that. For example my usual grams of lampblack watercolor pigment for 750 ml of water would be 4.5 grams, with 0.5 gram of Burnt Sienna for a little warmth.

 

[Greg Dickson]

Going from a dry pigment source, to a finely ground pigment, to a well dispersed mix w/ gum arabic or similar, and finally well dispersed in one's glop is quite an involved process for those so inclined. I am quite happy with watercolor paint in tubes so that I only have to deal with that last step...and so many variables avoided!

Thanks Vaughn
Great point I could just use white watercolour paint.
That is a perfect solution and seriously reduces the variables.
Especially in as much as the white in my images adds nothing to the connection to the subject.
(Unless I find some white clay in the area that could be interesting extracting the pigment- making it small enough- making a gum arabic mix ... that can wait )
I just received my Ball mill that I may never use. Oh well you get that.
Thank you this will definitely speed up my entry into this process.

I work with thick tissues using the minimum of pigment to create a black at a semi-reasonable exposure time (and to help with relief). At this low level, slight changes in pigment concentration create large changes in the qualities of the tissue (and thus the print). I need to be pretty tight on that. For example my usual grams of lampblack watercolor pigment for 750 ml of water would be 4.5 grams, with 0.5 gram of Burnt Sienna for a little warmth.

Sandy put me onto a post in groups.io where he suggests simply increasing the solids and halving the pigment in the mix https://groups.io/g/carbon/topic/how_to_make_extra_thick/70112551?p=,,,20,0,0,0::recentpostdate%2Fsticky,,,20,2,180,70112551#
I was wondering have you tried that? Or was that what you already said and I didn't pick it up?

As the black will be in the Gesso the requirements for that are not so stringent. Chunks in it may be a cool effect as well.
I will probably start with exposed, developed photo paper to start with. Oh yeah I need the ball mill for that later on.
We have some amazing reds in the soils in Australia and one day I will incorporate them in my work. So much to do and so little time.

Thanks heaps I'm getting really excited now.

 

[Vaughn]

I am at 12% with my gelatin, which is not particularily high. But my pigment level is about as low as one can go and still achieve a black. Even with low pigment levels and high sensitizer concentration, it still take a long time to burn down deep into pigmented gelatin. 750W merc vapor lamp and 12" from the contact frame for an hour or two.