Image transfers with Fuji instant films?

[gr82bart]

ok, where in this site do you discuss how you got the "lifts" to stick to paper?

I would just start a new thread Ann. I think Winger (Bethe) has tried this before. I did too and I used superglue. Works fine.

Regards, Art.

 

[gr82bart]

BTW, do most people make image transfers from 35mm to the instant film?

All my transfers are done from slides using a Daylab.

Regards, Art.

 

[Pbpix]

Hi all:
Peter Balazsy here again.
www.pbpix.com (973-790-7960) Peter@pbpix.com

I was in touch today with Mr. Steve Pfaff the President of Daylab
( www.daylab.com) and he asked me if I had any "emulsion-lift" success using the new Fuji FP-100c film because many customers have been asking him about it and worried about if it can be accomplished or not.
So I tried a test tonight and met with relative success right away.
I feel that the effect is not exactly the same as with the Polaroid emulsion because the layer is thicker and stiffer and not as delicate or as diaphanous.
It seemed to stick well to the glass but the dry edges where wrinkled seemed to curl up.

I guess that one way to try to address this ....when using glass ....is to mount the image against a nice color backing paper with the glass reversed so the right side of the image faces down against the backing paper and back of the image shows up through the glass and then the effect of the manipulated, wrinkling is still evident but the entire work is protected behind the glass.

Another idea is to place another glass flat against the front side of the image to hold entire area flat.

If you are not wrinkling for artistic feel perhaps a spray adhesive might work.. I'm sure someone will invent a better technique as soon as we all experiment a little more.
Here's tonight's results:

 

[Renato Tonelli]

My Polaroid stock is dwindling, so this is encouraging. My thanks to everyone taking the time to experiment with the Fuji material and for sharing the results on forums like this one.

 

[ann]

so peter, you are placing the lift against glass, have you tried other surfaces?

 

[Pbpix]

so peter, you are placing the lift against glass, have you tried other surfaces?

No Ann I have not tried any other surfaces yet. That one I posted was just my 1st test experiment with Fuji lifts last night.

I noticed however that when I boiled it and slid off the "emulsion" there was a goopy clear gelatinous mass left on the surface of the original backing paper.

( I think Polaroid used clay)
...but this stuff swelled up from the hot water like clear Cream of Wheat ....lol
I guess it's a bonding agent...used to adhere the top plastic-emulsion-layer to the backing paper.
So whatever that stuff is ( maybe like Knox Gelatin?) it could be used to help the lifted emulsion stick to the new receptor?... maybe?

I imagine if the lifted emulsion was placed smooth and flat onto a new receptor.. and kept smooth... then maybe a spray adhesive would work well... But since most artists like to wrinkle the "lift"... one needs to have a nice slippery receptor surface on which to slide the lift around a bit.
So in that case maybe a wetter goopier adherent would work better. So maybe something like Knox Gelatin?
So maybe if we can find a wet bonding agent that dries shortly after wrinkling the "lift" would work.

I've never used Knox Gelatin per se.. but maybe it ...or something like that would be a good inert bonding agent.

Peter G. Balazsy
Peter@pbpix.com
www.pbpix.com
973-790-7960

 

[Pbpix]

Hi Folks:

I got word today from some kind folks at Polaroid that things in the film manufacturing facility in Mass. are drawing to an END real soon up there.

They make the larger peel-apart sizes up there in that plant but the 3x4" type 669 film is made in the Mexico plant and that too is closing soon.
The last batches of 8x10" type 809 are finished- (done already!!) with with Dec-2008 expiration dates (I think).
The large 20x24" stuff will expire in late 2009.
The last batch of 3x4" type 669 film being made now will have the March 2009 expiration date. That's it... no more gone forever!

I asked if there was any possible chance or even a warm rumor that another film maker may be in negotiations to take over the manufacturing of this film.. and I was told that ... (it is quite doubtful.. maybe that could happen.).. but it looks very dim because everything is already getting ready to shut down and there's no time for it to happen.

Peter G. Balazsy
Peter@pbpix.com
www.pbpix.com
973-790-7960

 

[Photo Engineer]

For those making transfers, the information in this post is rather technical but might be of aid here.

Firstoff, the dyes must remain in an alkaline environment to be mobile and diffuse.

Second, the pod is very alkaline, and the image production must be shut down to prevent imaging problems. Therefore, the reciever (the white sheet to which the image is transferred) must contain a mordant which is a chemical that attracts or binds to the dye. It also must contain a mild acid to adjust the pH after the transfer takes place.

The donor sheet, where the image comes from and which contains the silver halide, must stay alkaline long enough to release an image worth of dye and no more or less. It must then shut down quickly. So, there is usually a timing layer and an acid layer that work together to allow this to happen. Usually, the timing layer is some sort of polymer that breaks down in alkali, and the acid layer is a polymeric acid. These may be coated alone or in gelatin if they are compatible.

Once development is complete, the integrity of the donor is unimportant and it can fall apart, but the reciever sheet has more mechanical strength to resist destructive forces. Now, IDK how Fuji and Polaroid construct their peel apart materials, but there are so many ways to do the same thing it would be unprofitable to try and guess. The thing to remember that the image keeps forming and moving to the white sheet with alkali and stops when acid is applied or acid is released.

I hope this information is of use.

PE

 

[ann]

thanks ron,

when i tested the fuji for lifts, it easily came apart from the backing ; which was terrific.

i placed it on a piece of damp watercolor paper and all appeared fine until the next day when i went back to the lab and the emulsion was just lying there no longer attached to the paper. It is very strong and i kept it around to show my students what the emulsion without the backing looked like.

I need to get busy and test some various methods of "glueing" it down, but right now i haven't had the time as my class schedule is pretty full, but i haven't forgotten about testing in the near future.

 

[rkmiec]

sadly i had not thought of the 20x24 users out there.
however i think this thread is very encouraging and i think even though a door is closing another is opening,i am sure we would all like polaroid to be around forever but sometimes forced changes bring about new or even better things.we will miss polaroid but i will buy the heck out of fuji just so they keep making it.

 

[Photo Engineer]

thanks ron,

when i tested the fuji for lifts, it easily came apart from the backing ; which was terrific.

i placed it on a piece of damp watercolor paper and all appeared fine until the next day when i went back to the lab and the emulsion was just lying there no longer attached to the paper. It is very strong and i kept it around to show my students what the emulsion without the backing looked like.

I need to get busy and test some various methods of "glueing" it down, but right now i haven't had the time as my class schedule is pretty full, but i haven't forgotten about testing in the near future.

Ann;

You can glue it down by coating the paper with 10% gelatin in water with surfactant and then putting the transfer on top of the dried gelatin layer. This will form a good bond. Gentle pressing or rolling will probably help, but be careful.

For an even stronger bond, use either some chrome alum or glyoxal in water (10% solution) at the rate of 5 ml / 100 ml of 10% gelatin. That should really glue things down.

PE

 

[ann]

thanks again, ron. i will get some gelatin and some surfactant. I am going to assume you mean just Knox pure gelatin? Do you have any ideas where to find the surfactant?

i may have some chrome alum at the lab and will check went i go in next week as that may be easier than hunting around for the surfactant.

 

[Alex Hawley]

Do you have any ideas where to find the surfactant?

Will Foto-Flo work as the surfactant?

 

[Photo Engineer]

thanks again, ron. i will get some gelatin and some surfactant. I am going to assume you mean just Knox pure gelatin? Do you have any ideas where to find the surfactant?

i may have some chrome alum at the lab and will check went i go in next week as that may be easier than hunting around for the surfactant.

Ann, you could use Photo Flo at 0.5 ml / 100 ml of gelatin 10%, or you could use any of the 'Tween' products. The Formulary sells them.

Using a brush, you may not need the surfactant, but it depends on the paper. You can reduce gel content to as low as 5% without harm, but reduce the hardener and surfactant as well.

IDK about Knox gelatin. Read the label and if it has other ingredients in it, don't use it.

PE

 

[ann]

photo flo crossed my mind. and i have that and tween so that is not an issue.

i am going to assume i would coat the paper as one would any hand coating process, either with a brush or a glass rod.

when i go grocery shopping i will check out teh Knox gelatin.

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

Why not just use wax medium, encaustic, or matte medium to adhere the emulsion to the paper? I have used matte medium for adhering prints to some of my oil paintings, and it works great. This goes on somewhat white looking, but dries clear.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

 

[ann]

never crossed my mind, but it is something else to test.

what is matte medium?

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

Matte Medium is an Acrylic Polymer for use with Acrylic paints. If you use it individually, you can get a clear finish. The other way to use it is to mix it in varying amounts with Acrylic paint, which will change the natural gloss result of Acrylics to a more matte finish. The brand I use is called Speedball, which is made by Hunt, and usually available at artist's supply stores like Dick Blick. Liquitex is another brand that sells a similar product.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

 

[Pbpix]

Hi All:
Peter Balazsy here again.
Have any of you received the Polaroid petition thing in Email yet? I did the other day.

Today... I received an E-mail today from Steve Pfaff the president of Daylab concerning the Polaroid film and who if anyone would have a desire to take it over:
I'll pass this on to you all for gen update info.
Here's the context of his letter to me:

"Peter,
Like any company, I do not think Fuji is prepared to do anything new
unless it is financially viable for them. They can do nothing for intregral
films such as 600 and Sx-70 since they currently manufacture their own
intregral film that is not compatible with Polaroid.


With peel apart film it is another story. Fuji currently makes 3x4 and 4x5
pack films that can be used in place of Polaroid. There is a small rumor
that they might make 4x5 sheet film, 8x10 sheet film and 20x24 sheet film.
These rumors are just rumors from third parties, but it might be possible.
This would not be a big investment on the part of Fuji, but it would be
based on Fuji film, not Polaroid.


Fuji could create a more artistic film similar to 669. They would have to
change the ISO and the backing. Again, they will only do this if the
numbers are there. I do not think Fuji has to license anything since it
would only be a change to their existing product.


When I have suggested this to Fuji their response is how big is the
market? It would be very persuasive if we could somehow have as many users
as possible project how much 669 they will purchase per year. If this
turns out to be as big a number as I think it is, it could make the
difference in convincing Fuji.


Give it some thought on how we could come up with these projections.


Best Regards,


Steve"

 

[Alex Hawley]

Thanks for the interesting update Peter. I have not received nor read anything about the Polaroid petition, save knowing that it exists. I'm by nature very skeptical of those things having any positive effect. However, if the numbers are up in the several thousand range, and if those numbers would provide some sort of evidence as to the market potential, I may be willing to sign it. But, even given several thousand signatures, I highly doubt that would represent a sufficient market for a film company to consider as being viable.

 

[davidamosphotography]

Yes the Fuji stuff is really sucky for image lifts. Polaroid rocks with it's gel like material. But sadly Polaroid are no longer producing film as we know.

 

[Pbpix]

Hi All:
Peter Balazsy here again...
www.pbpix.com
http://en.allexperts.com/e/f/fu/fuji_transfer.htm

Today I was testing various receptor papers.

GOOD NEWS testing..

I tried a DRY Fuji transfer onto Arches 90# hot press paper and only got a big green-black blotch as expected.

.. however when I tried a dry transfer onto Reives BFK (white) the image was fine as long as I used rather heavy rolling pressure.

I also tried wetting agents too and discovered that Witch Hazel (TM Dickinsons) for some reason...seems to be a great agent allowing successful transfers to almost any paper I tried!!

So I tried the Arches 90# hot press again ...but this time I dampened it with Witch Hazel and the transfer came out just fine!

I still feel that the Arches 88 dry transfers are about the best I can get although I also find that Border & Riley's #234-Paris paper is very good too.

I tried BFK both wet with witch hazel and dry too and that works good either way.
My wet tests with Stone Henge were fine too... but my wet test with Fabriano and Lanaquarelle seemed a bit muddy.

I tried some rubbing alcohol too but that didn't work for me.

I have no clue about why Witch Hazel does the trick so nicely but at least it DOES work.. not only to help in emulsion to paper contact... but it seems to eliminate whatever chemical it is in some papers that causes that big green-black blotch. ( water will cause it too).. but I've never tried distilled water.

I'm sure it has something to do with PH or the like... but whatever I am.. I am certainly no chemist...lol

Wouldn't it be great to get some direct feed back assistance from the chemical lab guys at Fuji who actually make this stuff and know what's going on?
That would sure help to eliminate all this "poke and hope" experimentation!

All my tests today were done using a new Daylab Copy System Pro
http://daylab.com/
Flat image copier.
My exposure settings were at +4 and I either used NO color filters or I used a Cyan+magenta filter if there was too much yellow.

I should also note here for those who notice that my images seem contrasty...lol
....that these flat 4x6" color prints that I was making transfers from ...are extremely contrasty to start with .....because these color prints are NOT the original images but in fact they themselves are copies of my actual original 35mm color transparencies that I duped to color negative film and had these prints made from those negs...lol

So by the very nature of all that duping ... especially in non-lab conditions causes dark contrasty prints.


Anyway... here are the results of all my tests... ENJOY and learn.
.. Then get out there and EXPERIMENT!

Peter G. Balazsy
www.pbpix.com
http://en.allexperts.com/e/f/fu/fuji_transfer.htm

 

[Sino]

Peter,

I actually love the contrast of the prints, it suits the transfers nicely. Thanks for sharing all the info.

-Sino.

 

[Pbpix]

Hi All :
Peter Balazsy here again:
http://www.pbpix.com
http://en.allexperts.com/e/f/fu/fuji_transfer.htm

Experiment - experiment

I tried more DRY transfers tonight onto both Arches 88 as usual but comparing it as well to Lanaquarelle hot press paper.

I still prefer the Arches 88... however I did get pretty good results with Lana paper too.... but I used a hard rubber Brayer with very hard rolling pressure. The extra pressure seems to be needed to assure that the emulsion will get down into the "surface texture" or "tooth".

Wet transfers usually help eliminate that problem however I noticed that even using Witch Hazel as a wetting agent it seems to darken the colors a tad with a slightly muddier look. This is why I wanted to test DRY transfers on these other papers.

I also decided to try a few other little techniques.

I used Krylon matte finish spay on a piece of Lana paper... and while it was still damp .... I transferred onto it.

The result was quite good and the emulsion seemed to get down into the tooth better because the paper was softer and wetter.
I also sprayed the Krylon matte finish over the transfer later and it didn't really improve or change anything to speak of.

So I decided that simply VERY hard pressure with a hard rubber roller on Lanaquarelle paper works well ....as long as you really press hard.

I also tried to over-coat all my test images tonight with a semi-gloss spray Lacquer.

I used DEFT brand Clear Wood Finish Semi-Gloss spray. It dries in a couple of minuets to a nice hard finish where the emulsion is.

This DEFT brand spray lacquer is available in most hardware stores or wherever paint is sold.
But ....I guess any other brand will do.

I really liked the creamy looking wax-like feel to the image area after the Lacquer dries. It really gives it a special "extra" feeling.

The edges around my images are from colored pencil or watercolors or both.

Here's the test images:

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I have no clue about why Witch Hazel does the trick so nicely but at least it DOES work.. not only to help in emulsion to paper contact... but it seems to eliminate whatever chemical it is in some papers that causes that big green-black blotch. ( water will cause it too).. but I've never tried distilled water.

Witch hazel is the active ingredient in most over the counter preparations for the other kind of 'roids, so there may be a natural affinity there.

That is curious. I'm wondering if the astringent effect of the witch hazel causes the gelatin in the emulsion to "grab" the fibers in the paper and makes it stick better. The pH of witch hazel is about 3.0-5.0, so that is probably relevant as well.

Thanks for sharing your results. Not everyone is so generous with this sort of information.