PHOTO SILKSCREEN

One of my first paying photo jobs was PR for a brilliant photo silkscreen artist. Fwiw I used a Graflex XL, 6X9.

The artist selected prints from 19th century family albums, paid a local lithographer shoot 11X14-ish negatives (back when lithographers in every town had process cameras)...used those negs to create photo silkscreens, exposing sensitized screens to sunlight. She used those negatives to create beautiful multiple color "contact" prints. Incidentally, she sold a BUNCH of those prints through Northern California galleries..

I want to do that (my family collection includes a lot of 19th Century photos. Looks like Speedball.com offers kits. Have you played with Speedball screens?

Do you have experience with photo silkscreen?

I imagine today's technique might involve making the big negatives via inkjet (my Canon inkjet pigment makes ultra-strong blacks).

I did a few multicolor silkscreens back in the day. Those traditional methods are no longer available. You can use a computer and a vinyl cutter to cut a stencil. Or you can apply a photo emulsion to the screen and expose it, then wash off the unexposed parts with water. Since emulsion stencils are water-soluble, you must use solvent-based inks, which must be cleaned with solvents (messy, expensive & ecologically troublesome). To avoid gaps between colors, overlap successive colors by about 1/16". Use a pin-registration system for aligning multiple colors. Print more copies than you need, since registration takes several adjustments (or it did for me). I found the process frustrating, but the prints were beautiful.Good luck!

I received my formal training in printmaking...silkscreen, lithography, photogravure. I did tons of photo silkscreening back in the 80's. I had my negatives enlarged into halftone positives by a local blueprinting firm. I exposed them onto polyblue using an old arc lamp. I did up to 6 colours. Nowadays, halftone screens can be made via photoshop and inkjet printer. I couldn't locate any polyblue, so tried out the liquid emulsion, and screen from a local screen printing supply shop. I've use the speedball screens and they're crap, as far as I'm concerned. The screen material comes lose. Also prefer oil based ink. Speedball water based ink is crap. I've also done heaps of photo litho, on plates and stones, preferring the latter. These days I prefer carbon transfer, and gum printing.

For photo serigraphs I had lots of fun and success with water based inks in the form of dyes mixed with mediums for the surface to be used. I had done commercial photography, processed E-6 films and printed B&W in labs, and worked at a separations company. Since I didn't do close register four color screen printing it was fairly easy to do the ten colors that were required for an art course that I took. All of the film work I did was on 11x14 litho film. Some of the colors did use half-tones. Silk screen printing supply houses would be where to get good screens that stay tight, as well as a dual cure emulsion. Lynwood Kreneck developed Createx inks which have brilliant mixable colors and mediums which are waterbased. Roni Henning's first book on Screenprinting, Waterbased Techniques is a great reference. Waterbased printing leaves nearly nothing that is not drain safe and odor free, just the leftover medium which you can filter out easily. The computer 4 color separations is not something I did but the hand work with the camera, enlarger, and screen print was really worth it! I would recommend it!

Does photo-serigraphy count as an "alternative process" here? After a little time off, I'm setting up my studio, darkroom, and screen printing again. Working thru water issues now.

Thanks for responses to my query !

I'll look for Henning's book. I'm thinking of using my long-ignored Graflex ...

fwiw I've done semi-adequate seps using press camera (and even 35mm) but that was long before digital camera/inkjet printing/photoshop became such excellent tools.

IMO silkscreen is absolutely legitimate photographically and can be done much more beautifully than most photolabs do for most of their work. .