very sensitive gum process to leave a negative in unpigmented gum and then printing with pigmented linseed oil in the positive.
Hello all,
I have a puzzle and I am curious what this knowledgeable community might have to say about it. I am hoping to combine my photography and ceramics work in the following way: I would like to coat a bisqued (that is, fired once but unglazed) ceramic surface with something photosensitive and then register an image directly into that surface. It is important (at least to keep the puzzle interesting) that there be no intermediary negatives (no contact printing)--I want the ceramic itself to be the substrate on which the image, projected through a large lens, is recorded. The ceramic would then be fired. This is also e
So here is the puzzle. Ignoring the construction of such a camera, what sort of photosensitive chemicals can I use that can both survive a firing, preserving the image to be clear glazed over later, and are also fast enough that the exposure can be less than, say, 3-4 hours. The two processes that I've seen adapted to ceramic before are gum bichromate and cyanotype--both of which are contact speed as far as I know. I had thought about using something like Liquid Light, but I worry the silver wouldn't survive the firing or else would run and blur or flake as the gelatin binder melts. The ideal process would deposit a pigment directly on the surface to avoid this.
My best idea was to use some kind of hypersensitive cyanotype, since that would at least deposit iron directly on the surface, which I know will survive the firing though it might be faint. Another idea I had was somehow using very sensitive gum process to leave a negative in unpigmented gum and then printing with pigmented linseed oil in the positive. I bet there is a better answer out there. Something fast enough, leaves pigment or iron or something directly on the surface, and can survive firing to a decently high temperature. Anyone of you wise alchemists have any clues for me? Anything would help!
Welcome to Photrio.
To do this kind of process without a negative could insist on a very static subject as the exposure time could be rather long.
Ceramic Dictionary - by Susan Mussi: PHOTO CERAMIC
Photo Ceramic is the name used to refers to the process of applying photos onto ceramics. The first tests were carried out in France by Lafon…ceramicdictionary.com
Note the discussion about ink-jet printing in this source. Probably how it’s done so quickly and inexpensive today.
I do not think that what you are seeking is possible for two reasons.
#1 -- most of the possible processes involve UV light.
This limits you to contact printing in practical terms. Of course if cost is no object you might be able to rig a high powered, computer modulated UV laser system that could provide enough energy at the right wavelength.
#2 -- in a word "oxidation".
Pretty much anything you expose to kiln temperatures in oxygen (air) is going to get oxidized. Remember that most photographic processes involve the photo-reduction of a metal to form an image. Placing that image in a kiln will re-oxidize the metal destroying the image. This precludes any process in which the image is formed from metallic silver, or pretty much any other metal as well.
Cyanotype won't stand firing either. Prussian blue decomposes at temperatures below 400 deg. C.
Furthermore any organic binder present will be oxidized all the way to carbon dioxide (i.e. it will burn up!).
I think that the closest you can get is the process described in the link to Foto Ceramica cited in post #4 above. The pigments used in this variant of the usual gum-bichromate process are metal oxides that are know stable under firing conditions and the fact that the organic gum matrix is destroyed in the kiln seems to be irrelevant as the pigments apparently fuse with the ceramic substrate upon firing (much as a glaze does) without significant migration.
I imagine adding more dichromate salts and maybe an acid would make things faster?
The suggestion of printmakers friend above seems to have done it.
I was thinking about using a fairly large lens.
Suppose the image is projected onto a spherical surface (say, a bowl). Could this be contrived to correct for spherical aberration from a spherical lens and thus result in an imagine in focus even across a non-flat surface?
The danger is that prussian blue to produce poisonous gases as it breaks down
This would indeed be useful for what I want, since I could first use the all the benefits of the silver-based emulsion to take the picture but then replace the silver with a metal that will survive the firing better. (If I understand correctly.) I haven't used those metals on ceramic before, but I agree it would likely be workable. Perhaps something similar to the older luster effects could be achieved if the metal oxidizes and then goes into reduction. Could be a nice effect. I wonder about toning with cobalt, which gives a nice family of ceramic pigments ... Is the toning process for liquid light the same as toning normal photographic paper?As far as silver, how about toning it with gold, Pt, or Pd - wouldn't it survive the firing? That would allow the use of something like Liquid Light with the conventional projector and negative.
This is a good idea too.If worried about decomposing the cyanotpye in the furnace, why not simply bleach it first with an alkali like Na2CO3 to make a Fe(OH)3 image, which on firing will covert to hydrated ferric oxide, which is the common red pigment used in ceramics.
Curious about this. I'm not familiar with this process. If I understand correctly, you mean I would coat the ceramic with a sensitizer of ferric oxalate, expose the photo, and "develop" with water, bleach in alkali to prepare for firing, and then fire. That sounds too simple and easy to be true ...make an image of ferrous oxalate from ferric oxalate,
Is the toning process for liquid light the same as toning normal photographic paper?
Chemically speaking, yes. But given the cost of the materials, it seems counterproductive to use a large/deep tray of toning liquid and dip the workpiece in it. I'd suggest mixing a more concentrated toner instead, and apply it with a brush to the image.
As long as the ceramic is non-absorbent, this should work. Otherwise you might lose a lot as the bisque soaks up the toner. This may also discolor the ceramic. The gelatin of the liquid light etc. will form a barrier especially if you harden it; these emulsions generally come with a separate hardener you need to add.swirl it around, and pour it back out
Curious about this. I'm not familiar with this process. If I understand correctly, you mean I would coat the ceramic with a sensitizer of ferric oxalate, expose the photo, and "develop" with water, bleach in alkali to prepare for firing, and then fire. That sounds too simple and easy to be true ...
I have done some basic experiments with this with some other end process in mind...
:Niranjan.
Copper could work, as could iron.
Researching something like pyrofoto might be useful.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?