Yeah, I haven't signed up for that group. This is mostly still an academic curiosity for me. If I do any more substantial work, I will consider sharing there. Thanks.
:Niranjan.
"Printmaker's friend": New emulsion from Calvin Grier to replace gum bichromate
-
A
- Thread starter koraks
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy 135mm 5.6 enlarging lens
- Started by ediz7531
-
For Sale New 55 instant film (replacement for polaroid type 55)
- Started by Early Riser
-
Free 16x20 and 20x24 expired Ilford multigrade paper, Portland Oregon pick up
- Started by Early Riser
-
For Sale Helipan 112mm Circular Polarizer
- Started by Early Riser
-
Sold For Sale: 10 rolls of 120 film *SOLD*
- Started by Brad Bireley
Forum statistics
Yeah, I haven't signed up for that group. This is mostly still an academic curiosity for me. If I do any more substantial work, I will consider sharing there. Thanks.
:Niranjan.
So this might sound a little controversial, so please bear with me - but I am thinking as I learn more and more about this process+material combination from Calvin Grier and see the final outputs recently shared by him on social media:
Would this not pretty much make obsolete gum bichromate and even carbon printing? May be not for the experts who have had many years of practice and are well established in these techniques. But for a novice like me thinking about getting into some form of pigment process, why spend time with gum or carbon when one can buy this emulsion off the shelf (in due time) and churn one out in a couple of hours with 7 coatings/exposures and a single development step. Couple that with a one-pot emulsion/sensitizer which is stable for years (not to mention the environmental aspect of it,) this is kind of the Holy Grail, isn't it?
Also, if the kind of tonal continuity and richness that I see with this process whether monochrome or color, what would be the benefit of doing the laborious work with carbon, transferring, re-transffering etc when the same end-result can be achieved using this process with less effort?
Just thinking out loud....
:Niranjan
Would this not pretty much make obsolete gum bichromate and even carbon printing? May be not for the experts who have had many years of practice and are well established in these techniques. But for a novice like me thinking about getting into some form of pigment process, why spend time with gum or carbon when one can buy this emulsion off the shelf (in due time) and churn one out in a couple of hours with 7 coatings/exposures and a single development step. Couple that with a one-pot emulsion/sensitizer which is stable for years (not to mention the environmental aspect of it,) this is kind of the Holy Grail, isn't it?
Also, if the kind of tonal continuity and richness that I see with this process whether monochrome or color, what would be the benefit of doing the laborious work with carbon, transferring, re-transffering etc when the same end-result can be achieved using this process with less effort?
Just thinking out loud....
:Niranjan
Last edited:
I think that's the idea behind it, yes
There are some technicalities I presently don't know yet. For instance, on a multi-layer gum or carbon transfer print, there's always the issue of paper shrinkage and warping that creates alignment problems between the color layers. With gum, you typically 'solve' this by selecting a paper that doesn't warp and shrinks predictably, figuring out what kind of sizing doesn't negatively influence the warping behavior, pre-shrinking the paper and then handling it in a very specific way in the printmaking process (e.g. always hang to dry by the same end). With carbon, what you typically do is use a multiple transfer where you initially assemble the print on an intermediate support that's dimensionally stable, and ultimately transfer in one go to the final support paper.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but to the best of my knowledge, this would still apply to the Printmaker's Friend product just the same. The workflow would resemble a gum print workflow, and still have the same inherent challenges regarding registration through multiple wet stages. I don't know (and don't think) that a carbon-like workflow is possible with Printmaker's Friend, where the image is first created on a dimensionally stable support and then transferred to paper at the end. But perhaps it behaves sufficiently like gelatin to make the same thing possible...?
In any case, the process would indeed be simplified in many ways, and in that sense, Printmaker's Friend could be a "carbon-killer" and "gum-killer".
On the other hand, I think we're going to end up with similar considerations that we have for other printing techniques as well. For instance, what's the difference between a color carbon transfer print and a color RA4 print, or even a multi-layer photopolymer intaglio? There are subtle (sometimes quite apparent) differences in how the material looks and feels. This will likely be similar for Printmaker's Friend, although I expect the difference between that and a gum or carbon print to be more subtle. Still, a Printmaker's Friend print will never be actual/genuine animal gelatin or gum from a tree. Whether that's relevant for the print as such - I doubt it. But it certainly feels relevant to me as a printmaker. Sure, a synthetic polymer (PF) will likely work just great. Sure, there's nothing wrong with updating our workflow with modern materials (Yupo is a blessing, so is DAS instead of dichromate etc.) But at what point does a carbon print stop being a carbon print? For me, the gelatin is essential. The fact that the print essentially consists of a dead animal mixed with a pigment is important.
So I think there are subtleties that will continue to make a difference. They will be subtleties for sure, though. And in the end, I think the development is a useful one - if this product brings pigment printing processes within reach for a larger audience, I think it's worth it. And although some carbon and gum printers will likely transition to this new product, I also think that 'genuine' gum and carbon printers will remain, and new ones will enter the field from time to time.
I think that's the idea behind it, yes
There are some technicalities I presently don't know yet. For instance, on a multi-layer gum or carbon transfer print, there's always the issue of paper shrinkage and warping that creates alignment problems between the color layers. With gum, you typically 'solve' this by selecting a paper that doesn't warp and shrinks predictably, figuring out what kind of sizing doesn't negatively influence the warping behavior, pre-shrinking the paper and then handling it in a very specific way in the printmaking process (e.g. always hang to dry by the same end). With carbon, what you typically do is use a multiple transfer where you initially assemble the print on an intermediate support that's dimensionally stable, and ultimately transfer in one go to the final support paper.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but to the best of my knowledge, this would still apply to the Printmaker's Friend product just the same. The workflow would resemble a gum print workflow, and still have the same inherent challenges regarding registration through multiple wet stages. I don't know (and don't think) that a carbon-like workflow is possible with Printmaker's Friend, where the image is first created on a dimensionally stable support and then transferred to paper at the end. But perhaps it behaves sufficiently like gelatin to make the same thing possible...?
In any case, the process would indeed be simplified in many ways, and in that sense, Printmaker's Friend could be a "carbon-killer" and "gum-killer".
On the other hand, I think we're going to end up with similar considerations that we have for other printing techniques as well. For instance, what's the difference between a color carbon transfer print and a color RA4 print, or even a multi-layer photopolymer intaglio? There are subtle (sometimes quite apparent) differences in how the material looks and feels. This will likely be similar for Printmaker's Friend, although I expect the difference between that and a gum or carbon print to be more subtle. Still, a Printmaker's Friend print will never be actual/genuine animal gelatin or gum from a tree. Whether that's relevant for the print as such - I doubt it. But it certainly feels relevant to me as a printmaker. Sure, a synthetic polymer (PF) will likely work just great. Sure, there's nothing wrong with updating our workflow with modern materials (Yupo is a blessing, so is DAS instead of dichromate etc.) But at what point does a carbon print stop being a carbon print? For me, the gelatin is essential. The fact that the print essentially consists of a dead animal mixed with a pigment is important.
So I think there are subtleties that will continue to make a difference. They will be subtleties for sure, though. And in the end, I think the development is a useful one - if this product brings pigment printing processes within reach for a larger audience, I think it's worth it. And although some carbon and gum printers will likely transition to this new product, I also think that 'genuine' gum and carbon printers will remain, and new ones will enter the field from time to time.
Thanks koraks, for the detailed perspective on the intricacies of the various processes...learned a few new things.
I guess I was subliminally thinking color process with Printmaker's Friend (it's mouthful of a name, I am going to call it PFF to abbreviate and embellish a bit...
) was also multi-coat/single-develop which now I see that it is not true. He does combine the black layers, but the individual color layers are still separately shot and developed (I wonder why not though.) In that sense, it would be no different than the conventional gum (except the dichromate part and pre-mixing) The latter can also adopt the single-develop process in principle, I assume.So are we any closer to figure out what the polymer is in PFF? It could still be gum but perhaps more likely PVOH. Regarding the photo-initiator, could that be simply DAS. I assume DAS formulations are fairly stable (Ultrastable being DAS based.) So that might fit the bill for one-part PFF having a long storage life. Diazo certainly wouldn't be the one based on that criteria.
:Niranjan.
I would have to rewatch the video, but as I recall, he does a neat trick with the black layer that makes it behave a bit like separate layers, while it effectively really is a single layer. He coats a single black layer, and then exposes it through two different negatives at two different exposure times (and with carbon, I know he also uses different UV wavelengths). It's essentially a kind of split-grade printing, but with separation negatives.
So each layer has to be coated, exposed and developed separately. The neat trick is that there's no theoretical limit to how many times and with how many negatives you can expose a single layer!
I guess this is what might have confused you; correct me if I'm wrong.
I certainly am not, I'm afraid, but I admit to not having spent much time on figuring it out. It's on my to-do list, somewhere....it's one of those things that's waiting for the right kind of contacts/ sparring partners to cross my way.
Yes, I suppose so. I vaguely recall having heard or read 'something' from Calvin that didn't line up with the initiator used in PFF being DAS, but that's really a very unspecific and reliable on my behalf. Calvin certainly has posted about sourcing DAS a few days ago on the carbon groups.io. I haven't asked him directly, and frankly I'd hesitate to put him on the spot for it.
Koraks,
I do not think it would be DAS because there was no mention ever of a clearing bath step. DAS as you know leaves a brown stain in gelatin and other proteins. Possibly however there is an emulsion that would not get stained by DAS, such as PVOH but I have not tested it. PVOH however doesn’t make a great print IMHO.
I too was excitedto see this announcement and welcome a non-toxic dichromate alternative. Looks like the ZOOM was filled up with interested practitioners!
I used to do gum printing ( hence my username: Pgum!) but my facility is not great for managing dichromate so I abandoned the dichromate approach and spent time -about 10 years ago, on developing safer alternatives using an FAC-peroxide system with casein, gelatine ( CHIBA-like), but it remains experimental.
As Calvin is filing a patent, there must be novelty as that is the major test for patentability. If the specific combination of materials and how it is applied is already known to the public (publicly disclosed) then it‘s not patentable, so I suspect that the sensitizer is something different in one respect or the other, or a known sensitizer is utilized with a novel emulsion and/or approach.
I know someone who did go the route of international patent filing (successfully- in the dental industry) -big expensive task and then defending it is another full time challenge. It would have to be a big potential money maker to be worthwhile, not sure if ”gum” printing would fit those big expensive shoes!
It will probably be a while before a patent gets published with all of the required paperwork, and patent office delays, and we find out what is being used, but then we could not legally make it up ourselves and would need to buy it from The Printmaker’s Friend. Maybe that’s ok if it makes it safe for us wanting to ”gum” print free of dichromate!!!
Peter Friedrichsen
Agreed a patent is super expensive, even more is defending from people who copy, but also corporations or persons who have taken out a patent already and bringing court case on infringement, you get it coming and going.
New video on Printmaker's Friend, this time by Borut Peterlin who participated in the first workshop given by Calvin Grier with this new material:
I found the video nice in typical Borut-style, even though it doesn't offer any particularly new technical information. On the other hand, it does contain a fair number of very pretty illustrations of what's possible with the material. I watched it with pleasure and that comes from a guy with a bit of a youtube/video-aversion.
Of course, I remain very curious what this stuff will actually turn out to be. I have a feeling it might be simply PVOH, but that would still leave the tantalizing question of what kind of sensitizer Calvin found that is long-term stable and does not produce a stain.
Once this hits the shelves it's going to probably replace gum printing to a large extent, since it seems to do away with a number of inherent challenges to classic gum bichromate.
I found the video nice in typical Borut-style, even though it doesn't offer any particularly new technical information. On the other hand, it does contain a fair number of very pretty illustrations of what's possible with the material. I watched it with pleasure and that comes from a guy with a bit of a youtube/video-aversion.
Of course, I remain very curious what this stuff will actually turn out to be. I have a feeling it might be simply PVOH, but that would still leave the tantalizing question of what kind of sensitizer Calvin found that is long-term stable and does not produce a stain.
Once this hits the shelves it's going to probably replace gum printing to a large extent, since it seems to do away with a number of inherent challenges to classic gum bichromate.
Yeah, Borut is fun to watch but you can't go back reproduce the same thing on your own. After all, Calvin Grier is trying to sell the milk, he is not going to tell you where to get the cow....
OK....now I am nearly certain that it is the PVOH-SBQ chemistry which is also used in the process recently published by Simoncini and Brandenburg, that they call Zerochrome:
Zerochrome-SbQ – A viable alternative to chromium salts in pigmented colloid printing – AlternativePhotography.com
www.alternativephotography.com
As we discussed before, I was looking at the at the PVOH + diazo system (didn't quite work, wasted a pint of the emulsion and a bunch of diazo that I would have to discard) that is used in making of silk-screens but there was another "one-part" system that I overlooked when checking supplier catalogues. This approach, based on SBQ as the photosenstizer, has been used for a quite some time as well (original Japanese patents in 70's that are probably expired now.)
PVOH-SBQ checks all the boxes that PFF supposedly possesses - stability, sensitivity, single emulsion that can be coated out of the bottle, water development, and no stains to be cleared. It's also available off-the-shelf either as individual components (which you have to pre-react as demonstrated by Simoncini and Brandenburg,) or a single emulsion - mainly from the Chinese who probably at this point are the sole source for all the raw ingredients. The idea had been floating around in my head for a while before I saw Zerochrome article and it made sense. Calvin Grier if not a synthetic chemist - as far as I could tell (though he may have some Chemistry/Physics background to be able to talk about surface free energy) - it would be quite some task to come up with a brand new molecule/chemistry that can fit all the requisite criteria and then scale it up in a couple of years. More than likely he has adopted something that already exists. Thinking along these lines, I recently acquired this one-part emulsion from a US supplier:
The Best Screen Printing Supplies | Screen Print Direct | Ecotex
Order screen printing supplies and equipment such as inkJet Film, Photo Emulsions, Plastisol inks, Screen Chemicals & so much more at discounted prices.
screenprintdirect.com
They come in different colors but not clear - so I chose grey.
I haven't played around with it much except coating a strip and exposing a part of - it works as it is supposed to, i.e. after 10 minute exposure it became insoluble. Un-expsoed area got dissolved fairly quickly without any stains. Next is to add a black pigment, adjust the viscosity (it is fairly thick as is) and print a Stouffer. That's the tough part. Will keep posted if there is a progress in this regard.
:Niranjan.
Holy c**, this is big! Thanks for linking that article - I've skimmed it briefly and it does seem to fit the printmaker's friend characteristics quite closely. If it's not the exact same thing alright, it seems like a 1:1 substitute.
Yeah, I don't expect Calvin to have come up with something radically new. It's more likely an abduction of materials from an existing application into this field. The parallel and possibly origin in silkscreen printing makes perfect sense.
Please keep us posted on how you get on with the Ecotex emulsion. It seems very promising indeed.
I have to admit I'm kind of tempted to track down a source for SbQ and give it a go with a DIY approach...
Check the Zerochrome article - there they have the supplier's website that they used to procure the chemicals. Mind you, if you buy the SbQ separately, you would have to do some wet chemistry to attach one end of it to PVOH side chain in presence of acid which then has to be neutralized. I suspect the extent of this reaction has a bearing on the stability (if there is un-reacted SbQ, it can presumably continue the reaction in storage so the sensitivity will drift up over time and probably get more viscous.) The other alternative is to get the pre-made emulsion itself. I think they have an un-pigmented version unlike EcoTex or other screen printing material suppliers.
This could be a good substitute for Carbon too, I would presume.
:Nrianjan.
Yes, I found them.
Yes, I noticed that! I would probably try it with sulfuric acid; too bad they don't mention if they've tried this and what their thoughts are on the possible detrimental effects of the neutralization products of different acid-base combinations. They mention something along those lines briefly, and seem to imply that sulfuric acid would work, too, but nothing very specific. I could shoot Kees an email, but I'd rather not bother him at this stage. He's been quite helpful in my carbon work a couple of times and would hate to waste his time unduly.
Only if excess acid remains. In the writeup they neutralize with ammonia before storage. Although the neutralization will not be very exact in the manner they describe it. I wonder what excess SbQ will do in a pH neutral or even alkaline environment of a prepared emulsion. Maybe...nothing? In that case it wouldn't be harmful, at least. But I suspect the ready-made emulsion will be more stable in practice.
Not in the sense that the sensitizer would work for gelatin, as it won't. It's described in the comments. The SbQ won't attach itself to gelatin the way it does with PVOH. This really is a PVOH-based alternative to gum bichromate printing. As a pigment-based process, it's 'sort of' an alternative to carbon transfer, but the chemistry and mechanics are fundmantally different.
I didn't mean to use SbQ to react to gelatin but remove gelatin altogether, just use this emulsion to make a tissue and go from there. Is there any particular reason for gelatin to be there that other binders can't replace it?
:Niranjan.
P.S. As long the PVOH-SbQ can make a tissue that can be handled like the gelatin tissue, of which I don't know.
Yeah, gelatin plays a couple of roles in carbon transfer. Kees explains it in his comment from today at the top (currently) of the article you linked to, in response to Gary Baker's question.
I'm not sure you could actually do a transfer with PVOH like you could with gelatin. There are other differences, too. In the end, how the impact (and by how much, visually) the final print is another matter. I think it would be possible to make two prints that look all but identical to the naked eye, one with Zerochrome and the other gelatin-carbon. It would take us back to the issue we addressed earlier, i.e. what role the materials and the process play. For me, it 'feels' different to make a carbon print with just soot and dead animal, as opposed to a pair of modern, high-tech designer chemicals. Even though the end result is for all intents and purposes indistinguishable.
I read some of the explanation. However, I suspect the particular process parameters are created to match the material characteristics of gelatin. PVOH-SbQ system will have its own, yet to be determined. For example, it is soluble at room temperature so there is no need for warm water in development. Then again, mating might have to be done in ice water or something. Or spray some glue and make a dry bond (imagination going wild now!) Subbing/sizing materials would have to be re-invented. I would not write this off, but then I have zero experience with Carbon. I am sure there would have to be substantial amount of work to make it all come together. even if does at all. It might be fun trying.
:Niranjan.
We're on the same page as to the possible feasibility, by which I mean to say that I see the same general directions for experimentation. The question is if it would make sense. I guess the advantage of trying to mimic a carbon transfer (emphasis on the transfer bit) with Zerochrome would be the same why carbon transfer is inherently better than gum or 'direct carbon' (which virtually nobody is doing, although you linked us all to some very interesting examples at some point). The transfer bit would dramatically shift the tonal threshold problem and might make it possible to get a quasi-continuous tone image with high dynamic range in a single layer.
Exactly. That would be my best and only reason for doing the rigmarole of transfer printing in the first place.
:Niranjan.
The latest update from Calvin:
So, after all that, it's a liquid photopolymer...
Well, yeah. I don't think there was any doubt about that.
Mind you, I think I get where you're coming from. I won't be likely to switch from animal gelatin-based carbon transfer to this product. I have no rational arguments for this whatsoever, but to me, the fact that I can make a print out of dead pig, chopped-down tree and burned stuff is a major part of the romance. The fact that those ingredients have gone through industrialized processes just like the polymer Calvin sells, somehow doesn't quite change that. As I said, it's an irrational thing.
Andrew O'Neill
Moderator
It's all about smells for me. Gelatin has the smell of a roadside kill. But... I MIGHT try this stuff out of pure curiosity.
The porcine stuff does, yeah. The bovine gel has a bit more of a spicy smell to it, I find.
Let me know how the printmaker's friend works for you if you happen to try it.
I don't think Calvin Grier himself is going to replace carbon with this stuff.
:Niranjan.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |