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.
Oh, this is very relevant indeed. It's currently also being discussed/experimented with here: https://groups.io/g/carbon/topic/first_approach_to_color/97727051
I'm not sure if you ever post there, but if you do have an account, I'm sure Sandy and others would be interested to read about these experiments of yours as well!
Would this not pretty much make obsolete gum bichromate and even carbon printing?
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?
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.
He does combine the black layers, but the individual color layers are still separately shot and developed (I wonder why not though.)
So are we any closer to figure out what the polymer is in PFF?
Regarding the photo-initiator, could that be simply DAS.
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.
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
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.
published by Simoncini and Brandenburg, that they call Zerochrome:
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
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.)
This could be a good substitute for Carbon too, I would presume.
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.
Is there any particular reason for gelatin to be there that other binders can't replace it?
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.
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.
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.
Gelatin has the smell of a roadside kill.
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.
I don't think Calvin Grier himself is going to replace carbon with this stuff.
:Niranjan.
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?