making a carbon transfer print has any did this

[smithdoor]

Looking to do making a carbon transfer print PM
What film will work and the paper need

Dave

[Kirk Gittings]

Tricky process. I would suggest taking a workshop with one of the many talented practitioners here like Sandy King, Jim Fitzgerald, Tri Tan, Vaughn Hutchins-probably missing a couple.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I do not understand the question? Research this forum. All of the answers are here. Take a workshop if you are serious and I mean serious as this process is not for the faint at heart.

[Vaughn]

Dave, one starts with a carbon tissue. Bostick and Sullivan re-introduced a pre-made carbon tissue (gelatin, sugar and pigment on a thin material), and it can be ordered through them on their website. Most of us make our own tissue as it gives one the control of print color, relief, etc. It can also be made to best match one's darkroom conditions (temp, RH, etc).

A negative of good strong contrast is where one should start. With the B&S tissue this could be a negative usually printed with no filter onto silver gelatin paper, or contrastier. Home-made tissue meant to achieve a high relief often asks for more contrast from the negative than silver gelatin paper can easily handle.

As the name applies, one does transfer the image from the tissue to a final support. Fixed-out photopaper (fiber, glossy is my choice) is a good material to transfer onto...and is easiest to learn.

Carbon printing is a project, to put it mildly. Not all that difficult, once one gets the general idea of the process (this is where workshops do come in handy). Someone who has worked in several different alt processes should be able to do carbon without many problems.

[smithdoor]

Thank you sound like some I will have to do.

I live is a small town we do not even have any film photographic shops the last now digital and no film for my camera

Thank you
Dave


Dave, one starts with a carbon tissue. Bostick and Sullivan re-introduced a pre-made carbon tissue (gelatin, sugar and pigment on a thin material), and it can be ordered through them on their website. Most of us make our own tissue as it gives one the control of print color, relief, etc. It can also be made to best match one's darkroom conditions (temp, RH, etc).

A negative of good strong contrast is where one should start. With the B&S tissue this could be a negative usually printed with no filter onto silver gelatin paper, or contrastier. Home-made tissue meant to achieve a high relief often asks for more contrast from the negative than silver gelatin paper can easily handle.

As the name applies, one does transfer the image from the tissue to a final support. Fixed-out photopaper (fiber, glossy is my choice) is a good material to transfer onto...and is easiest to learn.

Carbon printing is a project, to put it mildly. Not all that difficult, once one gets the general idea of the process (this is where workshops do come in handy). Someone who has worked in several different alt processes should be able to do carbon without many problems.

[Andrew O'Neill]

As Kirk said, there are some people in CA. I'm too far away physically. I taught myself the process, never took a workshop. If you are determined, you can do the same. Lots of info on the net. Sign up over at Sandy King's carbon transfer yahoo group. Pretty much any film can work... even HP5! Paper? Pretty much anything, providing it can stand up to hot water development. Good luck!

Andrew

[Roger Thoms]

Dave, this will give you more info.

http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/articles/modern_carbon_sullivan.pdf

Also I have met both Jim And Vaungh, both great guys and both here in Ca. You couldn't go wrong with a workshop from either one of them.

Also here's a link to on of Jim's videos. http://youtu.be/Tl5FK7PTkFw

Roger

[smithdoor]

Thank you
I have sign up with this yahoo group.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/CarbronTransfer/
I live 4 1/2 hours from LA or SF and 40 min from Yosemite

Thank for your info
Dave


As Kirk said, there are some people in CA. I'm too far away physically. I taught myself the process, never took a workshop. If you are determined, you can do the same. Lots of info on the net. Sign up over at Sandy King's carbon transfer yahoo group. Pretty much any film can work... even HP5! Paper? Pretty much anything, providing it can stand up to hot water development. Good luck!

Andrew

[Vaughn]

I just drove by your front door yesterday (Hwy 99). I occasionally give workshops in Hayward (East SF Bay Area). No dates set up right now. Within a year, I'll be giving one-on-one workshops up here in the redwoods.

The yahoo group is a good one.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Also here's a link to on of Jim's videos. http://youtu.be/Tl5FK7PTkFw

and mine....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmpTgDlsr3o

Andrew

[richardman]

Sounds like a wonderful process. I need a real dark room :-0

[Tin Can]

Nice video Andrew!


and mine....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmpTgDlsr3o

Andrew

[Andrew O'Neill]

Cheers, Randy. I had fun making it and receive emails every now and then telling me that it has been helpful.

Andrew

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Sounds like a wonderful process. I need a real dark room :-0

I use my bathroom to make my prints! No darkroom required except for developing film! No excuses!!! :-)

[smithdoor]

Look great not hard to do Look like making screen printing or plates for printers

Dave


I use my bathroom to make my prints! No darkroom required except for developing film! No excuses!!! :-)

[Kirk Gittings]

I made my living out of college assisting one of my professors-who had a side business as a fine art screen printer. We did editions for people like Judy Chicago. From my limited experience with Carbon-it is in another class of quality and difficulty than screen printing.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I was a full on screen printer back in the 80's. It's MUCH easier than carbon transfer printing.
No, you do not require a darkroom but it's nice to have. If it gets too hot during the summer, I'll pour tissue in a spare bedroom much to my wife's chagrin.

[Kirk Gittings]

Some nice work on your site there Andrew. I really love that clown thing in the hallway-surreal.

[sanking]

Carbon is hard to pin down, both in the level of difficulty and in the results obtained. It can be relatively simple if you print with LF or ULF negatives that have been exposed and developed for the process, use the B&S carbon tissue, and transfer your final image to fixed out photo paper. The level of difficulty increases dramatically when one starts to make his/her own tissue, and size papers. Both of these activities kick off a range of possibilities that include prints of virtually any color or tone possible (monochrome or full color), and any type of paper surface desired, from matte to gloss. And papers can be sized with albumen, collodion, gelatin and various forms of contemporary synthetic materiasl. These diverse possibilities makes carbon one of the most versatile photographic processes of all time, but the range of possibilities also contribute to complexities that must be tightly controlled.

Another issue is image capture. Carbon is a contact printing process so you must have a negative of the size you want the final print to me. This means either carrying around a big camera, or learning to make enlarged negatives. Carrying around big cameras is fun but limits what you can photograph, but making enlarged negatives either with analog or digital methods is a pain in the @ss, so pick your poison. I have worked with large cameras, and made enlarged negatives in the wet darkroom and with digital methods, starting with film scans and digital capture. Both methods work for me.

I have an article on my web site that provides a pretty good introduction to the process, along with instructions for making materials. Be aware, however, that the information in the article is but a tiny portal on the world of carbon printing. Even some of my own practice is different than what is described in the article as I continue to modify and refine my printmaking procedures. http://www.sandykingphotography.com/resources/technical-writing/carbon-transfer-process

Sandy

[Andrew O'Neill]

Some nice work on your site there Andrew. I really love that clown thing in the hallway-surreal.

Thanks Kirk. That's an image that I used at the end of a couple of shows I had in Japan from my coal mine series. It was actually a lit sign (innards have been ripped out) reminding workers to switch on their headlamps just before entering the lift. I was suprised at how popular that one image was. Printing it in carbon is really special.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I think that the general consensus is that carbon printing is not for the weak at heart. It takes time to understand and even more time to master. I learn something new with every print I make. I print almost every day and take breaks as needed. I don't think one can appreciate this process without spending a considerable amount of time working at it. Time is the big investment because the rest is very cost effective once you get set up.

[Curt]

"Be aware, however, that the information in the article is but a tiny portal on the world of carbon printing. Even some of my own practice is different than what is described in the article as I continue to modify and refine my printmaking procedures."

Sandy King

---------------------------------

Write the above quote down and memorize it. This is the first step; page 1, paragraph 1, you must realize and understand that there are a multitude of variations in carbon transfer printing. There are as many methods of printing as there are printers. This is why I won't recommend any specific person that you would need to take a workshop with. You might start at the end, viewing prints from different printers. Is there any one best way to make a carbon print? Only you can answer that, and only after you have made prints yourself. This medium requires a persistence and dedication to a degree that many others do not require. If you are looking for quick immediate results it may not be for you.

Best Curt

[Tri Tran]

Tricky process. I would suggest taking a workshop with one of the many talented practitioners here like Sandy King, Jim Fitzgerald, Tri Tan, Vaughn Hutchins-probably missing a couple.

Thanks Kirk for your suggestions. I wish I can but my time is so limited right now for any kind of workshop , although I have many requested on FB. I will keep that in mind when my schedule is open up . Thanks again.

[Andrew O'Neill]

There are as many methods of printing as there are printers. This is why I won't recommend any specific person that you would need to take a workshop with. You might start at the end, viewing prints from different printers. Is there any one best way to make a carbon print? Only you can answer that, and only after you have made prints yourself. This medium requires a persistence and dedication to a degree that many others do not require. If you are looking for quick immediate results it may not be for you.

Yup to that.
Being doing this for over 4 years and still learn something. Things can still go wrong. I just dumped a litre of glop down the drain as the India Ink I had just purchased was bad. Most of the pigment settled to the bottomed and hardened. I didn't realize this until I was pouring tissue. Back to the art store I go...

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Not to mention "cycles of the moon!"

[Curt]

Yup to that.
Being doing this for over 4 years and still learn something. Things can still go wrong. I just dumped a litre of glop down the drain as the India Ink I had just purchased was bad. Most of the pigment settled to the bottomed and hardened. I didn't realize this until I was pouring tissue. Back to the art store I go...

There's no end to the possibilities for disaster is there? When it all comes together though it's great!

[Andrew O'Neill]

Just made/poured some tissue with new bottle of India Ink. Forgot to make sure the pouring station was level... one tissue buggered. Looked out the window, couldn't see a full moon so it must of just been my stupidity.

[richardman]

I am also a Chinese calligrapher and the idea that I can use Chinese ink / Sumi-E for photo prints just tickle my fancy...

[rich caramadre]

4 1/2 hours is nothing. I drove 13 hours from Salt Lake City to take a workshop with Mr. Fitzgerald. It was worth it. I learned alot.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Rich, thanks. You were a great student! I hope all is well. Understanding carbon takes time. It also takes the passion. Without this it won't happen I feel.

[Andrew O'Neill]

... as well as perserverance... and grit.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Did we scare him off?

[Andrew O'Neill]

I think we did... oh well, we shouldn't sugar coat it, eh?

[karl french]

It's good practice for the first time you spend hours making a print and then watch it float away in warm water...

[Andrew O'Neill]

It's good practice for the first time you spend hours making a print and then watch it float away in warm water...

That has never happened to me. Nope. Never... :rolleyes:

[ndg]

The sad bit is that everything you guys have posted so far is true. As someone who has been trying to learn the technique for the last 6 months or so, I can attest to that.

[sanking]

It's good practice for the first time you spend hours making a print and then watch it float away in warm water...

Embarrassed to admit it but that actually happened to me three or four years ago when I was teaching a workshop. The student was developing a print when all of a sudden the entire image just floated off the paper, virtually intact. I had not seen anything like this before and was totally perplexed for a few minutes trying to figure out what had gone wrong. I finally figured out that for some reason a sheet of art paper that I had sized but not hardened had gotten mixed up with some other sheets of the same paper that were sized and hardened. So naturally when the hot water hit the unhardened gelatin the image just melted off the paper.

Took a while to reestablish my credibility with that student but we ended up having a good session. I am glad to report that the student actually returned the next year for a five-day workshop, where I was able to give him a good foundation in carbon printing, and is now making great carbon prints.

You are bound to have some problems from time to time in carbon printing. No matter how you cut it, carbon printing can be complicated, and stuff you don't expect happens. And if you start to worry, things get worse. You must be confident, and there has to be natural flow to your work. Carbon printing must just happen, if you try to force it before you understand the hows and whys bad things are sure to happen.

And the key to good work has already been mentioned by Jim. Practice. And practice, practice and more practice. And learning from your mistakes. And if you work hard enough to make one really good print, this process might seduce you.

Sandy

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Sandy, great points. I always tell my students print, print, print. It will make sense as you go. Getting hooked! For me that happened when I say Vaughn's prints for the first time. I nailed my first print and thought I was a natural for this. Of course I read what you had written and read everything I could find and followed Vaughn's instructions. The rest they say is history.

[Erik Larsen]

I think it must be emphasized again that one must keep printing and printing and printing and seeing every flaw and mistake that can be made and diagnose what happened. I read every piece of literature I could get a hold of regarding the process including Sandy kings and Sullivan's pamphlets, Vaughn's handout, the info in keepers of the light and James alt process book as well as asking questions on forums and email. All had valuable information and were helpful to get going in the right direction, but the real learning comes from making the mistakes IMO. I must have made them all, I hope:). After awhile the process clicks and you wonder what all the fuss was about and the mistakes are rare other than exposure and contrast errors. It's a fun process and must be one of the most economical alt processes money wise, not time wise. I encourage anyone interested to give it a try or at least take a workshop to see if the process fits their personality.

[Drew Wiley]

Clovis is a titanic town compared to where I grew up, about a hour uphill from there. John Kasian has a pasture just outside of town, and lives in "yeccch ... Fresno".
He makes contact prints. I think he custom makes the emulsion with cowpie instead of carbon.... basically the same thing.

[Fredrick]

I hate myself for reading this thread. Now I must set out on a carbon printing quest...

[Andrew O'Neill]

Good luck, Fredrick. Lots of us here eager to help if you get stuck. Did you join Sandy King's yahoo carbon group?

[Vaughn]

Always will to help!

Vaughn

[Fredrick]

Thanks guys. I'll join his group and read up a little bit more. For me this process seem to be more time consuming than complicated, but I have all the time in the world.

[stawastawa]

sounds like a process requiring fine control of negative. knowing what density and contrast to achieve through exposure and development when burning a sheet.

~nicholas

[Jim Fitzgerald]

It is true that an optimum negative is best but once you know the process you can print almost any negative. Some people make digital negatives to give consistency to their work flow. I love the challenge of creating in camera negatives and working this way. The end result is what matters and the passion you bring to get there. A fun journey.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I use both in-camera and digital negatives. Digital negatives are just as challenging to work with, if not more difficult to learn, in my humble opinion. Film negatives if tailored properly, just seem to slip on to carbon easier.
One thing I appreciate about the digital negative, is that it allows me to print images that were never intended for carbon, including smaller formats.

[stawastawa]

Do you still start with a 'work print' and adjust from there? Do you get good at judging negatives? do you measure negative contrast in any way? Because there is still that exposure of the print part of the process that seems to difficult.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Nicholas, I use an X-rite 361 densitometer to judge negative density. Once you understand what is going on I feel no need for work prints. Finding the balance of sensitizer for contrast and exposure for your blacks is done by making a print. Start with a standard glop formula. Something like 12 grams of pigment per 1,000ml. Remember the more pigment you put in the higher the contrast of the glop will be. The sensitizer dilution is another control. The lower the strength sensitizer the higher the contrast of the sensitizer. One has to understand and find the balance. Once you do this it gets really fun.

[sanking]

Do you still start with a 'work print' and adjust from there? Do you get good at judging negatives? do you measure negative contrast in any way? Because there is still that exposure of the print part of the process that seems to difficult.

Evaluating a negative is no different for carbon than for other alternative processes like kallitype, pt/pd, vandyke or salted paper. If you have a negative that prints well with any one of these four processes it will also print well with carbon. Carbon is actually more flexible and versatile than any of these other processes in the density range it can handle without loss of image quality. When printing with any negative, be it in-camera or digital, there are basically two issues, 1) overall density range of the negative, which determines the strength of the dichromate sensitizer needed to print this range, and 2) shadow density in the area that corresponds to Zone 2, which determines printing time. If you own and use a UV densitometer it is possible to make these determinations before attempting a first work print, and if you understand your materials your first print should be a good test.

Because of exposure in the field printing times will vary quite a bit with in-camera negatives, and contrast also. With digital negatives the shadow density and contrast are built into the calibration stage so unless you do something dumb the first print will always be pretty close to "normal" in terms of contrast and tonal range. Even in that case, however, the "normal" may not give the best rendition of the image.

With any given tissue it is possible to print negatives that vary in density range from as low as log 1.0 to as high as log 4.5. The issue is understanding how to sensitize and expose. Negatives with a very low DR must be sensitized with low strength dichromate sensitizers, and this in turns means long exposures. Negatives with a high DR must be sensitized with high strength dichromate sensitizers, and printing speed is faster.

Don't confuse DR with maximum density. A negative can have a very high maximum density, in fact be almost bullet proof, but have a low DR.

Sandy

[ghostcount]

...With any given tissue it is possible to print negatives that vary in density range from as low as log 1.0 to as high as log 4.5. The issue is understanding how to sensitize and expose. Negatives with a very low DR must be sensitized with low strength dichromate sensitizers, and this in turns means long exposures. Negatives with a high DR must be sensitized with high strength dichromate sensitizers, and printing speed is faster.

Don't confuse DR with maximum density. A negative can have a very high maximum density, in fact be almost bullet proof, but have a low DR.

Sandy

Pretty much sums up sensitization.

"I'll take Sandy for the win" :cool:

[stawastawa]

Thank you for those responses!

Sounds like one needs to

Sandy, I'm amazed at the wide range of DR that can be used with the process. Sounds like one needs to take very good notes to arrive at a knowledge, built on experience, of what types of glob and of sensitiser to use.

Sandy, you don't mention varying the amount of pigment in the glop. is that a personal choice? The Glop formula affects contrast as well no? Yet it sounds like varying the amount of sensitiser allows greater control of contrast? or is it just a personal preference weather to use more glob or more sensitiser when printing a negative with a large DR?

[Vaughn]

The amount of pigment in the glop does affect contrast as well as the amount of relief that is possible to pull out of the process. There are advantages and disadvantages whenever one takes a process to its extremes.

Generally, I would say that working with more pigment in the glop makes the process easier. This is one of the advantages with the Bostick and Sullivan tissue. Its relatively high pigment content allows for thinner tissue, which dries faster after sensitizing, has less curl (or at least not as strong), and a wider range of negative contrast can be handled by adjusting the sensitizer strength.

Tissue with very low pigment concentration will have an inherent low contrast. Even by lowering the sensitizer strength to its working minimum, it will not be possible to print a low-contrast negative (unless one is after a low-contrast print, of course).

When I was learning the process, the magazine article I was working from did not mention much about changing sensitizer strength and it recommended an 8% solution...which is a relatively low contrast solution. But I started out using 25 grams of lampblack watercolor pigment, which is a fairly high contrast mix...so the combination worked well for learning the process. The tissues were easy to learn how to pour, dried fast in my humid climate -- the only thing that was more difficult than thick tissues is that the thinner tissues are a little less robust in handling than thick.

I noticed a little relief in the wet prints that disappeared when dry, so I started to reduce the pigment and increase the contrast of my negatives until I got raised relief in the dried print...while keeping the sensitizer at 8%. I went down to around 3 grams (from 25 grams) of the same pigment. It was bad enough that I was changing two major variables at a time...changing a third (sensitizer strength) would have been a nightmare! It was only when I started to teach workshops with participants bringing a wide variety of negatives that I started to use different sensitizer strengths.

Sorry -- long-winded. But in the end, the amount of pigment in the glop will affect the way the print looks. One then can choose the negative DR and the sensitizer strength to match the glop in order to get the print to look the way one wants it to look. At least that is how I have gone about it. Other ways are equally valid...it is the end result that counts!

[sanking]

"You don't mention varying the amount of pigment in the glop. is that a personal choice? The Glop formula affects contrast as well no? Yet it sounds like varying the amount of sensitiser allows greater control of contrast? or is it just a personal preference weather to use more glob or more sensitiser when printing a negative with a large DR?"

Varying the amount of pigment in the glop definitely affects contrast. However, over the years I have developed several standard tissue formulas that always use about the same amount of pigment. This allows some consistency in control of contrast using negatives that vary in density range. As Vaughn mentions, better to limit your variables in the learning stage.



Sandy

[Vaughn]

One of the reasons I took up carbon printing was the ability to photograph scenes that have a very larger SBR without having to go with minus development and scrunch up all the highlight values. A cave scene I like measured 13 stops or so (might be more...once the meter stops reading the low values, who know how low they actually go.) In this case I got 0 on the top of the cave and 13 outside the cave with my Pentax spot meter.

Same thing with sunlight coming thru the redwoods: