PDA

View Full Version : Liquid Emulsion Use Question



Too Many Cameras
25-Apr-2013, 13:53
I'm going to be doing a small batch of film photos and prints for my company's annual party (as a raffle giveaway) and I'm trying to decide between two media options. I already decided (and ordered) Rockland Colloid's Liquid Light emulsion. Here are my processing thoughts:

1- opalotype-like print on either white opalume sheet glass or very-light-green Vitrolite (I like this a lot since I can't find evidence anyone has ever printed an image on Vitrolite before)
2- paper print with brush-stroke edges

If I elect for the paper route, what papers should I consider? I expect the final prints to be either 4X5 or 5X7. If I do 4X5, I'll do contact prints. If I do 5X7, they'll be enlargements from a 6x7 or 6x6 negative.

Regarding the capture media, I'm debating between using my 4X5 (Calumet CC-400 with 165mm Caltar II f4.5), Pentax 6X7 (105mm f2.4), or one of my 6X6 TLRs (Rolleiflex Old Standard [f3.8] and Ricohmatic 225 [f3.5].) The 'studio' is going to be an ad hoc setup on a boat, probably below deck. So I expect poor lighting at best and I'm hesitant that the 4X5's required bellows extension (and the fact that my fastest sheet film is 100 ISO) will make the exposure times too long. In 120, I would used HP5+ used with a much faster lens.

So here are my questions:
1- Has anyone made a print on glass and what pitfalls should I avoid? (I haven't ever done this.)
2- If I elect to go the paper route, what are a few good options (I haven't done this in 20 years.)
3- Given the circumstances (I'll also have my DSLR and a couple ultra-fast lenses to carry around), which film format is more practical -- 4X5 or 120?

Thank you for any responses and input you have. And yes, I will let you know which route I elect and share any respectable results. Also, I know this forum is specifically for LF, and there's a lot of MF talk in this post, but I don't think that the MF and SF forum I frequent has the alternative process chops to address these questions.

Randy Moe
25-Apr-2013, 14:09
#3, I would shoot FujiFilm fp3000 B&W ISO 3200. Quick easy and you could either pass out or sell instantly or scan for your other presentations.

Scott Walker
25-Apr-2013, 14:23
I used liquid light on glass and had problems with the emulsion peeling.
I don't know how well it lends it's self to contact printing, I have never let it sit long enough before exposure to dry out to the point where I would be comfortable squeezing a negative against it. You might have to let them set up for a few days before contact printing because if you let it dry for the recomended time it still feels kind of tacky for a long time after.
If Emil (gandolfi) does not notice this thread and chime in and offer his opinion maybe send him a pm and ask, he uses the stuff quite a bit I beleive.

jnantz
25-Apr-2013, 15:21
hi
i've been printing with liquid light on glass off-on since the 80s ..
the trick is you have to coat the glass and then put the coated glass on a level and cold surface
( i use a pizza stone that i keep in my freezer ).
the glass has to be chemically clean ( water sheens off and doesn't hang ... )
then pour on the emulsion in a puddle in the center, and flow it to each corner then off the corner to a overflow / catch-container.
i used to also use a foam brush but i find it easier to just flow it on ...

i used to use a sub coat of gelatin but now i don't bother and i don't have peel-problems ..
you also need to use chemistry that isn't warm, dektol or whatever, ... but 68
and you need to put hardener in your fixer or you may have peeling / frilling.

i have never used the glass you mention just plain old window pane ..
i used either from scavenged windows ( trash day i harvested glass, or greenhouses to be torn down &c )
now i just get glass from the glass shop ...

good luck !

john

if you can get the liquid silver emulsion book, grab it, its worth its weight in gold !

Winger
25-Apr-2013, 15:54
If you do contact prints and don't want the negative to touch, just put a piece of clear plastic between (the ones for overhead transparency projectors usually work well).

Too Many Cameras
26-Apr-2013, 11:31
Hi, everyone,

Thank you very much for the insights. I've elected to go with the Ricohmatic 225 (I thought I had a 6X7 carrier, but I don't) shooting HP5+. I'm getting a quote for Vitrolite glass to see if the price is doable. If not, I'll use craft art paper.

John, regarding the emulsion process, my thought was to pre-coat the glass with an oil-based clear varnish. I have a marble slab at home for cheese and such that I can pre-freeze. Will brush-on application for glass work? It would be neat to have the brush strokes on the image's margins.

jnantz
26-Apr-2013, 12:17
hi again

i don't think it would be a good idea to use something you plan on using again for food
for darkroom work. i have heard of people using urethane but i can't comment on the varnish ..
you might give the good folks at rockland colloid a call to see if it will work ...
as for brush strokes ... you might have to experiment a little to see how the brush will work
i don't use one very often ... you will probably be OK ...

urethane usually yellows after a while i am not sure about varnish ...

have fun !


Hi, everyone,

Thank you very much for the insights. I've elected to go with the Ricohmatic 225 (I thought I had a 6X7 carrier, but I don't) shooting HP5+. I'm getting a quote for Vitrolite glass to see if the price is doable. If not, I'll use craft art paper.

John, regarding the emulsion process, my thought was to pre-coat the glass with an oil-based clear varnish. I have a marble slab at home for cheese and such that I can pre-freeze. Will brush-on application for glass work? It would be neat to have the brush strokes on the image's margins.

Too Many Cameras
26-Apr-2013, 13:19
I mis-spoke, I meant urethane not varnish. As for the cheese slab, I've never actually used it for food (and don't plan to). It's sitting under my LP player right now waiting to be turned into an end table top.

jnantz
26-Apr-2013, 19:11
make sure your safelight isn't too too bright
and when you heat up the emulsion squeeze
some of it out of the bottle so you only heat up
a small amount at a time, the more you heat it /melt it
the more of a chance of fogging ...
not sure which version of liquid light you are going to use
i'm using the VC version, and it melts well
these 2 links might be helpful
http://www.alternativephotography.com/wp/processes/gelatin-silver/silver-gelatin-dry-plate-process
and
http://notesonphotographs.org/index.php?title=Osterman,_Mark._%22Making,_Coating_and_Processing_a_Simple_Gelatin_Emulsion%22

have fun!
john

Too Many Cameras
28-Apr-2013, 21:54
Hey, John,

Thank you, the second link especially is very helpful. For my safelight, I plan to put my normal red safelight (I think it's 15w) inside a Yankee filtered light housing with a dark-amber glass. My hope is that will be really dark. I can't tell which version I have (the box doesn't say?!?). I got a few extra glass pieces, so I should be able to do a few tests.

Too Many Cameras
19-Jun-2013, 16:42
I printed the Opalotypes last night. The variations in the prints due to emulsion thickness are great, to me, but the issues with bubbles because I dropped the emulsion container (twice...) are not as great. Overall, I really like how they look and I think that the 1+1 Selektol I developed the prints in worked well. I had one with emulsion disbonding issues, but by and large the gelatine subbing did its job well.

I ended up shooting 6X6 with my 1932 (February -- one of the first made) Rolleiflex Old Standard. I shot on HP5+ at 800 ISO and developed it in Ilfosol 3 1+14 for 19:30. That lent itself to very nice negatives with crisp detail and good tonality. The opalotype prints were 6"x6" milk glass. So far, the raffle winners who received the prints have been happy and, I can say with confidence, now have a unique conversation piece for their homes. Here are some of the prints:

97301
97302
97303
97304

jnantz
19-Jun-2013, 18:27
fun stuff !
they look great :)
john

Too Many Cameras
22-Jun-2013, 14:51
Thank you, John. The winners seemed pretty happy, too (most of them, anyway.)