Carbon Transfer Prints

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Sandy, nice to see those trees with all of that texture. Where did you shoot this? Very nice.

[sanking]

Jim,

The old beech is located in northern Spain, inside the national park of Ordesa. With the leaves gone the bright branches and limbs really contrast with the dark evergreens in the background, and this gives a lot of image relief.

This tree is an old friend, have photographed it during trips to the area in 2007 and 2010, and again in 2013 and 2014.

Sandy

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Wonderful to go back and see how time changes things.

[sanking]

Another 15X23" carbon transfer print on gelatin sized paper. From a digital negative printed with QTR and a custom profile that I made for my version of the carbon process. Image capture was with Sony a7r converted to IR, several stitches involved for a final image size of about 100 mp.

The image is of a grove of ancient chestnut trees, including some that have been constantly pruned since the middle ages. These trees are in a rural section in the southwest of the province of Lugo, in Galicia, Spain. Way, way off the beaten path of tourism in Spain.

You see a print hanging to dry, one of two I made today, and the PS file used to make the digital negative.

Thanks for looking.

Sandy

[tgtaylor]

Once you have mastered it, the salted paper process will deliver a broader tonal range than the carbon print or even the platinum print. I've even read here, or elsewhere, that Mark Osterman is claiming that salted paper is the more archival process in the Eastman House collection.

Thomas

[sanking]

All of the many historical printing processes, including albumen, carbon, gum bichromate, fresson, salted paper, collodion on paper, palladium/palladium, silver on gelatin, silver on collodium,, tintype, etc. have a distinctive and unique beauty. Many fine examples of historical work, including some masterful work in salted paper by Ellie Young, was included in a book on handcrafted printing I co-edited with three other photographers that was published last year.

The Getty Museum has published a series on the characteristics of a number of different printing processes, available as free .pdf downloads from http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/pdf_publications/atlas.html

The claim that the salted paper process will deliver a broader tonal range than carbon is factually incorrect. Typically the highest shadow density possible with salted paper is about log 1.5, with carbon the value can be as high as log 2.0 or more. This is due to the fact that with salted paper the image is partially embedded in the fibers of the paper, lowering reflective Dmax. In carbon the image is within a gelatin coating that rests on top of the paper. In terms of their ES (exposure scale) a number of processes, including albumen, carbon, palladium and salted paper are able to print a full range of tones with very high density range negatives, up to log 3.0 or even more.

I am not familiar with claims by any authority that the archival qualities of salted paper are superior to those of carbon prints. If you would like to discuss that subject please start a dedicated thread on the subject.


Sandy

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Sandy, I didn't understand that comment either?

[sanking]

And another one.

This image was made in the Valley of Pineta, near Bielsa. Capture was with Sony a7r, used on a Cambo Actus. Multiple shot stitching to give file size of well over 100 mp.

Printed from digital negative made with Epson 7800. Image size is 15X23" on gelatin sized fiber paper.

There is a smoothness of gradations on the print that even Lenny Eiger would approve of. I think.

In any event I love it, makes me so glad I passed on the Philosophy and Muses threads today and did something!

Sandy

[ndg]

Beautiful work, Sandy!

[Peter De Smidt]

That's terrific work, as usual, Sandy! Your prints are inspirational!

[sanking]

Thank you Nana, and Peter, for the generous comments. I am equally inspired by the work and knowledge of both of you.

I really had something of a problem in approaching treatment of this image. If you look carefully there are signs of decay in nature (dead limbs at top of trees), and of human presence (see slide on slop in distance, with power poles). My original inclination was to correct all of that to a near-pristine condition, but decided to leave as is. My decision worked out OK, but I struggle with choices that pit aesthetics against what was really there! I understand it is my choice, but there is always an internal conflict.

Sandy

[Jim Fitzgerald]

And another one.

This image was made in the Valley of Pineta, near Bielsa. Capture was with Sony a7r, used on a Cambo Actus. Multiple shot stitching to give file size of well over 100 mp.

Printed from digital negative made with Epson 7800. Image size is 15X23" on gelatin sized fiber paper.

There is a smoothness of gradations on the print that even Lenny Eiger would approve of. I think.

In any event I love it, makes me so glad I passed on the Philosophy and Muses threads today and did something!

Sandy

Sandy, I agree with you on the tonal gradations. This is a beautiful image and print.

[ndg]

Carbon Woes.
Two weeks, I did some flower studies on 11x14 Xray film using soft-focus lenses and a petzval lens. I thought they would look great as carbon prints so I made 3 pieces of 11x15 carbon tissue. I wanted the images to come out as 9x13 on 12x16 fixed out photo paper. About 4 days after I poured the tissue, they felt dry so I sensitized and exposed the first one. To my surprise, the negative was stuck to the tissue - tissue and negative were ruined! Luckily, I had scanned the negative so I made a digital negative. I waited 2 days and sensitized and exposed the second tissue, using the digital negative. Imagine my surprise when I had to pull the negative off the tissue. I knew it was ruined but went ahead and mated it to my final support and developed it anyway. Below is the result:
http://nanadadzie.com/darkroom/pix/Mistakes.jpg
I waited 3 more days and sensitized and exposed the last tissue. This time all went well. I mated it to the final support (fixed-out photo paper) and went ahead with separation and developing. As I gingerly separated support from tissue base, the image fell apart. On closer inspection, guess what I did? I mated the tissue to the back of the photo paper, the side without the gelatin coating. If I only had hair to pull out!:mad: Well, I'm making more glop. That's my revenge!

[Vaughn]

Carbon Woes.
Two weeks, I did some flower studies on 11x14 Xray film using soft-focus lenses and a petzval lens... Well, I'm making more glop. That's my revenge!

Two possible causes of your frustration:

1) While the tissue probably was dry enough before sensitizing, your sensitized tissue probably was not dry enough...I have a fan blowing on the sensitized tissue for two hours before printing (local relative humidity about 60%).
or
2) too much heat build-up during exposure..I have a fan blowing across the glass of my contact printing frame during exposures.
and
3) digital negs are sensitive to any moisture -- most folks use a thin piece of acetate or similar material to protect the digital neg.

I have mated the tissue to the non-emulsion side of FB paper a few times...often due to it being too early in the morning after a long night of printing!

Success is the best form of revenge!

[ndg]

Vaughn, thanks for the suggestions.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

This also looks to be a moisture issue. Depending on how thick the tissue is it can take a long time to dry. Humidity comes into play at the drying stage, sensitizing, and exposure. When I have high humidity I have to let my tissue (sensitized) dry longer. Moisture build up at exposure is an issue as Vaughn indicated and I use fans as well. Failures teach us so much. This image will be stunning when you nail it.

[koraks]

Yes, I agree with Jim and Vaughn. The times I had negatives stick to the tissue, the cause was:
1 insufficiently dried tissue (used too soon; I generally let it dry for at least a week before using it, usually more, up to several months)
2 tissue still tacky due to too short drying time after sensitization. Contrary to the short drying times I've read elsewhere, I need to dry my tissue for at least 2 hours after sensitization before it ceases to feel at all tacky.
3 exposure unit too close to the tissue during exposure. I use a distance of at least 8" with ample airflow between unit and tissue. My exposure unit is 50W a face tanner with CFL tubes.
4 tacky ink on digital negatives. I find the ink on digital negatives never dries out completely and they remain slightly tacky and prone to attracting dust and debris and sticking to the tissue a bit.

Solutions:
1. dry for an extended period of time; I dry my tissue for at least a week before storing it away.
2. dry for longer after sensitization with a fan blowing on the tissue; only start exposing when the tissue feels absolutely and completely dry. Also/alternatively: use a higher acetone:water (or alcohol:water) ratio in your sensitizer, as acetone and alcohol evaporate much quicker than water, reducing drying time.
3. increase distance between print frame and light source and/or have a fan blow cool air onto the print frame.
4. use an acetate sheet between the negative and the tissue (but I've had little luck and ugly results doing this), or use real negatives. I opted for the latter and went from 4x5 to 8x10 so I can use x-ray negatives. I'm never going back.

[ndg]

@ Jim: I made glop and poured some tissue this am. Will have at it again.
@ Koraks: thanks for the suggestions. However, I think it has little to do with digital negatives and all to do with moisture, impatience and lack of attention to detail. The few successful carbon prints I have were mostly done with digital negatives.

[Andrew O'Neill]

When I print with a digital negative, I don't bother with a piece of acetate between the negative and the tissue. Instead I invert the image before printing out on the OH material, which then becomes the barrier between negative and tissue. Ink side facing up during exposure.
Moisture and humidity are only an issue here during the summer for me. Winter seems to present the ideal situation for carbon transfer printing. I tend to do very little printing during the summer months. Outside enjoying the sunshine with my family, travelling, etc. Having a great time in Montreal!

[ndg]

"Lilies" - a Carbon Transfer Print
http://nanadadzie.com/darkroom/pix/Lilies.jpg
In an earlier post, I described the issues I had with moisture when I tried to print this image initially.
I totally damaged the original negative so this image was made with a digital negative on Pictorico.
Captured with 19" Derogy Petzval on 11" x14" green Xray negative, Century 8A, about f5.
Film developed in Rodinal using Jobo, scanned on Epson 10000XL.
Print on fixed-out glossy photo paper.
Pigment - Black Cat India ink.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Nana, nice to see the difference. These types of images can be a real challenge. Nice job.

[ndg]

Nana, nice to see the difference. These types of images can be a real challenge. Nice job.

Jim, thanks!

[Roberto Rico]

Beautiful. Thanks for sharing.