Thank you. Here is some more from the same river bank
Dunino, 2022 by Pavel Vnukov, on Flickr
Revisiting carbon transfer. I'm trying my hand at transferring to glass. It's easier than I thought (if there is such a thing as 'easy' in carbon transfer...)
Print from a 4x5" Fomapan 100 negative.
Two test prints (4x5 single transfer carbon), checking on the exposure and development of the Kodak Professional Copy Film (ASA 25) relative to the printing process.
Prints scanned on an office printer/scanner. Images taken on recent backpack trips. I'm heading back up there next week!
Gowland 4x5 PocketView, 150mm/5.6 Caltar IIN
Kodak Professional Copy Film (ASA 25)
Bridge Creek, Redwood National Park
June 8, 2022
Just above its joining Redwood Creek.
f64 for 5 minutes
Scene read 3++ to 10 (water) on my Pentax Digital Spot Meter, exposed at 6 plus 50% added for reciprosity failure.
PyroCatHD 6:6:600, 70F for 8 minutes in a Jobo 3006 Expert Drum
Negative a little thin in the shadows
Redwood Creek from Camp, Redwood National Park
July 7, 2022
Scene 7 to 14, taken at 9
f22 @ 4 seconds
PyroCatHD 6:6:600, 72F for 6 minutes in a Jobo 3006 Expert Drum
I do have lovely detail in that bottom right corner.
"Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China
Any problems with cracking or peeling from the glass after some time has passed?
Have seen Carbon prints on metal and all have eventually had problems. Seems the expansion/contraction of the metal causes problems for the Carbon/emulsion and cracking and peeling result. Too bad as the prints are excellent with a look all their own.
” Never attribute to inspiration that which can be adequately explained by delusion”.
I was shown carbon prints on glass at the George Eastman Museum that were quite old. Not sure about metal. Note that we were told the carbon prints that had the most issues were the ones with very high relief. Probably because the creators poured a very thick tissue and over time gravity wins out. If you want your carbon prints to really last thinner emulsion is better than thicker.
"Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China
Time will tell...I don't know yet. But I can see valid reasons for concern, indeed.
@Vaughn: I actually think a thin subbing and a thin carbon image would be a better idea than heavy sizing and high-relief images. The thicker the gelatin layer, the more problematic the cracking will be, is my guess. I base this also on the experience I had with fairly heavy sizing of glass (thinking it was a good idea) which was much more prone to frilling and reticulation than a light subbing & sizing.
Bookmarks