Digital BW, The Print

This morning I coated my first Eclipse 16x20 (17x22 paper) with a wire-wound
rod and polyurethane.  The process appears to scale-up to this level without
too much trouble.

The main problem I had in setting up is that I have no totally-flat counter
top.  (I use a plywood sheet over my darkroom wet-sink as a working space.)
I ended up using two 22x28 picture-frame glass sheets on top of this plywood
to try to smooth the surface.  I found that to get the surface flat I needed
to put some pieces of paper between the two in certain areas.  I used a good
straight-edge to be sure the surface was flat.  With that on the top glass,
I tried to slip a piece of paper between the straight-edge and the glass.
If I could, I knew I had a low spot where I needed to put some paper between
the two pieces of glass.

At any rate, having set up the counter yesterday, the process of coating the
16x20 today was rather easy.  From taping down the top of the print to
finishing clean-up took 10 minutes.

The results are not 100% perfect yet.  Looking at reflected light off the
surface of the print, the coating shows some signs of unevenness -- slight
"banding" from the rod not being even against the print.  This is probably,
in part, my counter top problem.  Also, I did not follow my 8x10 procedure
in that I didn't have a couple of pieces of copy paper under the print.
Some butcher paper might be the answer here -- and also help with clean-up.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

Paul,

> This morning I coated my first Eclipse 16x20 (17x22 paper) with a 
wire-wound
> rod and polyurethane.  The process appears to scale-up to this 
level without
> too much trouble.
> 

Why do you use a wire wraped rod? Have you considered using a glass 
tube? These are commonly used to coat alternative process emulsions 
onto paper.

How do you clean your rod and how do you introduce the urethane onto 
the rod?

> The main problem I had in setting up is that I have no totally-flat 
counter
> top.  (I use a plywood sheet over my darkroom wet-sink as a working 
space.)
> I ended up using two 22x28 picture-frame glass sheets on top of 
this plywood
> to try to smooth the surface.  


As someone else already mentioned use a heavy piece of glass plate 
for coating. This provides a very flat surface to coat on. Place a 
towel (or sheets of news print) underneath the glass to provide 
stability.

> The results are not 100% perfect yet.  Looking at reflected light 
off the
> surface of the print, the coating shows some signs of unevenness -- 
slight
> "banding" from the rod not being even against the print.  

Using a glass rod will eliminate this, an even bead of coating can be 
gotten by slightly lifting the rod before pushing forward. 

Interesting process, we will be interested to hear of your progress.

Don Bryant

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> This morning I coated my first Eclipse 16x20 (17x22 paper) 
with a wire-wound
> rod and polyurethane.

-------

Paul,

As you know, I've been the lead cheerleader for this coating 
thing, waving my pom-poms for you and Robert.

I have been coating with a Winsor Newton oil glaze called 
Wingel. It dries to a gloss, whereas my other product, Oleopasto, 
dries to more of a satin. I have not been going for that 
"uniform/perfection" technique that you and Robert have been; 
I've been going for a more handdone, funky, human look. I apply 
it to the print with a plastic 5" putty knife, spread it around 
somewhat evenly, then I dab the end of a 3" paintbrush into the 
varnish to add a texture. 

Probably not what most people would do, but it works for me.

I've been applying it onto either ESFA sheets, or Museo sheets, 
or PhotoRag sheets, using Ultrachromes on a 9600. I like the 
coating because it de-computerizes the print by adding a human 
touch, and it also deepens the WEAK BLACKS of the 9600 with 
matteblack loaded.

The lack of black in the Ultras is obviously an issue for me, but 
therapy is taking off the sharp edges. (RIGHT? Answer me, Paul, 
dammit!)

But yesterday I just hit the wall, and dumped my MatteBlack and 
replaced it with PhotoBlack. I tested some prints on Luster and 
SemiMatte; the blacks suck with that technique too. (There's just 
nothing like a dye black).

But my point is: I'm bailing from the whole coating thing, just 
because of the huge amount of post-production that it adds. With 
Wingel, I apply either three or four coats, and so you've got prints 
lying all over the studio, WET, and just asking for some piece of 
dirt to land on it. Not to mention stray brush hairs or a million 
other possible things to land on the surface. In short, it's just out 
of control.

I had to make a decision that I'm a photographer, and not a 
printmaker. I guess I could be a printmaker, but there's only so 
many hours in the day, and I had to come back to the fact that it's 
about THE IMAGE. Yes, the print should be compelling, but it's 
about the image.

Today, I'm still not happy. I refuse to buy a dye 7600 for the 
blacks. I just couldn't live with myself, knowing dye prints were 
leaving here. If I only printed for myself, maybe so. 

Anyway, continued luck with your coating adventures. You're 
gonna need it.

-Mark Tucker, http://marktucker.com/

On 11/15/02 6:58 AM, "Mark Tucker" <mark@...> wrote:

> But my point is: I'm bailing from the whole coating thing, just
> because of the huge amount of post-production that it adds. With
> Wingel, I apply either three or four coats, and so you've got prints
> lying all over the studio, WET, and just asking for some piece of
> dirt to land on it. Not to mention stray brush hairs or a million
> other possible things to land on the surface. In short, it's just out
> of control.

Mark, in a way you have stacked the cards against you...by using an oil
based product that requires 3-4 coats.  The processes/products that Paul and
I are looking at dry quickly and require only one or two coats that only
take a couple of seconds each to apply with a rod.  Yes, we've focused on
trying to get a very uniform surface because we are going for an air-dried
silver print look...but you could use these same products with your
application technique...at the very least they will dry much quicker...but
they may not get you the final look that you want.  It sounds to me that you
do want to be a print maker if you are essentially doing a mono-print on to
of a photograph.  If this isn't what you want...and rather better blacks
with pigmented inks...then our coatings can help you.

Robert

At 02:58 PM 11/15/02 +0000, you wrote:

>I had to make a decision that I'm a photographer, and not a
>printmaker. I guess I could be a printmaker, but there's only so
>many hours in the day, and I had to come back to the fact that it's
>about THE IMAGE. Yes, the print should be compelling, but it's
>about the image.
>
>
>-Mark Tucker, <http://marktucker.com/>http://marktucker.com/


Yea!!!  Thank you for the voice of sanity, Mark.

Another photographer,

Tina


Tina Manley, ASMP
http://www.tinamanley.com

images available from:
http://www.pdiphotos.com
http://www.mira.com
http://www.agpix.com
http://www.newscom.com





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]