Digital BW, The Print

Dear all,

  we finally have come to a conclusion of our R&D program on B&W fine
art printing. We are finally satisfied with the results we got after
1.5 years of tests. The most difficult part was to achieve at the same
time good Dmax, nice looking prints and archival standard on fine art
printmaking paper. The technique we come up with, Carbon-Gelatine
printing, is described in details on our new website:
http://www.mantinieri.com/techniques.html

Therefore, we would like to thank the whole newsgroup, from which we
have learned  a lot. Special thanks go to Paul Roark (for discussions
on Carbon inks and for suggesting the kind of curves that would work
well on uncoated paper) and to Clayton Jones. We have taken the
liberty to include a link to their sites here (please, let us know it
it is OK for you):
http://www.mantinieri.com/links.html

Ciao,

Daniela and Mantinieri

On Oct 28, 2008, at 10:04 AM, dgattarino wrote:

> Dear all,
>
>   we finally have come to a conclusion of our R&D program on B&W fine
> art printing. We are finally satisfied with the results we got after
> 1.5 years of tests. The most difficult part was to achieve at the same
> time good Dmax, nice looking prints and archival standard on fine art
> printmaking paper. The technique we come up with, Carbon-Gelatine
> printing, is described in details on our new website:
> http://www.mantinieri.com/techniques.html [snip]

> Gelatin based coating is commonly used in art work restoration as  
> it is easily removed from the substrate without ruining the  
> underlying art. In fact, immersing the print in a water bath at 40 ° 
> C is sufficient to liquefy the gelatine and fully removing it from  
> the paper without any mechanical intervention. After the  
> restoration, a new coating is easily reapplied whenever necessary.  
> [quoted from the web site]
What changes in the coating might make re-coating necessary, Daniela?  
And at approximately what intervals would changes in the coating be  
expected to make re-coating routinely necessary? I'm wondering about  
the case for gelatine coating vs. no coating. Or perhaps some other  
coating, not that I have one to recommend; I hope to avoid coating.

Thanks.
--
Sam

So is this a technique you will be marketing as a printing service or  
the products for use by end users?

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On Oct 28, 2008, at 1:04 PM, dgattarino wrote:

> Dear all,
>
>   we finally have come to a conclusion of our R&D program on B&W fine
> art printing. We are finally satisfied with the results we got after
> 1.5 years of tests. The most difficult part was to achieve at the same
> time good Dmax, nice looking prints and archival standard on fine art
> printmaking paper. The technique we come up with, Carbon-Gelatine
> printing, is described in details on our new website:
> http://www.mantinieri.com/techniques.html
>
> Therefore, we would like to thank the whole newsgroup, from which we
> have learned  a lot. Special thanks go to Paul Roark (for discussions
> on Carbon inks and for suggesting the kind of curves that would work
> well on uncoated paper) and to Clayton Jones. We have taken the
> liberty to include a link to their sites here (please, let us know it
> it is OK for you):
> http://www.mantinieri.com/links.html
>
> Ciao,
>
> Daniela and Mantinieri
>
>


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

Coating is applied for several reasons:
1) Deeper blacks (L* goes from 21-uncoated to about 11 after coating)
2) Protection of the print (gelatine based emulsions are not permeable
to water)
3) general look of the print

Hopefully, you never need to reapply coating. However, being gelatine
a natural product, could get damaged if stored improperly (much like
silver-gelatine prints). The main difference is that, once the
emulsion in silver gelatin is ruined for any reason, that is forever,
as the image is in the emulsion. With Carbon-gelatine, the image is in
the paper, namely underneath the emulsion, and a good conservator can
easily repair a ruined emulsion without affecting the underlying image

Daniela

None of the two. I am a fine art photographer printing my own artwork
with Daniela's assistance.

Thanks.

  Mantinieri

Thanks, Daniela.
--
Sam

On Oct 28, 2008, at 10:51 AM, dgattarino wrote:

> Coating is applied for several reasons:
> 1) Deeper blacks (L* goes from 21-uncoated to about 11 after coating)
> 2) Protection of the print (gelatine based emulsions are not permeable
> to water)
> 3) general look of the print
>
> Hopefully, you never need to reapply coating. However, being gelatine
> a natural product, could get damaged if stored improperly (much like
> silver-gelatine prints). The main difference is that, once the
> emulsion in silver gelatin is ruined for any reason, that is forever,
> as the image is in the emulsion. With Carbon-gelatine, the image is in
> the paper, namely underneath the emulsion, and a good conservator can
> easily repair a ruined emulsion without affecting the underlying image
>
> Daniela

Daniela wrote:

> Coating is applied for several reasons:
> 1) Deeper blacks (L* goes from 21-uncoated to about 11 after coating)

I might add that I hit a dmax of 2.5 with Arches un-coated water color 
paper when I applied a coating.  The problem I had with the coatings & 
methods I was using is that the fibers of the paper continued to 
occassionally stick out through the coating, making it look a bit 
funky.  Of course, these coatings take a lot of work, which is a double 
edged sword.

> 2) Protection of the print (gelatine based emulsions are not permeable
> to water)

I fade tested a coated matte paper print where the fader was sitting in 
a pan of water.  The idea was to try and get the humidity up as high as 
possible.  One of the major criticisms of accelerated fade testing is 
that the process dries the pigments, thus exaggerating the life.  

The results of the fade test were interesting.  The coated print faded 
about 20% more than the un-coated on.  My hypothesis is that the water 
vapor was getting in through the back of the coated print and being 
held there, whereas the un-coated control print was allowing the 
moisture to quickly evaporate off the front of the print.  Note that I 
am not suggesting that this test replicates the real world. 


I'm curious how you're applying the coating.

Good luck with the process.  It sounds intersting and should 
distinquish what you're offering from the everyday inkjet printing.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Hello Paul,

> paper when I applied a coating.  The problem I had with the coatings & 
> methods I was using is that the fibers of the paper continued to 
> occassionally stick out through the coating, making it look a bit 
> funky.  Of course, these coatings take a lot of work, which is a double 
> edged sword.
> 

Coating isn't easy stuff. We have tested several papers and commercial
coatings. The paper must have just the right tooth: too coarse (as
watercolor and most Cold Press fine art) are too coarse and the effect
you described indeed occurs, too smooth and the print looks like resin
coated. Gelatine emulsion is unique as the coating is thick. Its
effect on Magnani Pescia looks very nice. Until not so long ago, I
only printed in the darkroom on graded Ilford Galerie, air dried. I am
liking Carbon-Gelatine prints more than my silver gelatine ones.


> > 2) Protection of the print (gelatine based emulsions are not permeable
> > to water)
> 
> I fade tested a coated matte paper print where the fader was sitting in 
> a pan of water.  The idea was to try and get the humidity up as high as 
> possible.  One of the major criticisms of accelerated fade testing is 
> that the process dries the pigments, thus exaggerating the life.  
> 
> The results of the fade test were interesting.  The coated print faded 
> about 20% more than the un-coated on.  My hypothesis is that the water 
> vapor was getting in through the back of the coated print and being 
> held there, whereas the un-coated control print was allowing the 
> moisture to quickly evaporate off the front of the print.  Note that I 
> am not suggesting that this test replicates the real world. 
> 
I believe your test results make perfect sense if you have used
commercial (i.e. synthetics) coating. In fine art, most of the coating
are natural (like linseed, gelatine, etc.) as they allow the medium
underneath to transpire.

> 
> I'm curious how you're applying the coating.
> 
This is a complicate process that we are still trying to perfect. We
needed the assistance of a machin shop to make appropriate tools. It
is time consuming, also: it take us longer to make a Carbon-Gelatine
print than a silver gelatine print in the darkroom.

BTW, we got the website fixed. Thanks for your  notice.

Mantinieri and Daniela
www.mantinieri.com

Mantinieri and Daniela wrote:

> ... Gelatine emulsion is unique as the coating is thick. 

Yes, you may be onto something there.  

Have you had any problem with these coatings sticking to things when 
stacked the way the water-based acrylic and polyurethane coatings 
seem to?

Does it hold up in dry mounting?

Of course, one reason I love matte papers is that I don't like dry 
mounting, and all the glossy or "air dried" look finishes I've tried 
seem to require it to look their best.



> > I'm curious how you're applying the coating.
 
> This is a complicate process that we are still trying to perfect. We
> needed the assistance of a machin shop to make appropriate tools. 

Good luck with the process.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Sorry for being a little slow in replying; I am in the Chicago area
for few days, promoting my photographs and have hard time to seat at
the computer. I can be reached on the phone sometimes. 
Look here in the case:
http://www.mantinieri.com/news.html
  
> 
> Have you had any problem with these coatings sticking to things when 
> stacked the way the water-based acrylic and polyurethane coatings 
> seem to?
> 
Pure gelatine coating dries pretty quickly: about 1 day. Once dried,
it behaves  very similarly to air dried silver gelatine prints. In
other words, it is not sticky. However, we have developed a modified
gelatine coating which is softer and it looks better on the paper rag.
In this case the print takes from two to three days to dry and it is
sticky for another three-four days, depending on the humidity in the
room. Once fully cured, it does not stick any more. 

> Does it hold up in dry mounting?
> 
> Of course, one reason I love matte papers is that I don't like dry 
> mounting, and all the glossy or "air dried" look finishes I've tried 
> seem to require it to look their best.
> 

We never tried, but I see no reasons it should not. I do not like the
gloss of ferrotyping either.


  Mantinieri
www.mantinieri.com