From: Richard Knoppow on

"Nicholas O. Lindan" <see(a)sig.com> wrote in message
news:13ot9b58l56ii1e(a)corp.supernews.com...
> "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote
>
>> I used to ferrotype frequently many years ago but have
>> had trouble with modern papers, perhaps the emulsion is
>> too hard.
>
> That's good to know - I haven't been able to
> get a good ferrotype finish - and I was
> blaming it on the modern me.
>
> --
> Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
> Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
> http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm
> n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com
I'm not sure what the problem is. When I first took up
photography seriously in the mid 1950's I did a lot of
ferrotyping mainly because the print dried fast. I used
chromium plates with a bright mirror finish. The prints were
soaked in wetting agent for a few minutes and put on the
plates sopping wet as the instructions required. I don't
remember what sort of squeegee I used and I don't think it
matters. I got pretty good results consistently. My more
recent attempts have not been so good. Mostly problems with
small areas of the print not sticking to the plate. I think
this is partly the quality of the plates but am not sure.
Chrome plates must be absolutely clean adn free of any oil.
Since even very small particals under the print can cause a
gap in the finish its probably worth sponging off the
surface and dipping it again in the wetting agent. When they
work right the prints will just pop off the plate when dry
and have a perfectly uniform finish as glossy as RC glossy.
The finish of the plate is very important because it is
essentially molded into the surface of the paper. Some years
ago I bought a couple of plates which I found had a sort of
dull chrome finish. Of course, the print surface is the
same, a sort of dull gloss. It takes a very even mirror
finish to make good ferrotype surfaces.
Since I can get very good glossy surfaces from RC paper
when I want that finish the discussion is sort of academic
but I still like to be able to make processes work right.
A note: I've tried a few times in the past to use glass
for ferrotyping. Glass must be properly waxed or the prints
will stick and can't be removed without destroying them. I
did get a sheet of glass so that the prints didn't stick but
the finish was not very good. I know this process can be
done but have never been successful. I tried it years ago
because I simply couldn't afford proper ferrotype plates at
the time.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk(a)ix.netcom.com


From: Thor Lancelot Simon on
In article <13p763k789ufa74(a)corp.supernews.com>,
Richard Knoppow <dickburk(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Since I can get very good glossy surfaces from RC paper
>when I want that finish the discussion is sort of academic
>but I still like to be able to make processes work right.

Aren't those big drum dryers for FB paper which everyone uses with
the emulsion facing the canvas these days really meant for ferrotyping
with the emulsion facing the drum? We had several at Tisch (I have never
cared for them since the canvas gets dirty and spreads contaminants to
other prints) one of which was seldom switched on, gleamed a bit more
brightly from the drum than the others, and was marked "Ferrotype --
emulsion side DOWN only". I tried it once and it did seem to produce
the advertised results...

--
Thor Lancelot Simon tls(a)rek.tjls.com

"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to
be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky
From: Richard Knoppow on

"Thor Lancelot Simon" <tls(a)panix.com> wrote in message
news:fn5ae0$l4r$1(a)reader2.panix.com...
> In article <13p763k789ufa74(a)corp.supernews.com>,
> Richard Knoppow <dickburk(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> Since I can get very good glossy surfaces from RC
>> paper
>>when I want that finish the discussion is sort of academic
>>but I still like to be able to make processes work right.
>
> Aren't those big drum dryers for FB paper which everyone
> uses with
> the emulsion facing the canvas these days really meant for
> ferrotyping
> with the emulsion facing the drum? We had several at
> Tisch (I have never
> cared for them since the canvas gets dirty and spreads
> contaminants to
> other prints) one of which was seldom switched on, gleamed
> a bit more
> brightly from the drum than the others, and was marked
> "Ferrotype --
> emulsion side DOWN only". I tried it once and it did seem
> to produce
> the advertised results...
>
> --
> Thor Lancelot Simon
> tls(a)rek.tjls.com
>
Yes, these large dryers were meant to operate
continuously on a photofinishing line although there were
smaller ones for home darkrooms. The large ones were
available with gas heat as well as electric. The
manufacturers of these things also supplied a post washing
treatment for the paper. I think this was mainly a wetting
agent. The chrome must be absolutely perfect for the finish
to be good. As you say the paper is put in the dryer with
the emulsion side against the drum for glossy and with the
support side against the drum for matte finish.
If the prints are well washed the canvas will not pick
up much of anything but they should be cleaned every so
often.
Its interesting just how good the finish quality of
"drugstore" photofinished print was. The longevity varies
all over the place because some plants were careful about
fixing and washing and some were not. Since very small
amounts of residual hypo can reduce oxidation of image
silver these prints may actually have been more stable and
long lived than those given "archival" processing.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk(a)ix.netcom.com


First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Enlarger question
Next: What kind of dry-mount press?